Hacker News Reader

Comment by hpcjoe | Hacker News Reader

Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works.

Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for their ... whats the word I heard used about Parler ... complicity?

This is a dystopian future.

View on HN

> This is a dystopian future

No, pretty sure it's now. This is a dystopian society we live in today.

The question today is "how many" but the question tomorrow will be "what are their names?"

And they have that information too. Digital cable delivery means that the cable companies have a record of which channel you watch and at what time.

I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Asking a media outlet the size of their audience is a common figure, something they include in every ad sales presentation. Its relevant to understand the reach of these messages, especially when they have direct ties to foreign adversaries such as in the case of OANN: https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channe... This is not a censorship dragnet, its a wide-ranging set of inquiries to a diverse set of media (keep scrolling if you just saw the AT&T letter) in response to an attempted insurrection.

Facebook was regularly kicking people off for problematic comments (it certainly didn't get all of them).

That was many people's motivation for going to Parler in the first place - frustrated with what they believed being tagged as "false", frustrated with repeated bouts in Facebook Jail, etc.

There's a dichotomy that one of the major motivations for Parler uptick is because of something you imply never really ever happened on Facebook.

This is disinformation.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-...

https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zucke...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-c...

No, it really wasn't dis/mis information. You can't just label facts you don't like, that go against a narrative that you wish to be true, as disinformation. Twitter, Facebook, and many others do this. They specifically stifle discussion that runs counter to the narratives they wish to promote.

That's their choice as private companies. But holding them to account for this, when they claim they wish to be "fair" definitely begs the question of what their definition of "fair" is. It makes for a rather Clintonian discussion.

Parler was kicked off of AWS for violating AWS’s policies.

I’m pretty sure I don’t have to tell you that YouTube and Facebook don’t use AWS.

Why were they removed from Google and Apple's app stores while Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are still available?

Twitter uses AWS for some of their stuff. Why aren't they removed for violating AWS's policies?

Do you really need an explanation of why a multibillion dollar company wasn't removed and why a fringe app was?

Why do you think it wasn't removed?

We just want people to admit that the reason was a lie

This is a silly conclusion.

If a gang member and a methodist get into a bar fight, do you think the fair thing is for the bar to ban both gang members and methodists?

No -- it is entirely reasonable to treat fringe groups that foster fringe ideas differently than large diverse groups.

Since the fringe people were on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube it seems like we should be banning them not Parler.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are a clear example of the latter group in my previous comment.

Silicon Valley has been taken over by Methodists!!! ;-)

Your analogy is incorrect though.

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Parler are all bars. The gang members (insurrectionists) went to the Facebook, Twitter and Youtube bars and got into fights. The Methodist (non-insurrectionists) went to Parler and did not get into bar fights.

According to you the solution is not to ban the bars where the bar fights took place but the place where there were no bar fights. It really makes no sense.

It was a power play. One (ideologically uniform, and quite likely coordinating) group asserting raw power over another. Because it could. And in doing so, making sure this was public and messy. As a warning to others.

Your own initial comment in this thread was about AWS kicking social media platforms off of their service. That is what I am responding to.

I don't see how we can recover and heal until the truth is admitted to. Everyone knows it to be true, but they can't admit it. Time to come clean, or continue to inflame the situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com