8 ms·

> Considering that Facebook and Twitter can't effectively moderate their platforms What an odd statement. If that were true, Parler would have no reason to ex

> Considering that Facebook and Twitter can't effectively moderate their platforms What an odd statement. If that were true, Parler would have no reason to exist. After all, it's raison d'etre is specifically to allow people to get away from the perceived censorship on the major social media platforms.

kortilla 6y ago
False negatives are a thing. Getting some moderation done doesn’t mean it’s adequate or accurate.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  This is a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc, etc, all struggle with the issues of content moderation. The perfect example is Facebook pulling down a journalist photo of, if memory serves, a naked girl in a warzone as CP when obviously it was not. Yup, these systems are imperfect. But I think it's pretty silly to claim they're completely worthless or ineffective and therefore moderation simply cannot be done, and Parler is therefore off the hook. Heck, HN has commenting rules/guidelines. Are you suggesting those shouldn't exist and any system to enforce them is pointless?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    It’s not a nirvana fallacy. I’m saying moderation on Facebook is so bad that it should not pretend it’s moderating in any kind of balanced way. It just does the bare minimum to keep regulators away.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
It depends entirely on what you consider "effective moderation". Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy. Others think that if a platform so chooses it should be allowed to host any and all voices that don't spam or break any laws. Unfortunately the former are authoritarians who believe they have the right to deprive the latter from making that decision (and they currently hold the reigns of power in Silicon Valley and Washington DC).
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy. This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying. But, I will say this: I'll bet if Parler simply took threats of violence and incitement on their site seriously and agreed to move to proactively remove that kind of content, they wouldn't be in this position. Unfortunately, their entire pitch as a platform is to not moderate at all. To that end, their CEO has outright stated they will not moderate their site in any way, and as a result there's some truly scary content on that site from individuals who are literally advocating for the murder of those they view as political enemies. And if not calling for murder and violence is "cultural orthodoxy", well, I guess I'm pretty orthodox and I'd hope you are, too. As for Parler, their position on moderation always put them in direct violation of the Amazon/Google/Apple ToS for their various services. The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Actually their moderation stance it to not moderate LEGAL speech, illegal speech has to fail the "True Threat" legal standard which is FAR FAR FAR more limited than what Google, Apple, and Amazon desire, and more than the new standard deployed by twitter recently in the Trump ban, which relies on subjective analysis where by saying things like "American Patriot" are deemed to be "incitement" Such a standard is on it face politically slanted towards banning conservative/right speech more than left speech
    - CarelessExpert 6y ago
      Okay... So how would you classify these? Advocating for killing "commie Democrat traitor politicians": https://www.reddit.com/gallery/kua9fq https://www.reddit.com/gallery/kua9fq Advocating for bombing Amazon: https://i.imgur.com/WcwH3F1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WcwH3F1.jpg Advocating for attacking Apple stores: https://i.redd.it/8bcbvebwz6a61.png https://i.redd.it/8bcbvebwz6a61.png Oh, and by the way, that first guy (JuarezTX) has many more posts along those lines. So, thoughts? Is it more "subjective analysis" to consider these posts to be incitement to violence? Should Parler be removing these?

kortilla 6y ago

False negatives are a thing. Getting some moderation done doesn’t mean it’s adequate or accurate.

CarelessExpert 6y ago
This is a perfect example of the Nirvana fallacy. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc, etc, all struggle with the issues of content moderation. The perfect example is Facebook pulling down a journalist photo of, if memory serves, a naked girl in a warzone as CP when obviously it was not. Yup, these systems are imperfect. But I think it's pretty silly to claim they're completely worthless or ineffective and therefore moderation simply cannot be done, and Parler is therefore off the hook. Heck, HN has commenting rules/guidelines. Are you suggesting those shouldn't exist and any system to enforce them is pointless?
- kortilla 6y ago
  It’s not a nirvana fallacy. I’m saying moderation on Facebook is so bad that it should not pretend it’s moderating in any kind of balanced way. It just does the bare minimum to keep regulators away.

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

It depends entirely on what you consider "effective moderation". Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy. Others think that if a platform so chooses it should be allowed to host any and all voices that don't spam or break any laws. Unfortunately the former are authoritarians who believe they have the right to deprive the latter from making that decision (and they currently hold the reigns of power in Silicon Valley and Washington DC).

CarelessExpert 6y ago
> Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy. This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying. But, I will say this: I'll bet if Parler simply took threats of violence and incitement on their site seriously and agreed to move to proactively remove that kind of content, they wouldn't be in this position. Unfortunately, their entire pitch as a platform is to not moderate at all. To that end, their CEO has outright stated they will not moderate their site in any way, and as a result there's some truly scary content on that site from individuals who are literally advocating for the murder of those they view as political enemies. And if not calling for murder and violence is "cultural orthodoxy", well, I guess I'm pretty orthodox and I'd hope you are, too. As for Parler, their position on moderation always put them in direct violation of the Amazon/Google/Apple ToS for their various services. The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point.
- syshum 6y ago
  Actually their moderation stance it to not moderate LEGAL speech, illegal speech has to fail the "True Threat" legal standard which is FAR FAR FAR more limited than what Google, Apple, and Amazon desire, and more than the new standard deployed by twitter recently in the Trump ban, which relies on subjective analysis where by saying things like "American Patriot" are deemed to be "incitement" Such a standard is on it face politically slanted towards banning conservative/right speech more than left speech
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    Okay... So how would you classify these? Advocating for killing "commie Democrat traitor politicians": https://www.reddit.com/gallery/kua9fq https://www.reddit.com/gallery/kua9fq Advocating for bombing Amazon: https://i.imgur.com/WcwH3F1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/WcwH3F1.jpg Advocating for attacking Apple stores: https://i.redd.it/8bcbvebwz6a61.png https://i.redd.it/8bcbvebwz6a61.png Oh, and by the way, that first guy (JuarezTX) has many more posts along those lines. So, thoughts? Is it more "subjective analysis" to consider these posts to be incitement to violence? Should Parler be removing these?