Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rchaud 1988 days ago
Incitement to terrorism isn't something where failing to moderate perfectly should be tolerated.

There is already a zero-tolerance approach to numerous extremist groups, regardless of whether they are active on American soil or not. Why should this be treated any differently?
2 comments
itsoktocry 1988 days ago
>Why should this be treated any differently?

Being as how Twitter isn't shutdown for the same offense, I'm also curious as to why Parler was "treated differently"?

Political pressure, period.

link
rchaud 1988 days ago
Twitter can claim to make a good-faith effort to reduce misinformation, and threats of violence and incitements to terrorism are taken down quickly.

Parler's raison d'etre is that it makes no such efforts. From the AWS team's motion to dismiss:

"There is no legal basis in AWS’s customer agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this nature. AWS notified Parler repeatedly that its content violated the parties’ agreement, requested removal, and reviewed Parler’s plan to address the problem, only to determine that Parler was both unwilling and unable to do so. AWS suspended Parler’s account as a last resort to prevent further access to such content, including plans for violence to disrupt the impending Presidential transition."

From: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Washington_Western_Distric...

link
newacct583 1988 days ago
> Why should this be treated any differently?

Obviously this is a rhetorical question. But the answer is an elephant-in-the room kind of thing so I think it needs to be said:

The reason is that the overlap between "extremism" and our (now) minority political party is so large as to have muddled the distinction. Per one poll, 45% of Trump voters approve of the sacking of the capitol. It's really not possible to distinguish people who merely post angry political speech and the ones who stray into extremist rhetoric about revolution and violence. The same people are doing all of it.

So right now, "moderating communities with extreme content" simply looks a lot like "censoring republicans". But... I don't see how that gets better by outlawing the moderation. Republicans need to fix their rhetoric first.

link