Discussion
I notice Google have pulled the Parler app with Apple rumoured to follow.
Mostly based off the events in the US of the last few days but I believe it's where Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins moved to after Twitter gave them the boot.
Where next?
Both for the platforms and for the people who inhabit them?
Mostly based off the events in the US of the last few days but I believe it's where Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins moved to after Twitter gave them the boot.
Where next?
Both for the platforms and for the people who inhabit them?
Wrong answer. It will simply lead to confirmation of what they believe, and more erratic behaviour from the fringes.
When they were on conventional social media, they were exposed to differing views - people could point and laugh at the silly extremes. They’ve been banned from that, so no more pointing and laughing.
If their “walled garden” is disabled, then the extremes will sit in their back yards fiddling with AR-15s until they really lose it. I’m amazed this hasn’t turned into a proper shooting fight by accident.
When they were on conventional social media, they were exposed to differing views - people could point and laugh at the silly extremes. They’ve been banned from that, so no more pointing and laughing.
If their “walled garden” is disabled, then the extremes will sit in their back yards fiddling with AR-15s until they really lose it. I’m amazed this hasn’t turned into a proper shooting fight by accident.
rxe said:
Wrong answer. It will simply lead to confirmation of what they believe, and more erratic behaviour from the fringes.
When they were on conventional social media, they were exposed to differing views - people could point and laugh at the silly extremes. They’ve been banned from that, so no more pointing and laughing.
If their “walled garden” is disabled, then the extremes will sit in their back yards fiddling with AR-15s until they really lose it. I’m amazed this hasn’t turned into a proper shooting fight by accident.
I disagree. The more these types of sites are marginalised the better it will be for society. It happened with Islamic fundamentalism and should be the same for these white supremacist sites.When they were on conventional social media, they were exposed to differing views - people could point and laugh at the silly extremes. They’ve been banned from that, so no more pointing and laughing.
If their “walled garden” is disabled, then the extremes will sit in their back yards fiddling with AR-15s until they really lose it. I’m amazed this hasn’t turned into a proper shooting fight by accident.
rxe said:
When they were on conventional social media, they were exposed to differing views
Their argument would be that conventional social media is preventing people from being exposed to differing views by silencing them, which TBF is a fair argument whether you agree with their views or not...b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I notice Google have pulled the Parler app with Apple rumoured to follow.
Mostly based off the events in the US of the last few days but I believe it's where Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins moved to after Twitter gave them the boot.
Where next?
Both for the platforms and for the people who inhabit them?
Simple solution... Parler will switch to a web based application and there is no way of truly blocking that. Mostly based off the events in the US of the last few days but I believe it's where Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins moved to after Twitter gave them the boot.
Where next?
Both for the platforms and for the people who inhabit them?
The users, they'll rise for a bit off the back of Trump bans and then bleed off to nearly nothing as the platform becomes to extreme and restrictive for all but the most extremist right wingers.
Considering you need to verify your identity with government ID it is just one warrant away from being a sting operation that police forces could only dream of. Also HQ'd in Nevada so I he owners could face serous state and Federal charges.
Also I see it being used for doxxing in the future.
I'd also like to point out the irony (hypocrisy) of calling it a "free speech" platform then aggressively censoring any post that is perceived as being "left wing". The correct term for this is "extremist echo chamber".
Parler will eventually shut down as all similar platforms do because there is no money in pandering to a tiny number of extremists, even.thoughnits easy to fleece money out of them, they will barely cover the cost of hosting. See "Voat" for another example of how this will go, it started out as a refuge for those banned on Reddit and realistically, got ever more radical and hatefilled from there. Parler is starting out that way so I can't see six years of operation in their future.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I notice Google have pulled the Parler app with Apple rumoured to follow.
They'd be walking straight into an antitrust suit if they didn't have so many 'friends' in the people who should be constraining them. I think the content on Parler is pretty toxic and even those you'd think might be the audience quickly walk away as they find it a very narrow boring echo chamber. That said I don't think it should be up to tech firms to decide what should be allowed, especially on a third party platform.
And if we were going to ban platforms for hosting nasty s
t then Twitter should be well up the list - it's full of all sorts of proper evil stuff. And they condone it when it suits their pockets or their politics. bobbo89 said:
rxe said:
When they were on conventional social media, they were exposed to differing views
Their argument would be that conventional social media is preventing people from being exposed to differing views by silencing them, which TBF is a fair argument whether you agree with their views or not...It is not the ability to say whatever you want to whomever you want however you want with no consequences.
If you find yourself getting banned from social media, it's not censorship. It's people point out you're a dick and they are sick of you. To claim that is wrong, you are essentially saying these people have no right to express their opinion about you.
Finally, if you disagree with the Trump ban, you are essentially telling us you wish all the Al-Queda accounts unbanned as they were banned under the same rules (inciting violence and hateful content).
But of course the "Freeze Peach" nutters want one rule for them and another rule that forces everyone else to silently agree with them.
captain_cynic said:
Simple solution... Parler will switch to a web based application and there is no way of truly blocking that.
My guess is that whilst this is possible these sites aren't charities and the more that's done to make accessing them difficult the more they'll bleed money and eventually disappear.Sooner or later you're into the game of having to hire a server in Russia and find a domain registrar and DNS provider that wants your business etc. and that's just effort if you're only really in it for the money.
Of course the counter to that is "ah but they'll move underground" and I don't know how true that is.
Other than to say that I'm sure if you try hard enough anything is out there somewhere.
Most people don't which is why nice little smartphone apps to get your daily dose of hate speech seem to be a thing.
Very mixed feelings on this, which probably means it's a bad move. On the one hand I couldn't personally care less about the denizens of parler, Hopkins and the like, so if I never heard from most of them again it wouldn't bother me in the slightest.. but.. that should be a personal choice and not dictated by undemocratically elected tech firms.
It will be interesting to see how many people are in favor of this - if it were a government doing such a thing people would be up in arms. Imagine China doing something like this (I mean, as if they would even..) - people would say how wrong it was. Tech firms doing it? It's the same but again interesting to see if they receive the same level of opprobrium. Something tells me they wont because of who the targets are. Niemoller's prose feels very relevant even now
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
"Their house, their rules" is a fine rule, until you realize their house has become so large we are all living in it whether we like it or not. They have become too big & need either breaking up to allow proper free competition or much more (democratically appointed) oversight on their operations in such instances. Issue of course is they are global, so who does it is a very good question.
Also, it's not about left or right leaning - that's irrelevant. It's about free speech. It would be no less of an issue if they were blocking left wing extremes.
It will be interesting to see how many people are in favor of this - if it were a government doing such a thing people would be up in arms. Imagine China doing something like this (I mean, as if they would even..) - people would say how wrong it was. Tech firms doing it? It's the same but again interesting to see if they receive the same level of opprobrium. Something tells me they wont because of who the targets are. Niemoller's prose feels very relevant even now
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
"Their house, their rules" is a fine rule, until you realize their house has become so large we are all living in it whether we like it or not. They have become too big & need either breaking up to allow proper free competition or much more (democratically appointed) oversight on their operations in such instances. Issue of course is they are global, so who does it is a very good question.
Also, it's not about left or right leaning - that's irrelevant. It's about free speech. It would be no less of an issue if they were blocking left wing extremes.
maz8062 said:
I disagree. The more these types of sites are marginalised the better it will be for society. It happened with Islamic fundamentalism and should be the same for these white supremacist sites.
Yeah, because marginalising Islamic fundamentalism has worked out really well hasn’t it.... For clarity, I disagree with banning Islamic fundamentalists from social media. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff