News: 1613455332

I predict very little success for Parler - the unwashed masses are still hanging around on Twitter, and everyone else who got banned or was on Parler when it went down has moved to Gab, which has been around longer and has proven to be more resilient, as they actually own all the infrastructure.

Parler made it's name due to someone desperately requiring an alternative to Twitter/FB and the Cancel Culture.

Unfortunately for them Amazon etc decided it was against their money maing policies to host them. So they got cancelled... Ironic that that what what Parler were fighting against...

The Twitterati will continue as usual but I get the impression that there is now a growing push against the Cancel Culture, I think intelligent people are waking up and starting to reject the tiny minority who use very loud bullying tactics. Equilibrium is slowly being restored (at least in the UK and a little bit in the US )...

Again this will go against Parler as it's raison d'etre is becoming a little bit less usefull...

Anyway, I am glad that they are back, simply for the reason that it's important for all that alternative solutions do indeed exist..

Twitter/FB win whichever way the pendulum swings...

"Cancel culture" is other people exercising their free speech rights to say that they disagree with you.

No "Cancel culture" is a bullying tactic that is used in order to ensure that other points of view are not heard.

Refusing to debate, is a refusal to evolve.. It's an attempt to force ones own ideologies on to another, it's got nothing to do with disagreeement..

Nobody is saying that right-wingers aren't allowed to express a point of view.

However, when you degenerate things down to blatant threats of violence, this is going beyond simply expressing a "point of view". Companies are under no obligation to give you a platform from which to threaten violence against other people.

Parler were given numerous warnings about unacceptable conduct before having their hosting pulled. This isn't "bullying", it's simply enforcing your T&Cs - terms that Parler were well aware of when they signed up with AWS in the first place.

Free speech also means the freedom not to say or publish things you don't agree with. Forcing Amazon to host Parler would violate their free speech rights.

Free speech also means the freedom not to say or publish things you don't agree with. Forcing Amazon to host Parler would violate their free speech rights.

So just like that you've made it harder for gay weddings to source cakes despite current actual law that disagrees with you?

Cancel culture is a company cutting you off when you explicitly break their T&Cs on which their service to you is conditional.

Don't like it, set up a company without those T&Cs. See how long it lasts, before you're having to moderate, cancel accounts in the same way, or sued to oblivion under laws that have existed for decades by facilitating hate speech, etc.

"Cancel culture" is the phrase used by people who expect service from companies who don't want to provide those kind of people with that kind of service, even for money. It's like the playground-phrase used when someone doesn't want to do something stupid in concert with the speaker, so they just call them out as "cancel culture" when in fact the other person just doesn't want to do what you want them to do.

"Cancel culture" used to be called "violation of the terms of service". And the terms of service haven't changed much in decades.

Cancel Culture

AKA the freedom of speech that other people have to tell you to stop being objectionable.

File alongside [1]"Conservative voices are being silenced" .

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPNZTtoQBmA

Dan55

So these people never got cancelled.

https://www.rt.com/usa/492454-joe-rogan-canceled-again/

Joe Rogan

JK Rowlings

Chris Prat

Gina Carano

Jordan Peterson

Brett Weinstein

Simply because their views don't correspond to the Hard Left's current agenda.

Oh and here is another , a very ironic example due to the fact that the reporter, just like yourself, claimed initially that Cancel Culture doesn't exist

https://dailycaller.com/2021/02/10/the-guardian-columnist-nathan-robinson-fired-tweeting-joke-us-aid-israel/

Yes, most of these people have the capacity to rebound because they are finacially solid, but when this happens to less successfull people their lifes can be destroyed.....

Presumably you call it the Hard Left because you jumped out the Overton window a while back. But anyway, I'll humour you, please tell me what the Hard Left's current agenda is.

Thank you for not marking up your HTML, it means I'm not tempted to copy and paste the addresses of sketchy websites to my browser's address bar to open them. I'm as likely to open RT or Daily Caller as I am Breitbart.

So you think that the list of people that I cited weren't deplateformed or cancelled ? They are only a subset of what I can think of from the top of my head.

I don't personaly agree with all that this list of people have to say but by not giving them a voice, it simply means that I refuse to evolve..

The right to platform only those people you agree with is a free speech right.

Nobody has to give you a voice. You can stand on a soapbox on Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park and scream into a megaphone all you want but nobody has to stand there in front of you and listen.

If nobody is giving someone a voice, perhaps their voice isn't worth the time of day or is objectionable?

"The right to platform only those people you agree with is a free speech right."

That's closer to Propoganda platform than a Free Speech platform.

"If nobody is giving someone a voice, perhaps their voice isn't worth the time of day or is objectionable?"

That's for for the audience to decide not the platform..

If the major platforms simply become Echo Chambers then what purpose do they serve other than as means for the owner to distribute the self interests or idealogies of whoever provides the finance. Fundemantally the opposite of what Free Speech should have to offer ?

And the audience decides by moving to a different platform. If you force all platforms to carry the same content, you deny the audience that choice.

Social networks already an echo chamber because they prize engagement above all else so the algorithm shows you things it thinks you already like.

That aside, they still should have the final say on what views are acceptable and what aren't as they are private businesses and they can decide if they want to publish certain views or decide not to. If they decide that they don't want to be a cesspit like Gab, they should not be obliged to be one and people should not be obliged to use a social media network which is a cesspit like Gab.

what purpose do they serve other than as means for the owner to distribute the self interests or idealogies of whoever provides the finance

So, er, like all forms of media, then? Well, at least you've got there in the end.

In summary, private organisations are not forced to give anyone a platform, and people are not forced to listen to them. If nobody wants to listen to you, tough luck.

Now perhaps the Tory party's attempts to force a platform for only certain views is more worrying, wouldn't you agree?

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses''

- Plato

Cancel culture otherwise known as freedom of association.

The only people to have cancelled me are Parler advocates. Go figure!

The question is how much it matters, really. Any public post on either Parler 2.0 or Gab (and I bet they've added Stormfront in their dragnet now too) will go straight into the data hoover of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force.

It might be that Gab has better OpSec than Parler had so the security services may have less data available to them. Though the 70 TB of public data that researchers had safeguarded from Parler before it was taken down should be quite useful to find a link between someone's old account on Parler and their new account on Gab. And considering many of the attackers on January 6th were stupid enough to document and broadcast their actions I suspect many will just have kept their screen name when switching from Parler to Gab.

On top of that, researchers explain the lower levels of interaction on Parler by its policy of banning people whose opinions weren’t right-leaning enough. That makes it a great marketing funnel to find extremists (and there is an argument that that was Parler’s main goal, to create an addressable market for extremist ideas) but there is some evidence that echo chambers reduce interaction. What is there to argue (or troll) if everyone is like-minded already? Quite a chunk of their target audience is active online to “pwn the libs/jews/blacks/gays/whatever” and if a platform filters out those with a different view then there is little to troll. It might lead to more radicalization but not more interaction.

Unless Gab can attract (and keep!) people with a broader range of views than Parler did, it will suffer the same fate of just being an online echo chamber but not a fertile hunting ground for people who are just looking for people to wind up.

"president of an organisation called “Convention of States” that hopes to substantially re-write the US Constitution to restrict the Federal Government’s power."

Sounds like he is looking for a revolution.

All your insurrectionist thoughts and acts are going to be captured forever. And when the FBI coming calling with warrants, Parler and Skysilk WILL rat you out.

The FBI already have the data as several people pulled 10s of Tb of data off Parler before they got shut down and have handed that over to investigators.

Is this really necessary? A part of me wonders if Parler is a FBI honeytrap and its new CEO is another Enrique Tarrio. A conspiracy theory to destroy conspiracy theorists?

It's funny how the racists always have the their mouths full with the word Patriot.

The word "Patriot" is one of those words that should set off some alarm bells. It's almost 250 years ago since Samuel Johnson said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" and its use has not improved since then.

It has since been joined by words such as "Freedom" and "Free speech" that almost appear to have taken on a new meaning, sometimes the opposite of the original meaning. There are some good, age old, initiatives that use the word "Freedom" but nowadays when I see a new think tank or organisation using the word freedom in their name or mission it's often meant to curtail someone else's freedom, not give it.

It's a bit like those names of American bills that are put through Congress, they often portray to do the exact opposite from what it says on the tin. "The Defense of Marriage Act" banning a lot of people from getting married...

The word "Patriot" is one of those words that should set off some alarm bells. It's almost 250 years ago since Samuel Johnson said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" and its use has not improved since then.

As I remember it, it was a comment on scoundrels not on patriotism. (Scoundrels like Pitt the Elder.)

I'm sure that's a sentiment many people will agree with - right up to the moment that they're libelled.

Either speech has consequences - in which case ultimately there is also responsibility - or it doesn't - in which case it's irrelevant whether people are heard.

I guess now it remains to be seen if Parler's plan for volunteer content moderation is enough to stop them eventually being kicked off Skysilk for breach of their T&Cs. As if Skysilk end up getting too many abuse to the hosting provider for illegal content hosted on Skysilk servers that Parler fails to deal with then Skysilk will no doubt decide its not in their interest to carry on hosting them.

On social networks, the only way to judge someone is by their posting history, which is why it's time to start criticising Disqus for allowing its users to hide theirs, and for allowing the sort of language that got Parler into trouble. They also have a sleazy feature to let moderators block posters who they disagree with, such that their comments seems to have been posted, but only the poster can see them. Then of course, the Trump supporting web sites that take advantage of that feature make a big deal about cancel culture! Unsurprisingly, Disqus provides no way to contact them about this.

"clearly encourage and incite violence" like BLM and antifa