Parler is back online after a month of downtime

For example when that at&t network center was bombed there was a fake image going around that it "wasn't the van that exploded". I had someone try to "prove to me" it was true by linking me to parlor and it's users creating conspiracies on top of conspiracies. The users there will accept disinformation and made up conspiracies if it benefits their team.

That's sadly the reality of it. People that don't understand tech should not be on the internet. They don't understand the concept of people can and will lie freeley behind a camera or keyboard.

A classical example of "my ignorance is just as good as your education because I don't know any better."

They just can't give it up.

To be clear, AWS had been giving them warnings for months.

They represented a white supremacist denied a permit by the city of Charlottesville in 2017 (for the rally where a Nazi sympathizer killed a protester). They were criticized; they weren't canceled or deserted.

I'm honestly not sure what I expected to be honest. I signed in once, scrolled a bit, recoiled in disgust and haven't been back.

I fear that there is definitely something brewing in our online habits these days, and it may be significantly damaging to society.

The problem however, is that removing these groups will not inherently solve them. I would support removing of these extremists if i thought it would do good. It however, won't. It will further build the fire of self-victim identification and extremist views which fuel them.

We need another approach at solving this problem. Of which i think is two fold:

1. Groups (both the left and right) struggle to stand up against the undesirable extremists within.

2. Our ingestion of information is not filtered enough by our own brains. We consume freely, and largely due to extremists and bubbles we end up consuming garbage.

All of this said, i feel like attempts at dealing with Parler is vastly different than the "cancel culture" which attempted to rename the https://rubocop.org/ tool. One is a misguided answer to extremists - the other is an attempt at protecting hurt feelings over bad words. Very different.

Over the span of about the prior 10-12 years in China the authorities there decided to crack down on speech online increasingly. For a time, in the early 10-15 years of the Internet there, China actually had a modicum of loose (not free) speech online, where you had a bit of room to talk about subjects that were close to taboo. That's all gone now and has been for years. That process of erosion, crack down, is what it feels like is happening in the US, merely under a different mechanism; instead of a central government authority implementing the oppression, it's mob platforms like Twitter and Facebook where the platforms openly allow hyper aggressive and concerted attacks to take place as a matter of routine. And even though it's not the government doing it, the effect is similar: they go after your life, your job, your friends, your character, your home, your family, your safety, anything they can.

The only solution is to abandon services like Twitter and Facebook, deplete their power. About 15-20% of my Facebook friends (quite normal people, not extremist types, not privacy advocates, etc.) are abandoned ghost accounts now, deleted, paused, etc. In talking to some of them, they got a taste of the horrible nature of how FB can be used as an attack mob platform, how ugly and or toxic it can be, and they wanted no part of it. Hopefully that process keeps spreading.

This decade we'll see a massive rise of walled encrypted communities, where outsiders will largely be kept out for the safety and health of the community. Outsiders will be treated with intense scrutiny, like we were back to living in tribal times (intellectually we're back to living in tribal times). People will begin to live in intellectual silos online to protect themselves from the attack mobs. They won't be decentralized as techies would hope, they'll still be centralized and hosted in the cloud. Interestingly this process will make the divisions in the US worse, the bubbles will become worse; and it will also be considered a big problem by authorities as extremists will begin very commonly using these walled-off encrypted groups/communities to organize out of sight (Parler / Gab will end up as a public fluke, most of those people will end up in hidden-away silo'd communities as the scrutiny continues to get worse on their bad ideas). Authorities will use this process as another argument to go after encryption.

Now would be a good time to build a new version of a social groups platform. Ning as a concept will end up being a $50-$100 billion product, although not quite as they envisioned the concept (they flubbed the entire thing). You want to lean in to selling to tribal intellectual isolation, intellectual bubbles, bet on that not against it, for that's the direction and there is absolutely nothing that's going to stop it. Public Facebook will shrink, public Twitter will shrink, private isolated social groups will dramatically expand. Whoever makes this easy and safe (encrypted, no data leaks, no hacks, top focus on security), in the cloud in a centralized manner, will win and win very very big.

edit: To the downvoters. I know you don't like it, I understand. That doesn't matter, it's the future regardless and nothing is going to stop it. It's about the most obvious thing, frankly; comparable odds to the sun rising tomorrow. It's almost comical that people think you can stop the expansion of the tribalism, the intellectual bubbles, at this point. It's going to get dramatically worse. There is one clean solution to the attack mobs as the tribalism expands, and that's going to be isolated social groups that are weary of outsiders, encrypted, in the cloud. My advice to anyone that reads this: focus on protecting yourself, your family, your friends, anyone you care about; the US is gone, lost; and as the tribalism expands, as the violence, chaos and mobs expand, you're not going to have energy or time to dedicate to grandiose silly fantasy notions like saving the world or fighting the intellectual & political ocean tides, your thinking will need to get more primitive, more self-interested. I'm not talking about survivalist absurdity, I'm talking about general personal welfare in a time of intense social/cultural strife and unraveling, where people will be increasingly at eachothers throats.

It’s literally illegal in America to incited and plot murder and insurrection against the government of the USA. Not joking, not boasting, but actually plotting and then executing the plan for real.

There’s a perfectly reasonable argument that while merely disseminating such messages as a platform may not be criminal, that knowingly disseminating or facilitating such discourse while being fully aware of it is reckless and irresponsible. I think if Amazon doesn’t want to behave recklessly and irresponsibly in that way, that’s a reasonable position for them to take.

There’s clearly a cultural blind spot here. If these were Islamic terrorists plotting a repeat of 9/11 nobody here would have any concerns about this.

The First Amendment does not prohibit private entities from limiting speech, we don't have to imagine.

What's your solution to the problem above? The government forcing the bank to retain the customer?

True. But I don't want to work with a vendor who makes use of that right.

And, outsourcing unconstitutional restrictions to private companies who have achieved near monopoly control of the space is almost worse.

Not always.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

> If you really cared about free speech, you would demand that the government run their own hosting platform in which no one could be deplatformed. But I'm pretty sure no one actually wants that.

Some people did argued that. I personally have no opinion on nationalizing the hosting platforms or social media.

He might be wrong about a great many things, but he was right about this. Intolerance (under the guise of "cancel culture") is a result of growing tribalism. Two parallel cultures fighting for supremacy.

That jury is fundamentally a great idea (that's why we use juries today). The only problem is the culture of intolerance.

Parler's jury is just a representation of that intolerance just like their users being kicked off Twitter was a representation of intolerance from the other side.

Unfortunately, this intolerance has become a part of culture and inevitably flows downstream into intolerant politics. If the intolerance doesn't stop, separation or war has always been the result. I fear that people on both sides won't see this until it is too late to prevent.

Sounds like here.

Parler learned a hard lesson to not depend on AWS. I bet a lot of AWS customers also saw that and began taking steps to either move off of AWS or at least make it easy to migrate if needed.

People are speaking with the only thing companies give a damn about- money. They want people to be held accountable for things, and are actually willing to put money where their mouth is. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with free market capitalism.

It's not even really political, as people on both sides get "canceled"- I mean, occasionally get held accountable for their actions. There are dumb instances (like Al Franken, Aziz Ansari, Jeffrey Tambor) and others where people jump the gun, but overall I can't say it's really a bad thing. People need to be held accountable for their actions, end of story.

As the saying goes: if you see shit everywhere you go, check your shoe.