6 ms·

Thank you for mentioning that Parler do moderate when it goes against their desired message. This is the crux of the issue. Not only is Parler NOT moderating h

by dagmx 6y ago

Thank you for mentioning that Parler do moderate when it goes against their desired message. This is the crux of the issue. Not only is Parler NOT moderating hate speech on their platform, they pretend as if moderation is anathema to their model, thereby further enforcing the views of their users as all encompassing. They exist for the sole reason to provide a particular community, one that is fomenting insurrection and terrorism.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ebilgenius 6y ago
And yet Amazon managed to get a plan out of Parler that promised to increase moderation of violent content manually with the help of volunteers. Whether or not that plan was workable is moot now, it seems.
- dagmx 6y ago
  It is moot because the parler system has no accountability for the company or the "moderators". Parler can just say it was moderated by these random accounts and then try and wash their hands clean. The point is to have accountable, enforceable moderation. For people interested, this is the moderation system according to an interview the CEO gave ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher-john-matze.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher... ). > Well, the way we work on our platform is we put everything to a community jury. So everyone’s judged by a jury of their peers in determining whether the action is illegal or against our rules. And so if reported, it goes to a jury of people’s peers. And if it’s deemed illegal, promptly deleted. But, you know, the jury of five people get to decide. And it’s a random jury, so they don’t know each other. They don’t know what they’re voting. They just get the independent facts of the situation and they make their own judgment call. We’ve actually been inviting journalists and other people to join the jury as well, so that we have a nice transparent jury system.
bitstan 6y ago
Google also runs an ISP. Do you want them to police which IP addresses "don't promote insurrection"? Seems like something a judge and jury should perform.. Democracy and all that.. Calling it now. The horseshoe theory is about to manifest in the most real way possible. Silicon Valley is going to clamp down on first amendment rights and vindicate the garbage insurrection we're seeing now. You'd think Americans would've learned something about blowback. The social media platforms we use influence our democracy in a big way. The fact they can share ownership with hostile and non-democratic regimes is curious.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Don't you see you're falling down the same rathole? Your language and imagery is... kinda violent. It's not an argument about principles, with nuance, you've got enemies. You're warning about "blowback". You're saying that the insurrection is "vindicated". You're implying that this action against Parler is a foreign conspiracy too. Now... is that one post beyond what HN should allow? Probably not, and it's not my call, we'll see what dang says. But imagine a whole community of people like you warning constantly about imagined terrors and existential threats. And everyone gets to one-up each other. That's what Parler is. Before long you get senior thought leaders like the President's former attorney (or whatever Lin Wood is) expressly calling for the Vice President to be executed to stop an imagined "steal" of the election. And then the mob attacks the VP and congress trying to do exactly that. It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence. And it all starts with content moderation. The reason this seems so extreme is that it should have happened LONG ago.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    The fact that you think his post is violent and want to tattle to the moderator is all I need to be afraid of censorship. Every bit of his comment is a valid concern and Matt Taibbi had a similar and sadly predictive post about this a few weeks ago on this subject [1]. [1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american-wrong https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american...
  - 6y ago

by dagmx 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ebilgenius 6y ago

And yet Amazon managed to get a plan out of Parler that promised to increase moderation of violent content manually with the help of volunteers. Whether or not that plan was workable is moot now, it seems.

dagmx 6y ago
It is moot because the parler system has no accountability for the company or the "moderators". Parler can just say it was moderated by these random accounts and then try and wash their hands clean. The point is to have accountable, enforceable moderation. For people interested, this is the moderation system according to an interview the CEO gave ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher-john-matze.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opinion/sway-kara-swisher... ). > Well, the way we work on our platform is we put everything to a community jury. So everyone’s judged by a jury of their peers in determining whether the action is illegal or against our rules. And so if reported, it goes to a jury of people’s peers. And if it’s deemed illegal, promptly deleted. But, you know, the jury of five people get to decide. And it’s a random jury, so they don’t know each other. They don’t know what they’re voting. They just get the independent facts of the situation and they make their own judgment call. We’ve actually been inviting journalists and other people to join the jury as well, so that we have a nice transparent jury system.

bitstan 6y ago

Google also runs an ISP. Do you want them to police which IP addresses "don't promote insurrection"? Seems like something a judge and jury should perform.. Democracy and all that.. Calling it now. The horseshoe theory is about to manifest in the most real way possible. Silicon Valley is going to clamp down on first amendment rights and vindicate the garbage insurrection we're seeing now. You'd think Americans would've learned something about blowback. The social media platforms we use influence our democracy in a big way. The fact they can share ownership with hostile and non-democratic regimes is curious.

newacct583 6y ago
Don't you see you're falling down the same rathole? Your language and imagery is... kinda violent. It's not an argument about principles, with nuance, you've got enemies. You're warning about "blowback". You're saying that the insurrection is "vindicated". You're implying that this action against Parler is a foreign conspiracy too. Now... is that one post beyond what HN should allow? Probably not, and it's not my call, we'll see what dang says. But imagine a whole community of people like you warning constantly about imagined terrors and existential threats. And everyone gets to one-up each other. That's what Parler is. Before long you get senior thought leaders like the President's former attorney (or whatever Lin Wood is) expressly calling for the Vice President to be executed to stop an imagined "steal" of the election. And then the mob attacks the VP and congress trying to do exactly that. It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence. And it all starts with content moderation. The reason this seems so extreme is that it should have happened LONG ago.
- abernard1 6y ago
  The fact that you think his post is violent and want to tattle to the moderator is all I need to be afraid of censorship. Every bit of his comment is a valid concern and Matt Taibbi had a similar and sadly predictive post about this a few weeks ago on this subject [1]. [1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american-wrong https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american...
- 6y ago