Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler by kelnos on Sunday January 10, 2021 @05:46AM (#25713309)

I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it really worked. The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence. If someone wants to twist those words to get us to believe they are, we can look at the facts on the ground: no one became violent because of those words. (Of course that's not possible when you're judging speech immediately after it's said and don't have hindsight.)

On the flip side, quite a bit of violence did occur on the 6th; the speech that got us there was pretty clearly intended to get us there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler by serial_dev on Sunday January 10, 2021 @05:57AM (#25713389)

It's a thread about an article on Parler. I'm talking about that. Was "the speech that got us there" by Parler?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler by concordDance on Sunday January 10, 2021 @06:44AM (#25713732)

> The examples you provided are obviously not incitements to violence.

They are more obviously incitements to violence than a post saying they won't be attending the inauguration.

At this point it becomes mostly about what your model of the person speaking is. If you think they are evil you will interpret their intent and communication as evil and if you think they are good you will interpret it as good.

There is no possible methodology that can be used that will end up declaring Trump's comments incitement while declaring AOC's not to be that won't end up becoming become simple partisanship.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler by theelous3 on Sunday January 10, 2021 @07:47AM (#25714172)

But in reality we all know why he's not attending, and it isn't because his mom can't drive him or he didn't buy tickets.

Context is king, as always.

[ Parent | on HN ]