4 ms·

> Pressure those platforms to ban legal speech Wait, direct threats of violence and child porn are legal speech now? Because that's what you'll find on Parler

> Pressure those platforms to ban legal speech Wait, direct threats of violence and child porn are legal speech now? Because that's what you'll find on Parler. Edit: for the sake of accuracy, Parler is unquestionably rife with threats of violence that they refuse to remove. Go visit /R/parlerwatch and despair. They do, however, remove CP from the site if it's reported by users, but as of 2020-12-02 they admit they lack any automated systems for detecting and removing it at scale.

convery 6y ago
Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing that comes to proponents minds is CP?
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  So you're just going to ignore the point, then, huh? Well, in case it wasn't clear, I'll try more words and hope this helps: Parler has knowingly allowed content to exist on their site that violates both the Google ToS and the law. This content isn't "naughty". It is very much illegal, and includes direct threats and incitement to violence among many other things. This includes, for example, calls to murder politicians, the police, etc. Parler has further affirmatively stated they will not remove that material despite having the ability to do so. In this way Parler distinguishes itself from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and so forth. That is, of course, their choice. However, a failure to moderate this kind of material violates Google's ToS. It is therefore also Google's and Apple's choice to enforce their ToS and remove the Parler app from their store. In no way does this represent censorship (neither Google nor Apple are in any way obligated to distribute third party software), nor does the offending content represent legal speech.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Because sad to say CP exists and is almost universally agreed to be enormously harmful, but free speech absolutists don't want to engage with reasonable questions of where of where and how limits on speech should be set. I'm in very of verybroad free speech permissions, but I'm also in favor of banning and prosecuting CP.
  - convery 6y ago
    Indeed, but such things are covered by other laws. Just curious as to why peoples mind doesn't go to removing copyrighted content, instructions for how to manufacture weaponry, animal-related issues etc. but seemingly always equate "posting naughty opinions" to "posting CP".
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      'Other laws' is just a duck to avoid discussing the question, because those laws do limit absolute free speech. People's minds don't go to those other things first because they are all more debatable than CP and not necessarily limit cases. No equation is taking place outside of your own mind.
bmarquez 6y ago
> child porn > Because that's what you'll find on Parler. No article I've read substantiates the presence of child pornography. Source?
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-... > Wernick elaborated after this story published, confirming that Parler has no system for detecting child pornography before it is viewed and potentially reported by users. However I absolutely admit your point: rather than affirmative statement of the presence of CP on the site, the issue is they've not built systems for finding and removing it.
  - bmarquez 6y ago
    So I use Parler occasionally, and one of the first things I noticed when I signed up is that they banned ALL pornography. They eventually loosened up their restrictions but I haven't run into any of it -- people generally sign up to talk about politics. They have a manual human moderation pool for removing illegal content. But they are very slow, it took over 12 hours for them to remove a spambot. Article about the porn stuff: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebuts-the-washington-posts-characterizatio/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebut... I keep wading into these threads defending Parler because they are nothing like 4chan, 8kun, or Gab. They do have moderation, they do remove illegal content, they just suck at it.
  - istinetz 6y ago
    I am willing to bet that hackernews also does not have an automated system for detecting child porn. And I am certain it didn't when it was still a very new platform. What's your point? By equivalence, you should be calling for hackernews to be shut down, right? By equivalence, you shouldn't be posting here.
- ghostgirl19 6y ago
  Was on parler yesterday morning. Saw VIVID cp. so did husbands friend later in the day. I clicked a hashtag for a march. He was scrolling the discover page.
touchpadder 6y ago
That's an outright lie.

convery 6y ago

Why is it that whenever someone posts a variation of "platforms shouldn't ban users for simply saying naughty words / having naughty opinions"; the first thing that comes to proponents minds is CP?

CarelessExpert 6y ago
So you're just going to ignore the point, then, huh? Well, in case it wasn't clear, I'll try more words and hope this helps: Parler has knowingly allowed content to exist on their site that violates both the Google ToS and the law. This content isn't "naughty". It is very much illegal, and includes direct threats and incitement to violence among many other things. This includes, for example, calls to murder politicians, the police, etc. Parler has further affirmatively stated they will not remove that material despite having the ability to do so. In this way Parler distinguishes itself from Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and so forth. That is, of course, their choice. However, a failure to moderate this kind of material violates Google's ToS. It is therefore also Google's and Apple's choice to enforce their ToS and remove the Parler app from their store. In no way does this represent censorship (neither Google nor Apple are in any way obligated to distribute third party software), nor does the offending content represent legal speech.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Because sad to say CP exists and is almost universally agreed to be enormously harmful, but free speech absolutists don't want to engage with reasonable questions of where of where and how limits on speech should be set. I'm in very of verybroad free speech permissions, but I'm also in favor of banning and prosecuting CP.
- convery 6y ago
  Indeed, but such things are covered by other laws. Just curious as to why peoples mind doesn't go to removing copyrighted content, instructions for how to manufacture weaponry, animal-related issues etc. but seemingly always equate "posting naughty opinions" to "posting CP".
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    'Other laws' is just a duck to avoid discussing the question, because those laws do limit absolute free speech. People's minds don't go to those other things first because they are all more debatable than CP and not necessarily limit cases. No equation is taking place outside of your own mind.

bmarquez 6y ago

> child porn > Because that's what you'll find on Parler. No article I've read substantiates the presence of child pornography. Source?

CarelessExpert 6y ago
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-... > Wernick elaborated after this story published, confirming that Parler has no system for detecting child pornography before it is viewed and potentially reported by users. However I absolutely admit your point: rather than affirmative statement of the presence of CP on the site, the issue is they've not built systems for finding and removing it.
- bmarquez 6y ago
  So I use Parler occasionally, and one of the first things I noticed when I signed up is that they banned ALL pornography. They eventually loosened up their restrictions but I haven't run into any of it -- people generally sign up to talk about politics. They have a manual human moderation pool for removing illegal content. But they are very slow, it took over 12 hours for them to remove a spambot. Article about the porn stuff: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebuts-the-washington-posts-characterizatio/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/7/parler-rebut... I keep wading into these threads defending Parler because they are nothing like 4chan, 8kun, or Gab. They do have moderation, they do remove illegal content, they just suck at it.
- istinetz 6y ago
  I am willing to bet that hackernews also does not have an automated system for detecting child porn. And I am certain it didn't when it was still a very new platform. What's your point? By equivalence, you should be calling for hackernews to be shut down, right? By equivalence, you shouldn't be posting here.
ghostgirl19 6y ago
Was on parler yesterday morning. Saw VIVID cp. so did husbands friend later in the day. I clicked a hashtag for a march. He was scrolling the discover page.

touchpadder 6y ago

That's an outright lie.