5 ms·

You, like Parler, have been targeted by the powers that be. You may have nothing else in common other than that but, you're in the same boat it seems.

tmpz22 6y ago
Parler curated the content on their platform for months including shadowbanning new accounts until they had been approved by volunteer moderators. Accounts on Parler called for and planned violence against elected officials for months. Executives at the company spoke often and publicly supporting that content. If your going to argue with a straight face the this new situation is the same as Parler, your putting Element side by side with some very bad company.
- manquer 6y ago
  Op said they there is nothing else in common. They are in the same boat as parler in the sense that another communication platform not owned by a big corp is being targeted and removed. Matrix likely will come back for some of the reasons you mention . But fact is google and apple arbitrarily without warning or notice remove apps from their store. The stores should be considered utility like electricity google should not able to refuse service randomly.
  - flunhat 6y ago
    > parler in the sense that another communication platform not owned by a big corp Parler is owned by the Mercer family, of Renaissance Technologies fame, one of the most successful hedge funds in existence. They are personally worth tens of billions of dollars.
    - manquer 6y ago
      Still not even close to the trillon+ worth of google or apple. Also just cause they worth billions means they will back parler with billions. Parler itself is pretty small fish financially speaking
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  > If your going to argue with a straight face the this new situation is the same as Parler Just go reread what gp wrote. He basically said the exact opposite of this. You are putting words in his mouth and interpereting his comment in the least charitable way possible.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- cheph 6y ago
  > Accounts on Parler called for and planned violence against elected officials for months. Executives at the company spoke often and publicly supporting that content. Did not know this, you have a source for this?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    No, Parler executives did not “speak often publicly supporting planned violence against elected officials”. They would have been arrested already if this was that clear of a trail.
- wernercd 6y ago
  > call for and planned violence And yet, accounts that did the same for AntiFA fascists and BLM "peaceful protests" for 4 years still stand. As do the platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc). Banning platforms while letting those who encouraged much worse for longer isn't a way to instill confidence in unbiased decisions.
- oji0hub 6y ago
  > Accounts on Parler called for and planned violence against elected officials for months When Trump was elected there were riots for weeks under banners like "not my president" and "never trump". No one wrote anything about the capitol being under attack or people storming the capitol etc. Instead they were "activists" and "protesters" and to the extent anyone did anything really bad, they were "incited by Trump" so it was really his fault anyway. Then for the following years, organizations like antifa and blm and countless individuals have been inciting violence on a daily basis on platforms like twitter, reddit and facebook. These platforms are still up. More than just up, they enjoy the support of the same organizations that banned parler. The conclusion? These people are apparently fine with inciting violence. They don't want to discuss things. They just want to make sure the people who get attacked are people they don't like.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > No one wrote anything about the capitol being under attack or people storming the capitol[.] Because no one attacked or stormed the capitol during those protests.
    - oji0hub 6y ago
      I don't know what to say. For weeks people were roaming the streets, smashing windows, cars, beating people up, etc. ???
      - slavak 6y ago
        The Capitol is a literal building in Washington DC, which is the seat of the United States legislative. Even if it _was_ true that "people were roaming the streets smashing windows" when Trump was elected, no one was storming the Capitol building, which is why no one wrote anything about people storming the Capitol...
        oji0hub 6y ago
        Even if it _was_ true? Do you live in a cave? Did you also miss all of the other "demonstration"? Like just recently a bunch of groups were rioting and smashed and looted every single shop in block after block in a whole bunch of locations? One side smashes things up for weeks all over the country and "oh they're activists and protesters" and another groups does barely any damage in one location for a day and they're "storming the capitol"? I don't think you are speaking in good faith.
- SirensOfTitan 6y ago
  Do you have any sources supporting your statements here? This feels like fake news to me. A large portion of these protests were planned on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/facebook-role-in-capitol-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/faceboo... ...should they be removed and silenced because of it? Or should all of these gigantic tech companies with the checkbooks to provide exhaustive moderation enjoy their 230 powers while denying the right to all of the little guys? Parlor and Gab are fairly harrowing examples of what happens when censorship occurs. People leave platforms with diverse views and head to echo chambers. Those folks end up having stronger, more radical opinions because they were forced into a corner. No one has ever given me any compelling reason for censorship. Hate is defeated in the open, it is fairly impossible to deal with in private channels. Censors also cannot censor everything, so content always slips through the cracks.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  It turns out it was Facebook that was used for planning.
walrus01 6y ago
Element and Parler are nothing alike. Element is a chat client. It's an empty piece of software for use with your own choice of server. Element is to a chat server, as Thunderbird is to an email server. It's basically a glorified IRC client. It contains no content of its own. Parler was basically a curated, centrally run, Facebook-message-board-replacement for neonazis, antisemites, qanon conspiracy theorists, and the lunatic fringe of the alt-right.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  lol, Parler was just right wing Twitter. There's extreme content on both those websites. Calls for violence and death threats galore. If Parler called for an insurrection then you must also hold Twitter accountable for the violence it propagated. Matrix is probably not coming back for exactly the reason Parler was nuked, because it provides a free speech platform to "undesirables". I hope they double down on PWAs after this incident. Edit: Please have a conversation instead of drive by downvoting.
  - patrickaljord 6y ago
    Don't count on PWAs. Once these free speech platforms start embracing PWAs and they become super popular, Chrome and Safari will simply censor them directly. When you will try to visit these PWAs, you will get a message that says "this website contains hate speech and has been blacklisted as it doesn't respect our terms of services for a safe and friendly browsing experience we thrive to offer our users". Any browser that allows accessing these PWAs will be banned from the app/play store. Let's not kid ourselves this isn't what's coming next.
    - dextralt 6y ago
      This is exactly what's going to happen, not just with PWAs but with all websites. The mechanism ("Google Safe Browsing") is in place, precedents are being set, the number of hysterical ideologues who will support that is growing. But on the bright side, I think if it was Mozilla with 90% of the browser market and not Google, this would've happened already.
ttt0 6y ago
People will surely point out the obvious differences between the takedown of Parler and Element and I'd agree that it's not exactly the same thing, since Parler is its own platform and Element is just a client. However, when looking on a bigger picture of the recent takedowns and trying to make sense of it, it does indeed seem to be connected. The only conclusion that seems rational to me is as follows: Everyone tries to push their burden of moderation on people below them, because no one can actually keep up with it. And if the moderation is not enforced, they risk being taken down by someone above them. That would explain why everyone is so trigger happy when it comes to censorship. When the WallStreetBets people were taken down by Facebook and Discord, they didn't ban the individuals who were actually violating the policy, but the entire community. It's also worth to note, that the takedowns can be enforced selectively, as we see here - Google obviously won't take down their own browser or email client, that also allows to access abusive content - assuming that's what Element was taken down for. It's probably selectively enforced on the social media too, but I'm out of the loop on what actually goes on there, so to be fair, I cannot prove it. If this is actually what is happening, the only solution as far as I see it, is to extend the First Amendment to social media. Another solution could be to convince the people and the media to stop pressuring companies into deplatforming other people, but that's in my opinion definitely not going to happen. So it's either applying the protections of 1A to the internet or the censorship will get worse and worse.
- laumars 6y ago
  > If this is actually what is happening, That’s a big “if” though. The “abusive content” angle is just a working theory. It could just as easily be Goodge taking a dislike to a website link offering donations outside of the Play store (or something equally mundane). The problem is, until Google respond, we have no idea why the takedown happened. And here lies the real problem: without Google being transparent about their takedowns it leaves app developers in a difficult position where they can’t really support their uses. The one slight good thing from all this is that at least with Android you can side load apps (which is more than can be said for iOS).
  - ttt0 6y ago
tomstockmail 6y ago
I don't agree with OP here but I've found a lot of people from the Parler/Gab crowd have found Matrix lack of content moderation appealing and have been in channels on the Matrix directory that have all the same content as Parler/Gab. I would recommend the Matrix team start taking content moderation more seriously as my experience is they do not take it seriously. They may want to disable room creation on matrix.org in the meantime.
- soupbowl 6y ago
  Can you give me an example of the things you have seen on matrix that should be moderated? Should matrix devs limit the amount of people that can use their open federated network so they can afford to moderate every e2ee group chat around the globe?
  - tomstockmail 6y ago
    So to clarify, these are rooms that are on matrix.org. I'm not following your statement on limiting opening federated network. I am suggesting that matrix.org stop users with the name "kikedestroyer" on their own instance from connecting to matrix.org rooms and talking about exterminating jews. What KD does on their own instance of matrix is not of my or matrix.org concern.

tmpz22 6y ago

Parler curated the content on their platform for months including shadowbanning new accounts until they had been approved by volunteer moderators. Accounts on Parler called for and planned violence against elected officials for months. Executives at the company spoke often and publicly supporting that content. If your going to argue with a straight face the this new situation is the same as Parler, your putting Element side by side with some very bad company.

manquer 6y ago
Op said they there is nothing else in common. They are in the same boat as parler in the sense that another communication platform not owned by a big corp is being targeted and removed. Matrix likely will come back for some of the reasons you mention . But fact is google and apple arbitrarily without warning or notice remove apps from their store. The stores should be considered utility like electricity google should not able to refuse service randomly.
- flunhat 6y ago
  > parler in the sense that another communication platform not owned by a big corp Parler is owned by the Mercer family, of Renaissance Technologies fame, one of the most successful hedge funds in existence. They are personally worth tens of billions of dollars.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Still not even close to the trillon+ worth of google or apple. Also just cause they worth billions means they will back parler with billions. Parler itself is pretty small fish financially speaking
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
> If your going to argue with a straight face the this new situation is the same as Parler Just go reread what gp wrote. He basically said the exact opposite of this. You are putting words in his mouth and interpereting his comment in the least charitable way possible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cheph 6y ago
> Accounts on Parler called for and planned violence against elected officials for months. Executives at the company spoke often and publicly supporting that content. Did not know this, you have a source for this?
- kortilla 6y ago
  No, Parler executives did not “speak often publicly supporting planned violence against elected officials”. They would have been arrested already if this was that clear of a trail.
wernercd 6y ago
> call for and planned violence And yet, accounts that did the same for AntiFA fascists and BLM "peaceful protests" for 4 years still stand. As do the platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc). Banning platforms while letting those who encouraged much worse for longer isn't a way to instill confidence in unbiased decisions.
oji0hub 6y ago
> Accounts on Parler called for and planned violence against elected officials for months When Trump was elected there were riots for weeks under banners like "not my president" and "never trump". No one wrote anything about the capitol being under attack or people storming the capitol etc. Instead they were "activists" and "protesters" and to the extent anyone did anything really bad, they were "incited by Trump" so it was really his fault anyway. Then for the following years, organizations like antifa and blm and countless individuals have been inciting violence on a daily basis on platforms like twitter, reddit and facebook. These platforms are still up. More than just up, they enjoy the support of the same organizations that banned parler. The conclusion? These people are apparently fine with inciting violence. They don't want to discuss things. They just want to make sure the people who get attacked are people they don't like.
- Shared404 6y ago
  > No one wrote anything about the capitol being under attack or people storming the capitol[.] Because no one attacked or stormed the capitol during those protests.
  - oji0hub 6y ago
    I don't know what to say. For weeks people were roaming the streets, smashing windows, cars, beating people up, etc. ???
    - slavak 6y ago
      The Capitol is a literal building in Washington DC, which is the seat of the United States legislative. Even if it _was_ true that "people were roaming the streets smashing windows" when Trump was elected, no one was storming the Capitol building, which is why no one wrote anything about people storming the Capitol...
      - oji0hub 6y ago
        Even if it _was_ true? Do you live in a cave? Did you also miss all of the other "demonstration"? Like just recently a bunch of groups were rioting and smashed and looted every single shop in block after block in a whole bunch of locations? One side smashes things up for weeks all over the country and "oh they're activists and protesters" and another groups does barely any damage in one location for a day and they're "storming the capitol"? I don't think you are speaking in good faith.
SirensOfTitan 6y ago
Do you have any sources supporting your statements here? This feels like fake news to me. A large portion of these protests were planned on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/facebook-role-in-capitol-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/faceboo... ...should they be removed and silenced because of it? Or should all of these gigantic tech companies with the checkbooks to provide exhaustive moderation enjoy their 230 powers while denying the right to all of the little guys? Parlor and Gab are fairly harrowing examples of what happens when censorship occurs. People leave platforms with diverse views and head to echo chambers. Those folks end up having stronger, more radical opinions because they were forced into a corner. No one has ever given me any compelling reason for censorship. Hate is defeated in the open, it is fairly impossible to deal with in private channels. Censors also cannot censor everything, so content always slips through the cracks.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
It turns out it was Facebook that was used for planning.

walrus01 6y ago

Element and Parler are nothing alike. Element is a chat client. It's an empty piece of software for use with your own choice of server. Element is to a chat server, as Thunderbird is to an email server. It's basically a glorified IRC client. It contains no content of its own. Parler was basically a curated, centrally run, Facebook-message-board-replacement for neonazis, antisemites, qanon conspiracy theorists, and the lunatic fringe of the alt-right.

throwaway3699 6y ago
lol, Parler was just right wing Twitter. There's extreme content on both those websites. Calls for violence and death threats galore. If Parler called for an insurrection then you must also hold Twitter accountable for the violence it propagated. Matrix is probably not coming back for exactly the reason Parler was nuked, because it provides a free speech platform to "undesirables". I hope they double down on PWAs after this incident. Edit: Please have a conversation instead of drive by downvoting.
- patrickaljord 6y ago
  Don't count on PWAs. Once these free speech platforms start embracing PWAs and they become super popular, Chrome and Safari will simply censor them directly. When you will try to visit these PWAs, you will get a message that says "this website contains hate speech and has been blacklisted as it doesn't respect our terms of services for a safe and friendly browsing experience we thrive to offer our users". Any browser that allows accessing these PWAs will be banned from the app/play store. Let's not kid ourselves this isn't what's coming next.
  - dextralt 6y ago
    This is exactly what's going to happen, not just with PWAs but with all websites. The mechanism ("Google Safe Browsing") is in place, precedents are being set, the number of hysterical ideologues who will support that is growing. But on the bright side, I think if it was Mozilla with 90% of the browser market and not Google, this would've happened already.

ttt0 6y ago

People will surely point out the obvious differences between the takedown of Parler and Element and I'd agree that it's not exactly the same thing, since Parler is its own platform and Element is just a client. However, when looking on a bigger picture of the recent takedowns and trying to make sense of it, it does indeed seem to be connected. The only conclusion that seems rational to me is as follows: Everyone tries to push their burden of moderation on people below them, because no one can actually keep up with it. And if the moderation is not enforced, they risk being taken down by someone above them. That would explain why everyone is so trigger happy when it comes to censorship. When the WallStreetBets people were taken down by Facebook and Discord, they didn't ban the individuals who were actually violating the policy, but the entire community. It's also worth to note, that the takedowns can be enforced selectively, as we see here - Google obviously won't take down their own browser or email client, that also allows to access abusive content - assuming that's what Element was taken down for. It's probably selectively enforced on the social media too, but I'm out of the loop on what actually goes on there, so to be fair, I cannot prove it. If this is actually what is happening, the only solution as far as I see it, is to extend the First Amendment to social media. Another solution could be to convince the people and the media to stop pressuring companies into deplatforming other people, but that's in my opinion definitely not going to happen. So it's either applying the protections of 1A to the internet or the censorship will get worse and worse.

laumars 6y ago
> If this is actually what is happening, That’s a big “if” though. The “abusive content” angle is just a working theory. It could just as easily be Goodge taking a dislike to a website link offering donations outside of the Play store (or something equally mundane). The problem is, until Google respond, we have no idea why the takedown happened. And here lies the real problem: without Google being transparent about their takedowns it leaves app developers in a difficult position where they can’t really support their uses. The one slight good thing from all this is that at least with Android you can side load apps (which is more than can be said for iOS).
- ttt0 6y ago

tomstockmail 6y ago

I don't agree with OP here but I've found a lot of people from the Parler/Gab crowd have found Matrix lack of content moderation appealing and have been in channels on the Matrix directory that have all the same content as Parler/Gab. I would recommend the Matrix team start taking content moderation more seriously as my experience is they do not take it seriously. They may want to disable room creation on matrix.org in the meantime.

soupbowl 6y ago
Can you give me an example of the things you have seen on matrix that should be moderated? Should matrix devs limit the amount of people that can use their open federated network so they can afford to moderate every e2ee group chat around the globe?
- tomstockmail 6y ago
  So to clarify, these are rooms that are on matrix.org. I'm not following your statement on limiting opening federated network. I am suggesting that matrix.org stop users with the name "kikedestroyer" on their own instance from connecting to matrix.org rooms and talking about exterminating jews. What KD does on their own instance of matrix is not of my or matrix.org concern.