7 ms·

It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours. So this was in effect a rigged deadline, somewhat analogous to a

It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours. So this was in effect a rigged deadline, somewhat analogous to a "Performance Improvement Plan".

insert_coin 6y ago
Apple has been trying to get them to implement moderation for months, they just gave them the 24 hours as an ultimatum after not getting anywhere with them and the real world situation escalating.
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  [citation needed]
cryptoz 6y ago
Sure it was a fair expectation, because that expectation was known before Parler even started up coding any apps. That's always been the rule. No hate speech, no illegal content, no direct threats of violence. Hardly an unfair expecation for Parler to meet those guidelines - the 24h notice seems to just be a kind gesture that wasn't really even necessary from Apple's part.
wnevets 6y ago
Parler and its issues have existed for a lot longer than 24 hours. This isn't the first time they been told, this is just the first time its resulted in the lost of life.
happytoexplain 6y ago
An impossible deadline in other contexts can of course be designed to be impossible for petty reasons, but when the object in question is a runaway train, you can't really wait to pull the plug. You can only give them as long as possible, and must prioritize safety.
beaugunderson 6y ago
> It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours. Apple asked for a plan, not for an implementation. From Apple's letter: > In addition [to removing the death threat examples in the letter], you must respond to this message with detailed information about how you intend to moderate and filter this content from your app, and what you will do to improve moderation and content filtering your service for this kind of objectionable content going forward.
- diebeforei485 6y ago
  They did. And Apple had a (likely pre-determined) response: > We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app. I'm not sure Apple is acting in good faith here. What is considered adequate? Facebook has had all sorts of crazy stuff on it like the Christchurch shooting (and regularly also abuses iOS API's) and has never been taken down.
  - bootlooped 6y ago
    Amazon's letter noted 2 things: They said they were going to use volunteer moderators to fix it, and their CEO said it wasn't really their problem anyway. So it's possible Apple also took those things into account and was able to determine it just wasn't going to work out, and there was no need to go any further. If you read Amazon's letter where they inform Parler they're kicked off, which you can find in the Buzzfeed News article, it sounds pretty cut and dry.
krts- 6y ago
A need for moderation was surely not a surprise. Using a lack of moderation as your selling point and then being surprised by such a deadline when you intentionally host content that doesn't tally with the platform you're on seems short-sighted. The intent is likely to not moderate - it'd kill the platform. It remains accessible by web. Does it need a native app?
- zadokshi 6y ago
  If 75 million trump voters want an app. The “does it need an app” question is a moot point. Ultimately the market will sort this out.
  - krts- 6y ago
    That's not quite fair. Parler is listed at 2.8 million total users back in July.[0] Assuming that's doubled and all lean towards Trump, that still represents a fair minority of voters. The website remains there for those users that want to use the platform, but curated app stores that aim to promote certain values (and are fairly clear about those values) don't seem to be the right place for these platforms that devolve into highly controversial places. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Usage
Bud 6y ago
You're missing the fact that this is a suspension, which can be reversed if Parler takes the required actions.

It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours. So this was in effect a rigged deadline, somewhat analogous to a "Performance Improvement Plan".

insert_coin 6y ago

Apple has been trying to get them to implement moderation for months, they just gave them the 24 hours as an ultimatum after not getting anywhere with them and the real world situation escalating.

diebeforei485 6y ago
[citation needed]

cryptoz 6y ago

Sure it was a fair expectation, because that expectation was known before Parler even started up coding any apps. That's always been the rule. No hate speech, no illegal content, no direct threats of violence. Hardly an unfair expecation for Parler to meet those guidelines - the 24h notice seems to just be a kind gesture that wasn't really even necessary from Apple's part.

wnevets 6y ago

Parler and its issues have existed for a lot longer than 24 hours. This isn't the first time they been told, this is just the first time its resulted in the lost of life.

happytoexplain 6y ago

An impossible deadline in other contexts can of course be designed to be impossible for petty reasons, but when the object in question is a runaway train, you can't really wait to pull the plug. You can only give them as long as possible, and must prioritize safety.

beaugunderson 6y ago

> It was never a fair expectation that Parler would be able to scale up moderation in 24 hours. Apple asked for a plan, not for an implementation. From Apple's letter: > In addition [to removing the death threat examples in the letter], you must respond to this message with detailed information about how you intend to moderate and filter this content from your app, and what you will do to improve moderation and content filtering your service for this kind of objectionable content going forward.

diebeforei485 6y ago
They did. And Apple had a (likely pre-determined) response: > We have determined that the measures you describe are inadequate to address the proliferation of dangerous and objectionable content on your app. I'm not sure Apple is acting in good faith here. What is considered adequate? Facebook has had all sorts of crazy stuff on it like the Christchurch shooting (and regularly also abuses iOS API's) and has never been taken down.
- bootlooped 6y ago
  Amazon's letter noted 2 things: They said they were going to use volunteer moderators to fix it, and their CEO said it wasn't really their problem anyway. So it's possible Apple also took those things into account and was able to determine it just wasn't going to work out, and there was no need to go any further. If you read Amazon's letter where they inform Parler they're kicked off, which you can find in the Buzzfeed News article, it sounds pretty cut and dry.

krts- 6y ago

A need for moderation was surely not a surprise. Using a lack of moderation as your selling point and then being surprised by such a deadline when you intentionally host content that doesn't tally with the platform you're on seems short-sighted. The intent is likely to not moderate - it'd kill the platform. It remains accessible by web. Does it need a native app?

zadokshi 6y ago
If 75 million trump voters want an app. The “does it need an app” question is a moot point. Ultimately the market will sort this out.
- krts- 6y ago
  That's not quite fair. Parler is listed at 2.8 million total users back in July.[0] Assuming that's doubled and all lean towards Trump, that still represents a fair minority of voters. The website remains there for those users that want to use the platform, but curated app stores that aim to promote certain values (and are fairly clear about those values) don't seem to be the right place for these platforms that devolve into highly controversial places. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#Usage

Bud 6y ago

You're missing the fact that this is a suspension, which can be reversed if Parler takes the required actions.