[lostcolony]

Why does it feel more murky than that? There are actual threats being posted against lawmakers, and then we had a violent storming of the capital by those people, many of them armed, asking where those lawmakers are.

I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.

The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.

[mahastore]

Exactly ,,, you use a platform to call for murdering people in the name of second civil war .. well you get banned. That is the least a civilized society can do.

[ryanSrich]

I really don’t understand this mentality. Why wouldn’t you want this publicly available? You really want domestic terrorists functioning underground? Not only does this prevent people from seeing and judging and debating such an idea, but it also creates a precedent for a stronger surveillance state.

[asdff]

ISIS was famous for radicalizing people around the world thanks to their publicly shared content on the internet. I say we let them fester in the shadows where these awful ideas will have fewer vectors of minds to infect.

[lostcolony]

In fact, there's some research about this - https://twitter.com/asbruckman/status/1347987974177357833

It was done back in August last year, so not in response to recent events.

The findings were, essentially, it doesn't reduce the individuals toxicity; it does reduce its spread.

[skygazer]

So Amazon, Apple and Google should intentionally keep Parler around as a honeypot to snag right wing terrorists and the rest of society should just pretend we don’t know how they keep getting arrested?

[ryanSrich]

I think Amazon, Apple and Google should rely on the authorities to tell them what can and can’t legally be present on their platform. If something is already clearly illegal, then sure, take action immediately, but there has not been any mention of what Parler is allowing to be illegal. If it’s deemed illegal then I fully support deplatforming.

[lostcolony]

But, per your original post, wouldn't deplatforming then just be pushing it underground again? While letting it get to the point the ideas can spread and radicalize others?

[ryanSrich]

I think once you’re to the point that something is illegal you’re fringe enough to where the threat is very small. There’s a big difference in the size of groups that say “we should do X” and people actually leaving their houses and “doing X”.

[paulnechifor]

There are tweets from 2016 calling for Trump's assassination. When is Apple going to take down the Twitter app?

Here's just a search I did now: https://twitter.com/hashtag/assassinatetrump

[macinjosh]

When did Trump encourage murder? This is hyperbole.

[mahastore]

Who said anything about Trump? Just so you haven't noticed Trump is not that important anymore.

[macinjosh]

Who said anything about Trump being important?

[jimmydorry]

Agreed, but like it or not, he is the flagship of this wave of censorship. His ban was the first shot over the bow by the social media giants, if you will.

[mahastore]

Lets agree to agree on this.

[santoshalper]

We're talking about parler getting booted off AWS, what are you talking about?

[kristofferR]

He tweeted that he wouldn't be at Biden's inauguration, a clear sign that it was okay to attack it. /s

Seriously, that was Twitter's argument for why they banned him...

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

[chasd00]

kathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head. i mean cnn did ask her not to attend a new years Eve party but shouldn't she be deplatformed?

the deplatforming policy is impossible to define and will be enforced arbitrarily. it's going to satisfy no one.

[nemothekid]

>kathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head

And she was suspended for that.

[sawjet]

She has reposted since being suspended and apparently it's okay now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1323893513226...

[Benjmhart]

Yep still funny too

[lostcolony]

I think "accompanied by actual physical acts of violence related to said speech" is a pretty decently high bar, that this incident clears.

Until you have an incident you actually, rather than hypothetically, object to, why do you assume Amazon is going to aggressively deplatform software platforms? They have a pretty clear financial incentive not to.

[DJPocari]

But this isn't the same as ISIS recruiting off of Twitter where the FBI/CIA/NSA monitors that discourse and contacts the respective platforms. This is a company deciding what should and shouldn't be censored.

There's a difference between protected speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. But with the way things are moving, more and more speech is being classified as "hate speech." The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky. I think there needs to be clear standards and clear enforcement.

[lostcolony]

'The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky.'

So do you think Amazon is falling on the wrong side of it here? Because even if it's more murky, if they're waiting until it's -very clearly violent-, egregiously so, with real physical criminal acts occurring because of it, I'm pretty sure no matter how murky the line is, they're well on the side of "violent words", not "offensive speech".

Your concern only applies if they're trying to draw the line in an area that is murky. I'd contend this is not.

[leeoniya]

> This is a company deciding what should and shouldn't be censored.

are you saying that platforms cannot choose what to moderate because of a right to free speech? that's nonsense. you want free speech, go outside with a bullhorn, no one will arrest you - that's all that means.

[DJPocari]

Even if it is okay for Facebook and Twitter to impose strict moderation policies, is it okay for AWS, Verizon, or GoDaddy?

I just think it's a slippery slope, and we desperately need to cement our feet in the ground and draw a line somewhere.

Also, when an overwhelming majority of public discourse takes place online (thanks 2020), the people choosing who does and does not get access to the centralized systems have a CRAZY amount of power. Yelling in a public square isn't how ideas spread anymore.

[lostcolony]

Who has lost the ability to speak freely online? The only people who have been banned from speaking are a few high profile people who broke the T&Cs, and were recognized for their toxicity.

This is deplatforming -a platform-, not those people. Every individual on Parler can go create accounts and post on Twitter and Facebook and etc...unless, of course, their toxicity causes them to be banned there.

Nothing legally, or fairly, forces one platform to host another platform.

[leeoniya]

i think it's reasonable that if you are planning violence, you should not be allowed to do it on a public platform, amplified to millions of people. do it in secret, like the good old days!

[santoshalper]

Is it Ok to force owners of a private company to host content they find objectionable? Gay porn on the Hobby Lobby forums?

AWS is a private business, they don't have to host anything they don't want to. Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with.

I think a way more interest question is this - what about modern US conservatism makes violence so attractive to it? You cannot have a conservative forum that will not rapidly devolve into violent threats. Even /r/conservative, the more mainstream and mature conservative subreddit is absolutely full of people threatening revolution, backs against the wall, etc.

The reality is that we as a society are getting numb to this and are actually being far too tolerant.

[woofcat]

My problem sometimes with this line of reasoning is that some rights are more important than others, we've already decided that as a fact.

For instance "Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with." Is true, but we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc. So your right of who you can associate with isn't iron clad.

We could just as easily add "Freedom of Expression" to the list of things you can not discriminate against, and suddenly the argument holds no water.

I'm not an American, however I sometimes enjoy the irony of America where one side of the political spectrum will be angry that a bakery is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, but think it's against the customers rights for AWS to not host content they don't agree with.

Whilst the other thinks the baker should be forced to bake a cake against their will, and AWS is free to drop any business they feel like.

[leeoniya]

> we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc.

none of these qualities pose a threat to others in our civilized society. however, spoken words have a direct influence on anyone who hears them. so there is in fact a difference which is not simply arbitrary.

[throwaway201103]

You see the same unhinged types on left leaning platforms. Online forums attract the fringe loudmouths. Parler is not representative of modern US conservatism. I call myself conservative and I've never in my life visited the site.

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...

Edit: to be clear, in context, I am saying that these nutjob posters on Parler are not representative. I understand that mainstream conservatives may also have a presence there.

[throwaway201103]

"If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech."

-Noam Chomsky

[leeoniya]

i wonder if his views would be the same if tens of thousands of people were chanting "hang chomsky" because they were convinced by "free speech" that he was a pedophile, through cheap and easy dissemination of photoshopped images and ai-generated voice "recordings".

it's difficult to map pre-internet ideals to 2021.

[cjohnson318]

Also, pre-deepfake ideals.

[eeZah7Ux]

Chomsky is talking about free speech in the context of academic debate.

Death threats and similar do not fit in any shape or form into "free speech".

[eeZah7Ux]

Downvoted for educating people on free speech - oh the irony!

[drak0n1c]

Regarding the "FIRE!" analogy - there are journalists such as Glenn Greenwald arguing that media and politicians fearmongering the specter of right wing terrorism are the becoming the ones yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, and the mass deplatforming of regular conservative groups and proposed Patriot Act 2.0 measures that will ensue is the movie theater suffering disproportionate and unnecessary harm as a result.

[amanaplanacanal]

Is there actually mass deplatforming of regular conservative groups? Where is this happening?

[drak0n1c]

On Facebook, “WalkAway” a community that was devoted to compiling hundreds of thousands of ex-Democrat video and text testimonials was banned. It was not about Q and didn’t advocate breaking into government buildings.

It was the most wholesome right wing space I’ve ever seen on the internet. People sharing their experiences being alienated by either how they saw media manipulate a story they knew about or by how divisive partisanship and cancel culture personally affected them. Welcoming each other in the comments regardless of their sexual orientation or race. It would have been a useful place to learn from but now it’s gone.

[meragrin]

> many of them armed

I haven't heard of more than 5 firearms. No mention of where those were. Videos I have seen just show flags, signs, cameras, and mobile phones. What were these "many" armed with?

[stonogo]

Pipe bombs, molotov cocktails, mace, plenty of arms other than firearms. This article has some links to more info: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/one-of-the-trump-sup...

It'll be simplest to watch the AG charge people, since they only file those charges if they're confident in a successful prosecution. Charges will probably be trickling in for months as they identify the insurrectionists.

[_qwfv]

One guy rolled up with a truck off molotov cocktails and firearms. Several IEDs were discovered and detonated by bomb squads.

[meragrin]

So one guy is now many?

[_qwfv]

Nine firearms plus one long gun, one container of molotovs, several pipe bombs, and two IEDs were seized by police. Additionally several released chemical agents at police. One beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher. One was photographed with a set of zip tie restraints.

And that's just what was captured obviously. Presumably for everything found there were several more things concealed.

[throwaway201103]

Is the guy in custody? Who is he? What's his background?

[Ajedi32]

The parent comment was not asking where to draw the line on _what_ to censor. The question was "where do we draw the line on _how_ we censor the internet?"

E.g. If your ISP decides that something you posted on Twitter violates some standard of their own devise, should they be allowed to disconnect you?

[lostcolony]

According to the GOP, yes. -I- personally support net neutrality however. As well as the net being a need to operate in society.

But the ability to run a workload on AWS? They're a business. I'm totally okay with them deciding to stop doing business with me. That also has a GOP precedent, what with that whole "You don't have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple" thing.

[Ajedi32]

ISPs are businesses too, so that's not really the relevant distinction here. Why would you be okay with AWS deciding not to do business with you based on something you said, but not your ISP? Seems rather arbitrary to me.

[lostcolony]

"(I support...) As well as the net being a need to operate in society."

That's why. Access to a company's compute resources is not a need. Further, there are options, many different cloud vendors with different T&Cs, different allowed things, different jurisdictions, cultural expectations, etc. If I manage to break the T&Cs to all of them, that's kind of on me, and doesn't preclude me from having access to compute resources (I just have to buy them).

The internet? I've got one ISP option. And without it, I'm cut off from a large part of what it means to function in this day and age.

[amanaplanacanal]

ISPs should be common carriers. Unfortunately the current administration disagrees.

[throwaway201103]

At what point should something like AWS be a "common carrier" though?

[lostcolony]

When it's transporting goods (data) to the general public without discrimination, for the public good and necessity. Since that's the definition of a common carrier.

AWS isn't fundamentally transporting goods but providing a service (the transmission of data happens via a common carrier between you and it). It's not clear that AWS access is a public necessity. And it's never attempted to claim it does so without discrimination.

[s1artibartfast]

If real threats are being posted against lawmakers, there should be a legal process to resolve the situation.

[joebidenforprez]

Right, and BLM chanting kill the police, that should be encouraged by twitter and facebook????

Your logic defies me.

Keep on voting for pelosi so she could continue becoming rich off the backs of hardworking americans and eating 10k dollar ice cream

[dang]

Creating accounts to break HN's guidelines like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html