3 ms·

Do you have a source for this? Genuinely curious and couldn't find anything searching myself.

LatteLazy 6y ago
https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-... To be clear, it makes sense to ban fake accounts proporting to be well known people and people breaking the law. Banning anyone with views you dislike and anyone paroding conservatives is where it gets censourous.
- smbullet 6y ago
  > It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. Thanks for the link but nothing in that article supports this comment. The only mention of content not allowed is: 1. Matze's post about spam, NSFW content, and death threats not being allowed (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-07/parler.jpg?itok=nnm7hUKq https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public...) and 2. Matze's post about banning the accounts of a group of ANTIFA supporters (https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn). This image was linked without any context (perhaps because Matze posted this without any context) so we don't know why these accounts were banned.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    >A seeming blanket ban of Antifa supporters
- orblivion 6y ago
  One possible take is that there's a fundamental difference between banning opinions and banning presentation. You could ban spam, impersonations, doxxing, all harassment and insults, posting fecal matter, porn, racial and other epithets, and so forth, but still be able to discuss the related crazy ideas (holocaust denial, child porn legalization, etc). I think this preserves the most important part of free speech.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    If you let me ban enough classes of words and images, I can ban ideas. If nothing else, I can ban people talking about those ideas for their awkward attempts to get around the bans on words.

https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-it https://www.cato.org/blog/twitter-alternative-they-can-keep-... To be clear, it makes sense to ban fake accounts proporting to be well known people and people breaking the law. Banning anyone with views you dislike and anyone paroding conservatives is where it gets censourous.

smbullet 6y ago
> It’s worth noting that the first thing Parler did was start censoring anyone unsupportive of their form of conservatism. Thanks for the link but nothing in that article supports this comment. The only mention of content not allowed is: 1. Matze's post about spam, NSFW content, and death threats not being allowed (https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public/2020-07/parler.jpg?itok=nnm7hUKq https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs/public...) and 2. Matze's post about banning the accounts of a group of ANTIFA supporters (https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn https://imgur.com/WaAMEyn). This image was linked without any context (perhaps because Matze posted this without any context) so we don't know why these accounts were banned.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  >A seeming blanket ban of Antifa supporters
orblivion 6y ago
One possible take is that there's a fundamental difference between banning opinions and banning presentation. You could ban spam, impersonations, doxxing, all harassment and insults, posting fecal matter, porn, racial and other epithets, and so forth, but still be able to discuss the related crazy ideas (holocaust denial, child porn legalization, etc). I think this preserves the most important part of free speech.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  If you let me ban enough classes of words and images, I can ban ideas. If nothing else, I can ban people talking about those ideas for their awkward attempts to get around the bans on words.