Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

>By this logic why was @blcklivesmatter not kicked off Twitter etc long ago?

Do you mean why wasn't twitter kicked off AWS for users making calls for violence? If so: because Twitter has a moderation strategy in place that clearly isn't perfect but has proven to AWS that they're taking it seriously.

If you actually meant why wasn't @blcklivesmatter kicked off twitter I guess I'm not sure what relevance that has to Parler being kicked off AWS. But my first guess would be: because they deleted the offending tweets and stopped making repeated posts calling for violence?

I don't use twitter, do you have some examples of recent @blcklivesmatter tweets that are actively calling for violence against elected officials that haven't been moderated or removed?

View on HN

Why is a moderation strategy required at all? If I wanted to create a platform which followed US law and nothing else, I would be instantly deplatformed. Really, all I need is a legal department.

>Why is a moderation strategy required at all? If I wanted to create a platform which followed US law and nothing else, I would be instantly deplatformed. Really, all I need is a legal department.

I know you created a throwaway to troll, but I'll humor you anyway. I could come up with endless reasons why a company would want to require moderation, but at the end of the day: because they say so. Amazon created the platform, Amazon creates the rules.

I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.

I did not create a throwaway to troll, but for safety. People have tried to harass me out of my job for being a conservative (not Trumper) before.

> I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.

There's plenty of hypocrisy here, I agree -- but the real issue is scale. Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.

I'm not saying we should overturn their property rights, but that I disagree with them from a moral standpoint.

>Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.

They absolutely, 100% do not. Nobody is forcing you to go to google or twitter for news, I don't and would encourage you not to either. Nobody is stopping you from going to and subscribing directly to news sources. I do and would encourage you to as well.

This idea that you need social media to get news is exactly what's wrong with the world today. Quite frankly the fact so many people are willing to tune into glorified talk show hosts pretending to be a source of news (Hannity, Carlson, Maddow) does a disservice to ACTUAL journalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com