[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.

[woofcat]

So you're saying censorship has no threat to civilized society?

>“Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” Benjamin Franklin declared. By sharing knowledge and sparking debate, a free press invigorates and educates the nation’s citizens. Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed, Thomas Jefferson once said. To quote John Adams: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”

However you want to define these apps, they're basically falling under the first Amendment. Obviously there are limits which are carved out in law. However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?

In an ideal world, the market would separate the wheat from the chaff, and these platforms would dry up and die on their own.

[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.