Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenjackson | Hacker News Reader

> Actually yours is the predominant view of those on the left

Actually it is the predominant view, left and right. Except in this specific case, where the right doesn't like it.

> We are seeing the beginnings of a country of ~300 million people being cracked in two, on a much deeper level than has ever happened before.

The Civil War may beg to differ. The real issue is that we've never reconciled the divergent view point from that war. Race is still the largest dividing factor in this country and this incident was about race (and ego) more than anything else.

View on HN

Except in this specific case, where the right doesn't like it.

Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them. I’ll wait.

Civil War...

The Civil War occurred at a time when actual physical war was the predominant way that societal differences were settled. That is no longer the case, except perhaps in the minds of some of the idiots that stormed the Capitol.

But on an intellectual level, this event with Parler is akin to an act of modern civil war. When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them? Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate? While no guns were used, those seem very similar to the actions normally taken by those engaging in civil war.

AWS deciding to no longer host Parler is not an act of civil war, modern or otherwise.

You’re right. But Apple, Google, and Amazon all colluding for the singular purpose of warning others that conservative speech will get their businesses instantly killed by the largest and most powerful companies on earth? That sure is.

> Show me an instance where anything remotely close to this happened - right leaning businesses banding together to take a left-leaning business entirely offline by cutting off all services to them.

An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom. I'd argue most of those are less extreme than Parler.

> When you endeavor to kill an organization, are you not in a sense declaring war on them?

Isn't that what Trump wanted to do with the NFL after Kaep took a knee?

> Further, was this action not designed to frighten others into getting in line with the ruling party, lest they suffer the same fate?

Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers.

You're trying to make this out to be a site of critical thinkers espousing different views that are being trampled on, while most everyone else recognizes it more like a revenge porn site.

Sure, in the same way that death penalty is meant to scare murderers.

You are comparing the exercise of freedom of speech to committing murder. Not quite the same thing in my opinion.

An example is pirate sites or underground drug sites. Those are largely blacklisted -- and fit into a (far) left-leaning philosophy around a class of freedom.

Those sites are offering illegal goods and services. That is why they are offline. Companies are generally ordered by law enforcement to take them down. Again...hardly comparable.

> You are comparing the exercise of freedom of speech to committing murder. Not quite the same thing in my opinion.

The point is they weren't only exercising free speech. They were inciting a violent riot.

> Those sites are offering illegal goods and services. That is why they are offline. Companies are generally ordered by law enforcement to take them down. Again...hardly comparable.

Again, the calls to march into the Capitol, provocation of violence, etc... are also illegal. But you won't find our government ever willing to take that stand. The distinction is less clear than you suggest.

Lets put it this way, no one is suggesting to blacklist the WSJ or the National Review. The Parler is the equivalent to an Antifa social media network for planning attacks on right wing establishments.

Have you ever been on Parler? I had never heard of it until the left decided to cancel it and it made news. So I went there a couple of days ago, and saw nothing of which you speak. Certainly nothing that would equate it to an “Antifa social media network”.

Speaking of Antifa...if Parler is equivalent to it...it’s bit hypocritical that they still have a Twitter account: https://twitter.com/antifaintl?s=21

I did go on Parler a few days before the Capitol attack and it was pretty crazy. Not everything was violent, but definitely a different take on virtually everything. And definitely calls towards violence and overthrow mixed in. Haven’t been back since.

Note, Parler does have a Twitter account too. I have not heard people looking to ban that — so really not hypocritical at all.

Interesting, because I went on there after the attack and found nothing of which you speak. I found no plans for attacks, calls to violence, or anything else. There were a few links to pro-Trump news articles, but that was about the most “right” thing I saw on there.

OK, you were on a very different version of Parler than I was on. And different than the one that Amazon noted in their response to Parler or all of the various articles that I've read written about Parler. Maybe we all just ended up in the bad part of Parler.

> Lets put it this way, no one is suggesting to blacklist the WSJ or the National Review.

Yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com