Hacker News Reader

Comment by rrose | Hacker News Reader

I seriously can't identify with this viewpoint. There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there, Google is just choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence. All the pearl-clutching over free speech is totally overblown.

View on HN

This is accurate.

Just because you have to go directly to the website doesn't mean it's censored. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, etc are not in the business of supporting outlier extremism in our society. Claiming censorship because they don't want to platform that stuff is ridiculous.

Imagine a Jewish-owned store being forced to sell nazi paraphernalia because not selling it is censorship. The users of parler or gab are just mad these huge companies are taking a stand. Engaging with their tantrum only gives them a platform, even if it's just a small personal one, and is clearly bad. Do we argue with crazies on the street yelling "The end is nigh!" every day? No.

Or it dismantles the way they will organize with weapons to the next destination they seem unworthy of Trumpism. Could be a place like the U.S. Capitol.

Huh? Last time I checked, BLM app ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/black-lives-matter/id955318790 ) is on Apple store and the group has, among other notable events, burning Kenosha done on their bucket list. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter et al have zero issues supporting violence as long it supports a given side.

I don't buy the analogy ( mostly because most analogies are crap ). Normal people try thought experiments and use the same situations and change one critical piece of information to see how it affects the model.

I didn't say anything about the BLM app. Don't know why you're bringing that up, other than to strawman, but hey, that's what they do.

It is not a strawman. I introduced BLM specifically, because, just like not all Trump voters are violent, I am sure some are. BLM is just another side of the coin in my view. They are a group, who had instances of violent behaviors ( see 'fiery but mostly peaceful' CNN clip for reference ) during the past year(s?).

youre mischaracterizing BLM. Parler posts were actively calling for violence and government overthrow. The mob at the capitol set up a gallows and were carrying handcuffs. To the (limited) extent that BLM protests turned violent, it was the result of situations on the ground getting out of hand, not planned in advance or incited by leadership. (Also, much of it was the result of aggression by police). There's certainly room for valid criticism of aspects of BLM protests but they are not at all comparable to the insurrection at the capitol this week.

Eh. I honestly do not think I am, but let me do a quick DDG to not rely on memory alone:

Portland 01/02/21 - reports of molotov cocktails, fireworks, fires - I don't know about you, but use of explosive materials does tend to sound violent. You don't really come with a firebomb with no intent to use it.

Seatle 07/27/20 - reports of fires, 59 injured officers

Kenosha 08/25/20 - riots, destruction of property including fires including courthouse, incitement for more violence

I don't think I have to mention Chicago or NY..

And this is just a cursory check.

In BLM defense, they initially suffered from the same issues anonymous did. Literally anyone could be their spokesporson so right wing media got lovely quotes about purpose and goals of BLM such as ( some of those come from their official website ):

-Destruction comes before rebuilding, that’s what we talking about here -“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down,” the activist posted via Twitter on Monday. “They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.”“Tear them down.” -We believe and understand that Black people will never achieve liberation under the current global racialized capitalist system. -‘we will burn down this system’ -'MacCallum asked Newsome what Black Lives Matter hoped to achieve through violence." “Wow, it’s interesting that you would pose that question like that,” Newsome responded, “because this country is built upon violence. What was the American Revolution? What’s our diplomacy across the globe?”

Now you will note that their website is cleaned up and no longer contains notes about - forgot what terminology they used - abandoning existing familial structures and building new utopian world. It is a shame they took it down. It could open some eyes. I guess someone told them they need rebranding.

So maybe you are right. They are different after all. BLM is worse that Trump crazies. At least Capitol assholes will be picked up by various agencies and prosecuted. BLM members may have been arrested, but various Dem operatives ensured they are out as soon as possible. Hell, some were raising money for bails.

In other words, I do not think you have a clear picture of BLM, who they are, or even what they were doing.

So I this my comparison is valid.

It's important to distinguish that "not deleting something" is NOT the same as amplifying it.

Amplifying it would be pasting images and links to Parler all over the Google Play splash page and all over the Google Play website, sending emails to all its gmail users to download Parler, or inserting Parler ads into some % of its ad impressions.

They aren't doing that. "Leave it alone" is not the same thing as amplification, that's literally the distinction that is made in Section 230.

The ONLY thing being asked for is that Parler polices itself (or the authorities get involved where appropriate), and that Google and Apple leave it be because all they do is serve as the conduit to get it onto the device they control.

That is the way the world SHOULD work. No it doesn't give you the adrenaline rush of enforcing your desires on the world, but that's not a good thing to be enabling in the first place.

If they had no control over the stores used to get apps on devices, the whole question would be moot. Their duopoly leads to this issue. Frankly, that control should be taken away.

not deleting something allows it to be shared, or at least show up in search results. it allows it to be seen by people who otherwise would not see it- this is amplification.

Absolutely but the platform isn't doing the amplification, people do. This is the same thing as someone copying your chant on a street in front of a courthouse. The street isn't doing the amplifying, the people are.

You have to discern what people here are really outraged about - and sadly, it's not free speech or constitutional rights or any real high principle. Those are just intellectual cover.

After all, you don't see people clamoring in shock and about "unsettled" feelings regarding the moderation that happens here on HN.

It is censorship when those preventing freedom of speech are monopolies.

When a small number of companies make it difficult to communicate via our main communication device, and there are no viable alternatives, then a fundamental right is being suppressed.

There is no marketplace of ideas when there is no marketplace,

Please point to where in the Constitutions that it says you have a right to post on twitter and facebook or put an app on a webstore?

There is a difference between legal/constitutional freedom of speech and freedom of speech in a cultural perspective.

> There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there

People are calling for AWS to drop Parler, and Parler has already come out and said if this happens, then Parler itself is gone forever.

if that happens, then people on parler can share their opinions by self publishing books, or printing flyers and passing them out, or yelling on street corners. If your complaint about these media is that they don't have the same reach as online social media, then we can agree we're not talking about censorship and instead talking about amplification of ideas.

This is my view. These sites aren't censoring anybody- they're choosing not to amplify.

Yep and leave section 230 alone as well.

> choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence

Then why not ban Twitter as well? I could show you hundreds of tweets from little known left-wing activists inciting violence during the BLM protests. This double standard tells us that the rationale given for banning Parler is just an excuse. The real reason is that executives in these companies are doing what their most vocal employees and the liberal media are pressuring them to do.

Sure, people technically have free speech. But not in any meaningful sense. It's like trying to have a debate when the other side has a megaphone.

It only feels like a megaphone when most people disagree with you. And the web is the real megaphone, and it’s still unlimited.

Go to China, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia and insult the leader(s) of the country on the internet and see how long you last. That is why we're different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com