Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Media Your Rights Online Technology

New Free Speech Site Gets in a Tangle Over ... Free Speech (theguardian.com) 181

The social network bills itself as a 'no censorship' bastion -- but it's already had to remind users what is and isn't allowed. From a report: In recent weeks, Donald Trump has started having his tweets factchecked and published with disclaimers when they contain misleading information. Katie Hopkins, the woman who once compared migrants to cockroaches and called for a "final solution" in relation to Muslims, has been banned from Twitter. And a subreddit called r/The_Donald has been banned after Reddit updated its hate speech guidelines -- Reddit said in a statement that "mocking people with physical disabilities" and "describing a racial minority as sub-human and inferior to the racial majority" will not be allowed. And so, naturally, people are asking where on earth they are supposed to go to get their daily dose of "free speech." Enter Parler, the new, supposedly unbiased free-speech social network that suggests, when you join, you follow people such as Rand Paul, Hopkins and Rudy Giuliani. Other rightwing politicians such as Ted Cruz and Devin Nunes are on it. So too are the much-overlooked members of the Trump family Eric and Lara, commentators such as Candace Owens, and Donald Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale.

A glance at Parler might lead you to think that the platform is just a benign, more boring version of Twitter. Megyn Kelly is on Parler telling you she doesn't like Mary Trump's new book; Eric Trump is posting boring statements such as "Another great day for the market (amazing how the media and left have been very quiet about this incredible recovery)" -- which reminds you of why Don Jr is the more popular brother; the Daily Caller is retweeting (re-parlering?) a bunch of articles that look like they belong on the Onion. But since the platform's selling point is that it provides a safe space for people who want to use hate speech, the ugliness is there if you want to find it: Hopkins is equating Black Lives Matter protests with "thuggery" and posting comments such as "Our white girls pay the price. Every time" in a post about illegal immigration in Scotland.

Andrew Torba -- who tried to make his own alternative free-speech network for those exiled from Twitter -- has called it a magnet for "Z-list Maga celebrities." His website, Gab, quickly became popular with extremists including antisemites and neo-Nazis -- including the Pittsburgh synagogue suspect Robert Bowers, who announced his intentions for mass murder on the platform. Torba's experience shows that regulating free speech on a platform that allows hate speech to run rampant is rife with its own challenges. After the attack in Pittsburgh, Gab was forced offline for a brief period after being dropped by its server, GoDaddy, who said that encouraging violence was in breach of its terms of service.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Free Speech Site Gets in a Tangle Over ... Free Speech

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 02, 2020 @05:45PM (#60255734)
    And when you say "when they contain misleading information", you mean "outrageous fucking lies".
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Free market at work (Score:5, Informative)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @05:51PM (#60255748)
    if you don't like Twitter's restrictions on their website then you've got options. This is exactly the sort of innovation Section 230 of the CDA was meant to create.
  • by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @05:52PM (#60255752)

    Twitter, for all it's faults, has critical mass, so a fair amount of all political spectrums are represented and therefore they have conflict, constant conflict.

    If you make a platform for only one area of the political spectrum people will get bored, especially those on the right whose seemingly sole purpose these days is to "own the libs". Without libs to "own" what's there to do? Nobody from the center or left is going to join the same platform the alt-right and white supremacists are flocking to. It's a safe space.

    • Everything big has controversy around it. That is just what humans do. Everyone in power wants an echo chamber under their feet.

      All of the big players are only doing what they think makes them the most money and keeps them in business. Just like how Walmart does what they think will make them the most money and keep them in business.

      And again... people need to stop saying "nobody" somebody is damn sure going to do just exactly what you think they are not going to do!

    • ...especially those on the right whose seemingly sole purpose these days is to "own the libs".

      Based on my (very) brief dalliance with Gab when there are no libs to own they turn on each other with increasing fury.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Not true at all. Create forums that at targeted at select groups, that was the norm, al lah, /.. Targeting everyone was for the privacy invasive data miners and nothing what so ever to do with people sharing communications, that is just the trap for them, they are all about data mining and psychologically targeted manipulations. You are far better off on aligned forums, whether interest or politics, they are about the members and not about spying on and manipulating the members.

      Twitter is utter shite, the

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Every time one of these new "free speech" platforms starts up a bunch of people banned from Twitter flock there and declare that the king is dead, long live the king. And every time they turn into a far right echo chamber overnight and eventually fade away.

      Remember when Gab was poised to replace Twitter? Yeah that never happened and a year later the owner banned pornography because apparently that's not free speech. Voat saw some rapid growth and FatPeopleHate and other lovely Reddit boards migrated there,

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        Remember when Gab was poised to replace Twitter? Yeah that never happened

        Probably, because multiple ISPs [engadget.com] have [businessinsider.com] kicked [theverge.com] them out, eh?

        They've just been "un-platformed" by Visa [reclaimthenet.org] too, such is the corporate giants' "commitment to diversity [visa.com]".

        A browser Add-On they developed was banned by Mozilla [mozilla.org] (yay, open source!) and neither Apple nor Android would offer their app in their "stores" [gab.com].

        Do you not think, that'd stunt growth? A little?

        None of this happened to Gab, because the company engaged in "hate speech" (whatever th

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Any product that is reliant on violating other people's freedom of speech and association is doomed to failure.

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            Any product that is reliant on violating other people's freedom of speech and association is doomed to failure.

            None of the products/services I mentioned in my posting are so reliant.

            Off-topic much?

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              You said Gab failed because it couldn't force people to provide it with services against their will. That seems like a pretty major flaw in their business model.

              • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

                Given that some of those services were built with government money and eminent domain powers, I think first amendment rights should apply.

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Which ones?

                  • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

                    The ISPs and domain registrars. And to a lesser extent, banks.

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      I guess the banks took bailouts from the government but only on the condition that they wouldn't be government run. But the ISPs? How were they built with government money?

                    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

                      It's not exactly a secret [arstechnica.com].

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      Oh, the subsidies? Unfortunately for Gab those didn't make the ISPs part of the government so 1A doesn't apply to them.

                      Besides even if it did I doubt it would help. You can't demand that the government prints your fliers for you or lets you use their buildings to stage your events.

              • by mi ( 197448 )

                You said Gab failed because it couldn't force people to provide it with services against their will.

                No one should be able to force people to do that — nor was Gab relying on it, contrary to your insinuation.

                That the will of these service-providers was so against Gab in particular — for no good reason — is what I invoked as the explanation.

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  I meant that their old business model of unlimited free speech violates the TOS of the companies they relied on.

                  • by mi ( 197448 )

                    unlimited free speech violates the TOS of the companies

                    I hold, that if Free Speech violates your Terms of Service, then the problem is with you — not the violator...

                    ISPs and domain-registrars should not be policing content of their customers any more than phone companies do. Can you imagine your phone disconnected for expressing sympathy to Communists or Nazis? Me neither...

                    Perhaps more importantly, the fact that Communists don't have a problem with hosting — and remain comfortable on the "mains

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      They didn't boot then because of the Nazis though, it was because of specific things they said. The phone company will do the same, if you keep calling people up to harass them they will disconnect you.

                    • by mi ( 197448 )

                      it was because of specific things they said

                      Gab never said anything. Users of Gab did.

                      The phone company will do the same, if you keep calling people up to harass them they will disconnect you

                      Huh? What? Who, among Gab staff, harassed the the ISP — or the domain-registrars, or Visa? No one...

  • Dude,

    This is unworthy clickbait which is beyond the pale even for you.
    In no way does this story belong on Slashdot. There's nothing even remotely about tech, it's just chum, bloody bits of fish thrown in the water to get the sharks circling.
    This story is beneath you, hell, it's beneath ALL of us.
    Stop it. Just stop it.
    • by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Huh? We're always talking about free speech on "social networks" on Slashdot. This article is spot on. What are you talking about?
    • HELLOOOOOOOO, when you're was free speech online NOT a topic of interest on Slashdot? They even made a special picture for that category, and a shortcut - yro.slashdot.org

    • msmash must have financial stake in Slashdot because most of the content msmash posts is trash. It's deliberate, every bit of it, as if msmash is proud to be shitting all over Slashdot as a news source. None of the owners do anything about it so apparently they endorse the fecalization of Slashdot.
      What I don't quite understand is why, but the flood of thoughtless space filler over years is no accident.
      If there is a way for readers who contribute the commentary which gives Slashdot its value to get msmash fi

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Free speech and Section 230 protections are a hot topic right now, what with the government looking to address both. Parler is an interesting experiment in what happens if you change Section 230 to say companies must either be totally hands off or responsible for user content.

      The fact that it's a disaster strongly suggests that reforming Section 230 as proposed is a bad idea.

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        If the current trend holds, almost all speech will be conducted online in the future, and most of that through the biggest social platforms. They didn't used to police political speech, but it seems that they're doing so more and more. Why do you think it's a good idea to allow very few people to have control over that?

        What happens when say, one of the Google founders decides to run for president, with the Twitter's CEO as his running mate? We should just hand them absolute power because "they're on our sid

    • This story is beneath you, hell, it's beneath ALL of us.

      Half of this sentence is true. I really wonder how low msmash can set the bar on Slashdot.

  • Let me guess, there's a basket of deplorables waiting to jump out at me.

  • free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @05:56PM (#60255774)

    Republicans don't want to respect freedoms universally. They only believe they have certain rights, others do not. Republicans don't believe private entities should have control of their property unless it's in their own favor. Republican freedom philosophy is only applicable to their own beliefs. For example, they think affirmative action is bad .. except when they think universities shouldn't admit so many asians or a company should not hire immigrants. For example, they think school prayer and religious schools is a right .. except when it's a muslim or hindu or Rastafarian school and publicly funded rasta, voodoo, or muslim prayer .. you think they'd be cool with that? Don't be an idiot. None of their free speech, freedom of religion, presumption of innocence stuff is applicable to people or views they don't like.

    • Re:free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

      by youngone ( 975102 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @06:19PM (#60255844)
      Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
      There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

      —Frank Wilhoit [wikipedia.org]

      • Wrong Frank Wilhoit, dumbass. Far from being words taken from the books or speeches of a political theorist, your quote comes from the random blog comment of a musician who (in the same comment) wrote other gems such as:

        "There is no such thing as liberalism â" or progressivism, etc.

        There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Greshamâ(TM)s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation."

        See here:

        https://crookedtimber.org [crookedtimber.org]

      • Whilst Liberalism, apparently, consists also of a single axiom: to build strawman of nothing, so they can appear mighty and virtuous tearing it to shreds.

        - Some Other Reductionist Dipshit Confusing Brevity With Wit

        • that you built a Stawman out of a Strawman? I don't know, I come from the American Education system and after decades of Conservatives calling for funding cuts there wasn't enough money to teach me what Irony is.

          Come to think of it that might be ironic too. I wouldn't know.
    • Re:free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @06:42PM (#60255910) Journal
      You mean the NEO-Republicans, the current crop that apparently read Ayn Rand as if it was an instruction manual and not a cautionary tale.
      Being a 'conservative' used to mean different things than apparently it does now. There are some who want to bring those values back -- hundreds of them from the Bush administration of all places, who are backing Biden over Trump; that should tell you something. I am no conservative but I applaud them for showing that their Party is not all neo-conservatives, cults-of-personality, and power-grubbing.
      • I don't think it's fair to call them "neo" anymore. I there was an opposition movement (like the "Justice Democrats") I'd probably grant the name (lord knows the left uses "neo-lib") but I honestly don't know of any opposition in the Republican party.

        The closest they get is Susan Collins being very, very concerned and then voting right along with them.

        Reagan's 11th commandment: Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Thy Fellow Republican.

        I guess there's the Lincoln Project, but they literally just got star
    • Rand Paul (Score:4, Interesting)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @07:03PM (#60255970)

      Rand Paul just re-introduced his bill to end federal non-judicial civil asset forfeiture, a Kafka-esque legal maneuver that lets federal law enforcement personnel take your stuff if they think you might be committing a crime. The only way to get it back is to sue. You think this law is used against rich people? The most famous case was a retiree who had his life savings, which he kept in cash, confiscated by the DEA at a Pittsburgh airport. They didn't charge him with anything and he wasn't under investigation for any crime. They just confiscated his money. To get it back, he would have to hire a lawyer and sue the DEA in federal court.

      Everyone, when it's explained to them, hates non-judicial civil asset forfeiture. It makes no sense. Conservative groups hate it. Liberal groups hate it. Progressive groups hate it. But, the government *loves* it. Because, hey, it's free money! Rand Paul's bill has been languishing in the Senate since 2014. A few democrats and republicans tried getting it through again last year and nobody bothered to vote on it.

    • Society is divided enough right now without people like you posting a bunch of garbage like you just did to misrepresent the people you hate when the truth is so readily available.

      Like them or not, Republicans were founded as the party opposed to slavery. For their entire history they have been the party trying to stop people from making decisions about individuals based upon skin color. In this light, yes, Republicans generally (there are always a few in any party who split from their party on a particular

  • Won’t anyone think of the children??

  • Fine. You want 'freedom of speech'? Doesn't that extend to what The People do and do not want to hear or see?

    * Require everyone to use their real name, no pseudonyms
    * There is controversy over particular types of content (i.e., 'hate' speech, political speech, etc)? Put it to a vote by the registered users, two-thirds majority
    * If two-thirds say 'nay' then that type of speech isn't allowed
    * If two-thirds say 'yea' then that type of speech *is* allowed
    * Don't like the way the vote went? Tough. Put up with it, or cancel your account and don't visit the site again
    * Make the site pay-only, so advertising isn't a factor in what is and isn't allowed on the site

    There, was that so hard?
    The majority want to have racist conversations, then I guess you get a racist website. The majority don't, then the racists can either STFU or they can leave. Either way, 'Freedom of Speech' is protected in the only way it should be: by the will of the majority, because why should The Few be allowed to impose their will on The Many?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Your idea literally allows someone with money, AKA the biggest privilege of all, to determine what can and cannot be said, which is already a major problem in society. It would be easy to gather up people and say "I'll give you $10 cash if you vote No on this".

  • In recent weeks, Donald Trump has started having his tweets factchecked and published with disclaimers when they contain misleading information. Katie Hopkins, the woman who once compared migrants to cockroaches and called for a "final solution" in relation to Muslims, has been banned from Twitter. And a subreddit called r/The_Donald has been banned after Reddit updated its hate speech guidelines -- Reddit said in a statement that "mocking people with physical disabilities" and "describing a racial minority

    • The rules: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb... [twimg.com]

      Honestly these are very reasonable (assuming a spineless cuck actually adheres to it). Any time a "free speech" site shows up you always get some cunt spamming borderline (as in not actually illegal as written) child porn, posting scat and gore to silence things he doesn't like, or spamming walls of text to drown out things he doesn't like. These rules are basically "Your free speech does not entitle you to suppress or disrupt other people's use of free speech."

  • Let's say I decide to start my own 'social networking' site. You see this in the User Agreement:

    This Website is my personal property; for all intents and purposes, it's part of my home. You're guests I'm inviting into this thing that is part of my home, and like all guests in my home, you're expected to follow certain rules, many of which will be described below, but first and foremost is this rule:

    This being part of my Home and my personal Property, I am the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed here.
    If I decide the verbage or subject matter you're using is unacceptable to me, you will first receive a warning to cease and desist that subject or verbage, and the content I find offensive will be deleted; on your second offense, you will be permanently banned from my site, no appeal possible.

    You have freedom of choice to use or not use my social media website, and your acceptance of the User Agreement is mandatory and binding.

    Now, do you accept the terms and follow all the rules, especially the one written above, or do you complain about it and try to claim I'm 'infringing on your 1st Amendment rights'?
    Note that I'd be running a non-publicly-traded company with this website, and advertisers, if there are any (I might make it pay-only to avoid all advertisers) would know going in that they are not allowed to make any demands on what is and is not allowed on my website, that *I* am the sole arbiter of that.

  • It's interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Thursday July 02, 2020 @07:00PM (#60255964)
    that the sites owner has put limitations on what can be posted, but because it's a "conservative" site, the conservatives don't call it CENSORSHIP or say it's "taking their freedom of speech." Here is one other thing different than Twitter, which i'm sure will go over well when it happens: IF you post something, and Parler gets sued... they have an indemnify clause in their EULA, so the POSTER has to pay for Parler's legal defense. Seems like not only is the site censoring people (which is what this whole post is about), but it's going to force it's posters into bankruptcy if they do post something that causes problems.
  • I use https://memo.cash/ [memo.cash]

    Posts go to the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, whence they are replicated to storage all over the planet.

    Checkmate, authoritarian censors!

  • I'm an artist in my spare time, and I work mostly with the Nude form (non-erotic). I'm shadow-banned completely on IG and have almost no reach on Facebook even with heavily-censored art, so I'm *always* looking for new ways to share my stuff.

    I looked into Parler, and it's just more of the same... Puritanical and sexist nudity standards. Just with an extra dash of nazi thrown in. Not impressed.

  • “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.‘

    That’s it. That’s all you got. Twitter and such are not obliged to carry your text. If nobody will carry it, shout it from a street corner. That’s your right... mostly... stay in the lines.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • That is not it. and William Barr has pointed out what happened. Social media got big by minimizing their interference to free speech to what the law allows. Then when silicon valley had monopolized the main channels they did a bait and switch and now free speech is controlled by whatever their partners want it to be. And some of those partners are nations. So one of the things that happened is that countries apply censorship through private business, usually under cover of nice sounding names like hate spee

  • The post from the Parler CEO sounds like a joke.

    "When you disagree with someone, posting pictures of your fecal matter will not be tolerated".

    yup, this is what's gotten the Guardianistas so flustererd. Parler's report section is a lot more detailed than Twitters, but only includes stuff that anyone sane would agree with - not "I disagree with this user". If someone posts stuff you don't like, even if its obvious shitposting, you're expected to be a grown up and ignore it.

    But state-controlled censorship from

  • "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
    - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "All problems, depressions, wars, disasters, assassinations, all of them were planned, caused, instigated, and implemented by the International Bankers and their attempt to establish a central bank in every country in the world, which they have now done, thanks to corrupt politicians who have been bought and paid for. This is all you need to know about the history of the world."
    -- John F. Kennedy

    Politics is the gentle ar

Ignorance is bliss. -- Thomas Gray Fortune updates the great quotes, #42: BLISS is ignorance.

Working...