I believe that there are two common and non-negotiable principles for any kind of freedom to apply:
1. Abuses and crimes should always be persecuted. I have read lots of posts on Parler, and ALL grounds for violent speech, radicalisation and terrorism apply to lots of them. I've read posts inviting people to hang and quarter democrats on the streets in front of their families, as well as posts inviting armed sedition against the institutions. Those who use this kind of language MUST be made accountable of their words, just like we'd make ISIS supporters accountable of their words. It's not that just because they're white and Christian dudes that look like us we can condone them a bit more. And if a platform refuses to limit this language, then the whole platform must be taken down.
2. Your freedom ends where my beings. You may be free of saying whatever you want, but if that ends up doxxing information about me that I didn't want to reveal, or it ends up spreading misinformation about me that ends up in death threats, then you are NOT free to do that.
Parler has failed to guarantee both the non-negotiable freedoms when it comes to building a sustainable free speech framework, therefore it must be taken down. I really fail to see any contradiction in this.
And keep in mind that the anarco-liberalist vision of free speech is something that has arisen only in the past couple of decades. The founding fathers of the liberal school thought (including Popper and Hayek), those who had REALLY seen how things in Europe ended up when unlimited freedom of speech is guaranteed also to fascist jerks, were well-aware that unconstrained freedom with no framework to contain fundamentalism is a threat to a tolerant society. "Being intolerant with the intolerant is a civic duty for a tolerant society that wants to preserve its values" (Popper)
> Your freedom ends where my beings. You may be free of saying whatever you want, but if that ends up doxxing information about me that I didn't want to reveal, or it ends up spreading misinformation about me that ends up in death threats, then you are NOT free to do that.
You just described investigative journalism.
Doxxing is not itself a violation of your rights, it’s just taboo when it’s done in the small.
Only when it’s done with the intent of causing illegal harm, such as “X lives here, go kick his ass”, would it be a violation.
I was obviously not talking about rightful investigative journalism. I meant things like EnemiesOfThePeople (former link: https://parler.com/profile/EnemiesOfThePeople), which leaked home addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of any politician who opposed Trump's effort to overturn the election. This has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with fascist ways of intimidating private citizens.
> I've read posts inviting people to hang and quarter democrats on the streets in front of their families, as well as posts inviting armed sedition against the institutions.
And I've read posts on HN saying we should hang and quarter Trump supporters; should HN be wiped from the face of the earth?
Took me about 30 seconds to find. But in general I will not do unpaid moderation work for ideological crusaders like dang. For example, I'm sure there will be a reallllly good excuse why this comment is actually okay. And I'll probably get flagged/moderated for good measure.
Oh, but for good measure...
"The radical right is a scourge ... They need to be repeatedly smacked down until normalcy is achieved."
And keep in mind that I'm just picking a random example from thousands of similar posts.
Radicalized Trump supporters were using Parler to share invites to "do a bloodbath out of Democrat voters", "burn them alive on the streets and throw them in wooden chips in front of their children", and you really have the courage to come here and say that WE are the violent ones for a whack-a-mole the Nazi joke?
From the bottom of my heart, fuck you, you filthy fascist.
I've got absolutely nothing against the old Republicans, I've got absolutely nothing against conservatives, I've got many, many conservative friends as well. But I've got A LOT against the violent scum of the earth represented by people like you who try to play the role of the eternal victim after inciting Civil War and gratuitous gruesome violence against the political enemy!
The complete quote: "If we have to play an constant game of Whack-a-Nazi, I vote we whack as many Nazis as we can."
That is a reference to the game Whack-A-Mole. Literally, that would mean hitting them with a soft foam hammer.
"Oh, but for good measure... "The radical right is a scourge ... They need to be repeatedly smacked down until normalcy is achieved.""
owlbynight's entire quote:
"Our political representatives are corrupt and generally represent whomever gives them the most money, namely large corporations.
"We, the people, are represented through our wallets now by the corporations that control our politicians because social media has unionized us. We're able to use online platforms to leverage companies into giving us what we want socially by threatening them when they step out of line. The companies that led to Parler shutting down were acting on public sentiment as a boon to their brands, thus ultimately reflecting the will of the people.
"It's kind of like a single payer system for social justice.
"It's weird end run back to representation but I'll take it for now. The radical right is a scourge that, unchecked, will lead to us having no rights at all. They need to be repeatedly smacked down until normalcy is achieved."
I could be wrong, but I'm also not reading that as a call for violence, much less "hang and quarter". It's not a particularly attractive metaphor, though.
See what I mean? There's always an excuse for leftist calls for violence; whereas right-wing calls for peace like Trump's recent tweets are akshually dogwhistles for violence. I'm disgusted.
It just jumps so easily to your mind how to defend, defend, defend leftist violence; you don't even consider yourself doing it. You too have trained yourself well as an ideological crusader.
You are correct. I admit, as a Democrat, that I want to hit all of those on the right with a medium-sized foam mallet thing. I am ashamed of the violence in my soul.
I've always refrained from calling Trump's supporters Nazis because I'm always prepared for the backfire of "oh, leftists are fascist because they don't let us do and say whatever we want bla bla".
But your comment clearly outlines that you consider them Nazis, that you have no problems with it, and that even if they are Nazis they should not be targeted for their hate and bigotry.
"We really need to whack Joe Biden before he becomes president!"
That's okay, right? Because it's just a children's game, right? Or is it interpreted differently depending on who the target is? Nazis, whacking them is just a game. Leftists, whacking them is srs bsns?
> Or is it interpreted differently depending on who the target is? Nazis, whacking them is just a game.
Did you read the full quote or not? The context matters not the targets (in this case a singular target changes the context). There is only one Joe Biden, so they way you are using it has a different context. If it was about whacking lib-trolls from your news group, that's different than specifying a person.
Maybe you aren't a native english speaker, but whack-a-mole is a common carnival game. That's the context in the quote YOU picked.
Can you show me where "whack-a-mole" is mentioned in the original comment? It's something that exists only in your mind to excuse a call for murder.
"Singular target changes the context". Okay, so "Man, Hitler sure was really good at playing whack-a-Jew, wasn't he?" This is okay by your "logic", right?
The context of the "whack Nazis" comment was the worst day of domestic terrorism and murder in American history. I don't think anyone was playing carnival games at the Capitol last week, but maybe we should go ask them? Maybe the whole thing was just a misunderstood carnival game!
I posted some examples in sibling comments, and the response was that leftist calls for violence are actually secret code about carnival games. So I'm not particularly inclined to post more.
And when it comes to doxxing of private individuals who simply opposed Trump's attempts to overturn the election, just search for EnemiesOfThePeople (it was also a very active account on Parler).
1. Abuses and crimes should always be persecuted. I have read lots of posts on Parler, and ALL grounds for violent speech, radicalisation and terrorism apply to lots of them. I've read posts inviting people to hang and quarter democrats on the streets in front of their families, as well as posts inviting armed sedition against the institutions. Those who use this kind of language MUST be made accountable of their words, just like we'd make ISIS supporters accountable of their words. It's not that just because they're white and Christian dudes that look like us we can condone them a bit more. And if a platform refuses to limit this language, then the whole platform must be taken down.
2. Your freedom ends where my beings. You may be free of saying whatever you want, but if that ends up doxxing information about me that I didn't want to reveal, or it ends up spreading misinformation about me that ends up in death threats, then you are NOT free to do that.
Parler has failed to guarantee both the non-negotiable freedoms when it comes to building a sustainable free speech framework, therefore it must be taken down. I really fail to see any contradiction in this.
And keep in mind that the anarco-liberalist vision of free speech is something that has arisen only in the past couple of decades. The founding fathers of the liberal school thought (including Popper and Hayek), those who had REALLY seen how things in Europe ended up when unlimited freedom of speech is guaranteed also to fascist jerks, were well-aware that unconstrained freedom with no framework to contain fundamentalism is a threat to a tolerant society. "Being intolerant with the intolerant is a civic duty for a tolerant society that wants to preserve its values" (Popper)