So because the owners claim the platform to be something other than it actually is, it is okay for this person to leak the Parler users' private images and videos?
So, because the owners (a) claim that Parler is a free speech platform when (b) actually it engages in extensive moderation to ensure ideological conformity in their posts, then (c) Parler is more of a propaganda weapon than a free speech platform. That was the point that was being made in the context of a number of erroneous references to Parler being unmoderated. One can debate whether the data leak was ethical, but one should not base one's position on a false understanding of what Parler is.
'Free speech platform' is a meaningless phrase, because it means different things to different people.
Almost anyone would agree that a platform which allows any speech at all is a 'free speech platform' even if they don't agree with allowing certain kinds of speech.
Most people would agree a platform that allows any speech outside of socially accepted exceptions (e.g. threats of violence, slander) is a 'free speech platform'.
But for people who are largely not allowed to share their views (rightly or wrongly) a platform which is heavily moderated for ideological conformity can also be a 'free speech platform' if they agree with the ideology, because they are free to speak all the speech they want to speak and are prevented from doing on other platforms. It's pretty clear that Parler falls into this category.
Unfortunately you won't find much interesting commentary in a politically charged thread like this, best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along.
> best to just scan and pattern match the kind of exchanges occurring before moving swiftly along.
How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read.
Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy.
There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”.
If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
(Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
> But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”.
I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment.
> so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree
Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think.
> The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy.
I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship.
> If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to.
[1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
Do you see how by using the word “censorship” as if it were a unitary concept with an agreed-upon meaning, you have made it difficult to continue this conversation?
I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway.
I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
> Do you see how by using the word “censorship” [...], you have made it difficult to continue this conversation?
Not really, no, what makes it difficult for me to continue this conversation is that I had no interest in having this conversation in the first place. My first comment was just asking the other person how he dealt with these threads, as I wasn't sure what he meant exactly or if he had a trick or something.
I certainly didn't want to start arguing the merits of free speech again (I already said I found it disheartening to read).
> I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic
And since I never spoke in favor of any extreme, I argued with you because your point about "everyone being pro-censorship" wasn't apropos... Something you seem to know too.
> look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
I've seen the same people arguing both in favor of the same "specific behavior" you mentioned and against free speech[1]. And no, those discussions were anything but productive or nuanced. With that in mind, I have no interest in looking for that.
[1]: Not that differentiating between that and censorship wasn't already a distinction without a difference (as I already implied in my previous comment), but I must say that those discussions did make it evident that they were ultimately arguing for the same thing.
> Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
> [US limits on free speech] seem to be relevant to this discussion.
But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA.
I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”.
Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence.
Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
> I was referring to the comment where you say HN is “bizarrely” more “pro-censorship”. Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected
I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example.
> [Trump]
Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
> I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example.
Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself.
> [Trump and parler again]
Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since.
[1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
> Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself.
Can you link to these posts?
I've been following the threads, but haven't seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse".
The only "censorship" I've seen people supporting is against speech that has never been protected by the 1st amendment, which isn't being "pro-censorship" or "censorship" at all, it's just the same laws we've had here in the US for centuries.
Again, happy to take a look at what you're seeing on HN if you can link to a few threads.
Before I give you one of the recent examples I saw, I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place. You already seem pretty disinclined to agree with me as evidenced by how you keep trying to suggest that I'm talking about condemnation of unprotected speech, which I haven't and have said so several times. My first comment was merely asking someone for clarification on how he parsed these threads; I didn't even talk about the subject at hand because I have no interest to and yet that's almost exclusively what you have tried to talk about. Not sure what exactly would be changed in this conversation by my giving you an example. You've been assuming bad faith on my part from the get go so I feel it would be just another fruitless exercise, or lead into another discussion on the merits of free speech I certainly don't want to get into, again.
By the way, you're completely free to defend these gigantic corporations deplatforming whoever they want; I wasn't talking about that in my original comment. That implication was already present in my first reply, but maybe my saying it outright will convince you that I don't mean anything bad with my comments.
> I'm curious about why you're asking for examples in the first place
Because you said: "I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately", "[1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it."
I haven't had that experience and don't understand the irony. Just trying to understand where you're coming from and thought links might help.
I think I misunderstood "lately" to mean the censorship / violent speech debate about the resulting Big Tech deplatformings, which is why I keep bringing those up. In the US, taking down violent, insightful speech is not considered censorship, which is why I was confused about who you're referring to that is "pro-censorship", but again maybe I crossed some wires there.
I care about free speech a lot and if there's a growing trend that speech that's always been protected by the 1st amendment is being targeted, it's a line we all need to be very sensitive to and vigilant in defending.
Just in case, the irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is better.
Ok, so that is a good example of protected speech that we might not like. I read through the thread and you did a good job explaining the perils of censoring viewpoints.
The US has long done a “controlled burn” in banning violent speech, but we do need to be vigilant that it doesn’t turn into a wild fire.
I don’t understand why they removed the tweet instead of labeling it if they really want to be in the fact checking business.
Why is it ironic? Hacker news censors content more heavily than somewhere like twitter or facebook. If you call someone stupid you will likely get warned and eventually banned.
I replied this to someone else, but I think it works here too: The irony, for me, is that if I were in favor of censorship, I would be the first person I censor, instead of using an online forum to speak in favor of censorship. I feel that there's irony in using a widely accessed medium just to talk about how censorship is the way to go.
Whether you like him or not, Zuckerberg has gotten in a lot of trouble over the years for resisting censorship pressure. His actions suggest it’s something he values
