[AsyncAwait]

I get what you're saying but the other side of the coin is maybe the society at large is rejecting them. And they need to understand that they're not guaranteed an audience, If the society at large doesn't want to listen then they'll have to sloowly try to win some support.

They seem to forget that many on the left fought tooth and nail historically for things we now consider for granted but society wasn't on board for in the past.

And maybe some ideas just aren't that appealing and they'd do better to pull other ones to advocate for.

[nicbou]

If they were a fringe movement I'd be inclined to agree, but they're half the voter base. They can't possibly all be violent bigots.

[Asparagirl]

Half of the US fought for the right to own other humans as property. You are very, very sheltered if you think large numbers of people aren't capable of holding terrible ideas and performing horrific acts.

[jessaustin]

The CSA was certainly not half of the United States at that time. They inflated their numbers with the "3/5 compromise". Even with that method of inflating their representation, 11 states with 66 House Representatives seceded, while 23 states with 173 House Representatives did not secede. It wasn't close to half.

On top of which, the decision process for secession was (shockingly, I know!) not democratic in the least. The Union didn't need a "Home Guard" to enforce conscription, but the South did.

[macinjosh]

You are very, very sheltered to believe this situation is even close to what happened in the civil war.

[quadrangle]

I suggest we call it what it was and say the "slavery war" instead of the "civil war" (civil war is generic and even the American Revolution was a civil war)

[giglamesh]

Half of the voter base has not even heard of Parler, let alone would be silenced if it was held to minimal standards of accountability.

[e5india]

> They can't possibly all be violent bigots.

And yet Parlor is being de-platformed specifically because it refuses to police the portion of the conservative conversation that is so. It's not because they believe in smaller government or lower taxes.

Conservatism plays this game where it uses this violent rhetoric casually and then acts all surprised when its own members act on that rhetoric. They tell each other that anyone who disagrees with them is an anti-american who want to make this a communist/socialist/fascist state. That voter fraud is rampant and that they will need to overthrow the government with violence. They do this is, in much more graphic detail than I'm using here.

Then, when something violent occurs, we're all just supposed to sit here and pretend like it's just some happenstance and we shouldn't judge them by their own inaction in stamping out the rhetoric from their midst.

[LetsPlayNice]

The violent groups that organized on Facebook, does anyone feel Google or Apple should penalize Facebook for allowing that to occur? Should all Facebook users be deplatformed?

[danijelb]

Looking at the size of alternative online communities like Parler, they're definitely not half of the voter base. Majority of republicans seem to not have a problem with mainstream platforms, only a small minority gets banned.

And it is really easy to see they are a minority. Most of alternative platforms like Parler have a small number of users and attract a very narrow audience which talks only about politics. Usually these sites have bad user experience which means there's not a lot of designers who would want to work for them, they are really bad in technical execution meaning there's not really many programmers who want to work for them. They don't advertise meaning there's not a lot of marketing experts wanting to work for them. There's not a lot of investors willing to invest in those platforms, no one wants to advertise on their sites. All this can lead to a conclusion that the users affected by deplatforming and censorship on mainstream social media is a really small group of people. They believe they are half of the voter base, while in reality the majority of society, from conservatives to liberals, rejects their world views and this is why they are marginalized.

If it was really half of the voter base they wouldn't have any issues. There would be some viable, popular alternative social media platforms used by that half of voter base. Among that half you'd have no issue with finding anything you need to have a widespead, catch-all platform - you'd find investors, you'd find companies willing to advertise, the user base would have diverse interests so that you can discuss anything on those platforms like on mainstream social media, and not just politics, conspiracy theories and memes. The fact that they constantly can't find support means that they are a fringe movement.

It's simply not possible that all investors, programmers, designers, hosting companies, payment processors, advertisers, etc. are all run by the left half of the voter base. That is simply statistically unlikely.

[lanstin]

The power of the internet means sure they can. Like that poor Macedonian women who was so upset to be maxed when she was trying be a revolutionary. Our brains are surprisingly susceptible to weak thinking from the internet.

[StanislavPetrov]

>I get what you're saying but the other side of the coin is maybe the society at large is rejecting them.

"Society at large" isn't doing any of this - a few billionaires in silicon valley are - that's the issue. Who is this, "them" you speak of? The false, binary left/right paradigm is a contrived illusion used to fool and manipulate simple people. What speech isn't okay? What's the standard used to silence people from the public square forever? There is none. Its an ever-evolving, subjective imposition of censorship. What "bad" speech results in your erasure? Many are suggesting its, "violent behavior". Others say, "incitement to violence". Many on capitol hill are saying, "aiding and abetting" those who would incite violence. Anyone who is informed and aware of what the phrase, "aiding and abetting" has been construed to mean since 9/11 knows just how amorphous that phrase is and how wide a net it can cast. If you defend the principle of unfettered free speech (as I do), can that be considered, "aiding and abetting" violence? Nobody has accused Parler of engaging in violence, but merely offering a platform for people to engage in free discussion is good enough to have them erased from the public square in a coordinated effort by tech oligarchs. This is exactly the concept of "prior-restraint" that our founders warned against. Silencing people because of what they might say. Watching sitting politicians openly calling for a, "domestic war on terror" should absolutely terrify anyone who has been paying attention to the results of our original, ongoing, "war on terror". Anyone who doesn't fully understand that any deviation from the official narrative on any issue will be silenced and considered, "domestic terrorism" has their head buried deep in the sand. How long until a comment like this is considered, "aiding and abetting domestic terrorism"? How long until Hacker News will be forced to ban me and censor comments like this in order to protect themselves from being silenced ala Parler? Even worse, how bad will the self-censorship be by people and platforms who are terrified of being erased, or put on a no-fly list, or have their bank accounts closed, or being subject to government sanctions and criminal charges, for saying the wrong thing?

Hunter S. Thompson made a prophetic quote after the towers fell on 9/11 that is very poignant in light of what we are seeing today:

The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now — with somebody — and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives.

[kombucha111]

Who is being silenced from what public Square? Facebook and Twitter are not the public square. If you'd prefer that they be considered as such then you better get cracking on some legislation/regulation or nationalize these privately held for-profit companies.

[StanislavPetrov]

Twitter, Google, Facebook and Apple are monopolies that are most certainly the public square. "Market Allocation Schemes" where companies collude to fix prices and rig markets are explicitly illegal, and I don't see why the collusion of monopolies to "fix" speech is any different.

If we lived in a country with a functional government these monopolies would have been broken up long ago and the internet would be regulated as the public utility that it is.

[kombucha111]

They are not the public square they are private property that people gather on at the behest of its owner(s) but I will totally agree with you that to most people they are the defacto public square and that there plenty of monopolies that need to be broken up. Id also agree with you that regulating these companies as public utilities is the solution to your grievances (as well as having net neutrality). The only thing I disagree with you is the collusion aspect, even if they were colluding to "fix" speech, and not just towing the same line, that isn't actually illegal. Price fixing on the other hand is. I feel like there is common ground here that sensible governance, accountability and nonpartisan compromise could absolutely solve.

[StanislavPetrov]

>The only thing I disagree with you is the collusion aspect, even if they were colluding to "fix" speech, and not just towing the same line, that isn't actually illegal. Price fixing on the other hand is.

A persuasive argument can be made that coordinated efforts by tech giants to block rivals such as Parler is in fact illegal. In many ways it reminds me of the (ultimately successful) 1998 anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft which ironically allowed the rise of Google, Twitter, and Facebook who are today engaging in similar behavior. Although perhaps if the Microsoft lawsuit were brought today, Microsoft could simply argue that they were afraid of the "hate speech" that might occur on these new platforms and were therefore justified in using their massive market share to stifle all competition.