Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorblumesea | Hacker News Reader

I don't think the people that end up on Parler have a strong grasp of constitutional law (no offense to anyone that does and uses app).

The general people that end up on that app are hardcore trending extremist and you're not going to find intelligent debate on the role of private companies and the government. It's probably closer to propaganda than it is a true social media site.

View on HN

There are plenty of extremists on Twitter and Facebook. Thats where the double standard is. People organized on twitter when they stormed the white house and the pres went into a bunker as an example. Facebook is accused of much worse in foreign countries currently.

The reason Parler was banned is because all these corporations are very aware they are under the anti-trust microscope. This was a favor to the new party in power in hopes of getting something back.

Absolutely, we all know that Twitter and Facebook have been far greater vehicles for the political unrest that's been growing for the last four years. Parler is a convenient scapegoat.

While I absolutely agree with the idea that every social media has extremes, I completely disagree with the end conclusions.

Other social media services do not actively shape the debate through intense political moderation. There's no "Post tsar" the validates the political health of things that people host.

Meanwhile on Parler...

https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506

https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1346565749977051136

It's literally, a far right wing propaganda machine and any other interpretation of this is misinformed.

Sounds like hyperbole to me. Again we can flip this to "twitter is a left wing extremist platform" quite easily by finding the right tweet snapshots and pointing to prior events. And nobody knows the exact algos or moderation mechanisms for any of the platforms, the screenshots you linked say essentially nothing even with whoever that person is narrating. Im not saying hes wrong, but I'm certainly not taking it at face value. On other platforms there are similar reward systems. Blue check-marks for instance, and shadow banning is obviously a thing.

I don't think the argument isn't that other platforms don't have things like "verified" and "shadowbanned". It's the connotations attached to them. On Twitter, just about anyone can get verified. Shadowbanning requires a serious fuck up (for example, Trump was only banned after inciting a riot).

Seems that Parler has taken a very different approach. Attaching political goals and ideology to the business model of a social network.

Pretty good write up here: https://www.wired.com/story/parler-app-free-speech-influence...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com