Hacker News Reader

Pouring gasoline on the fire is kind of the point. Take away people's option to peacefully voice their opinion and violence is the only remaining option. The hope is that these people will commit more violence so that the government can use the violence as an excuse to criminalize their existence.

People have been voicing their opinions - and continue to voice their opinions - on Twitter, Facebook etc. all day, there is really no censorship about information regarding the election, unless it's geared towards violence.

Go ahead, right now, make a Tweet and indicate that you think the 'election was stolen'.

Nobody will care.

So on the face of it, your first claim is obviously false.

The question is - given that you and I can both right now go on FB or Twitter and say almost anything we please, and you must know that, why are you writing what you're writing?

> The hope is that these people will commit more violence so that the government can use the violence as an excuse to criminalize their existence

honestly the government is always happy for reasons to broaden their power to surveil

> But someone saying they don't believe the election results should not be silenced. Its their right to free speech and the US constitution guarantees it.

When the people in power, the government, falsely claim that the election should not be trusted, and the people should ignore all other sources of information because any other source of information but those approved by the government are "fake news", the government should be silenced and the people should reject it. Otherwise, those in power can maintain their power indefinitely, with no reason or facts allowed to dispute why they must be kept in power.

> major media and almost all journalists saying Russia stole/meddled with our election

I read what I (perhaps incorrectly) assume you consider "major media" - Reuters, AP News. I have not seen anything about the 2016 election since, well... early 2017? Don't remember but it's been a very long time. Of course, the Mueller report validates aspects of those claims, but I never thought the election was stolen - just interfered with.

> The whole reason you had a bunch of desperate crazies storming congress

.. is because people take all their information from a narrow source of information that has been repeated and spread across right-wing media and social media, despite many of those messages not being accurate. When you believe the people in power telling you "I'm on your side, and the other side is evil, and they are trying to take away our power", then you have a bunch of desperate crazies.

> I don't understand what people don't get about the 1st amendment. A right to free speech, is set in stone in the US Constitution

It seems like you yourself may be having a little 1st amendment confusion, it has no bearing on private companies and only refers to laws Congress is allowed to pass.

The opening paragraph of the amendment:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Unite...

> it has no bearing on private companies and only refers to laws Congress is allowed to pass.

I'm afraid that's not quite right.

The Fourteenth Amendment acts to extend the Bill of Rights to the states, as well. So the First Amendment limits not just the laws the federal government can pass and enforce, but the laws state governments can pass and enforce, too.

With some exceptions, the First Amendment also prohibits laws compelling speech. This is at the root of platforms' legal rights to set their own rules for content moderation, or to choose what to publish. For a recent case on compelled speech, see the Supreme Court decision in the Becerra case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Family_a...

While it's incredibly useful to think about censorship in black and white real world is never that simple. Fundamental issue is that we live in a society where one person exercising his freedom of speech can infringe on freedoms of others. To demonstrate I will use an extreme example of a mob lynching incited by hate speech. There seems to be no way to prevent rights of a person being violated. I.E. you either must stop hate speech to prevent lynching or preserve free speech but allow lynching to go forward.

> I don't understand what people don't get about the 1st amendment. A right to free speech, is set in stone in the US Constitution, a private company can enforce their own censorship, but having a company that wants to have the 1st amendment and is being forced to be shut down is not what the US is about.

Are you saying that Apple should be compelled to help Parler and amplify their speech/give them a platform?

First:

>Threats and actions to commit treason should be handled by authorities and prosecuted.

Lets start off there, anything related to violence/physical harm has no place, anything else, its totally fair game, and is protected by the 1st amendment.

If you think Parler does a poor job of moderation and stuff being said on there offends you, guess what, don't download the app and don't use it.

Second:

As far as amplifying Parler, would you mean put it on the list of top apps? I don't think Apple is doing that. I am not a fan of Parler and its content but I am an absolute fan of the 1st amendment and all that it entails.

> Lets start off there, anything related to violence/physical harm has no place, anything else, its totally fair game, and is protected by the 1st amendment.

I assume you mean is -not- protected.

> If you think Parler does a poor job of moderation and stuff being said on there offends you, guess what, don't download the app and don't use it.

And if Apple thinks they're doing a poor job, don't post it in their app store? Or should Apple be constrained somehow and forced to carry it?

If Apple thinks the violent content on Parler is out of control and needs moderation, isn't that Apple's own decision? If you don't like Apple's choice of what content to curate in their app store, "then guess what, don't buy an Apple phone and use the app store"? OR should you have more recourse beyond this?

> If Apple thinks the violent content on Parler is out of control and needs moderation, isn't that Apple's own decision?

Apple/Google are utility level companies and effectively control almost all of the apps/phones OS in a majority of US citizens smart phones.

This leads to a really slippery slope where what if you as an individual say something people in power do not like? You get fired thats for sure, then Chase your bank de-platforms you, you can no longer use their banking services(they have a right to remove you as customer like you said right?) or Verizon says they can no longer have you as customer as well? So you no longer can communicate electronically, or do banking. Lets go further, say Google shuts off your gmail account, you are basically put into the stone age for exercising a right guaranteed to you by the 1st amendment. Scary stuff and we are heading towards this dystopia sooner than you think.

You're saying you see Apple and Google should be subject to regulation on who they do business with? Like common carriers?

> Apple/Google are utility level companies and effectively control almost all of the apps/phones OS in a majority of US citizens smart phones.

And finally we arrive to the crux of the problem. Sounds like they should be regulated, yes?

There's no need to drag the 1st amendment into the discussion at all, because this really has nothing to do with it.

"If you think Parler does a poor job of moderation and stuff being said on there offends you,"

Parler is being used to organize violence:

"About 20 or so hits will turn everything around"

"Who do you think the first Democrat assassination will be?"

"It's time to put that ammo to good use."

This kind of stuff gets out of hand very quickly.

It's obviously different than:

"I think the election was stolen"

"Rumour has it Georgia was full of fraud"

"I think so and so is a liar!"

Which is more mundane and obviously within bounds.

>none of them was criticized as saying they are trying to deliberately sabotage democracy

There was a substantial amount of hard evidence in the Russia interference claims, and the FBI has confirmed that.

Also nobody died in relation to those claims, AFAIK. There were marches and impeachment proceedings, but nobody broke into the Senate chambers and shouted "that election was a lie".

"But someone saying they don't believe the election results should not be silenced. Its their right to free speech and the US constitution guarantees it."

This isn't right.

1) This is not about people disputing the election results. That happens in plain day on new News and other places and it's uncensored. The current concern is about inciting violence, talking about kidnapping people on capitol hill etc..

2) There is really no '1st Amendment' argument on any of these platforms, it literally doesn't apply. You don't have any right whatsoever to say anything via Apple's App Store, or on Parler. It's entirely up to them and the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with it. Those platforms deal in content, so they can do as they please - for better or for worse.

"The whole reason you had a bunch of desperate crazies storming congress is an extreme effort to silence speech"

Again - this is completely upside down.

The President using the legitimate authority of his office to spread outright lies in the face of all evidence is what is 'causing the problem'.

The fact we have 1000 different ways to communicate with each other and amplify misinformation is enabling much of this to take place in the commons - not the other way around.

It's completely disingenuous to suggest that the 'lack of information on Facebook and Twitter' is somehow 'the problem' when it's Trump's usage of said platforms to spread absolutely false information that is driving people to anger.

FYI - you can say anything you want about 'election fraud' on Twitter, FB, in the news, on so many platforms and nobody will bother with you.

We need integrity in all of our systems.

That said it'd be better if large corporations were not having to wade in with policy.