5 ms·

> Many consider "effective moderation" a purge of everyone who doesn't adhere completely to their cultural orthodoxy. This is clearly a strawman argument and

> 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?
  - syshum 6y ago
    This is what one would call "cherry picking" a type of logical fallacy, but I will play for the movement. Your first link is 404, so I can not comment on it The second likely would not rise to the level of a "True Threat" The third I think likely would / should be bannable as that is close enough for me to consider it a True Threat. Apple's complaint was the Parler was not aggressive enough in removing posts, not that they were not removing posts at all Apple, Google, and Amazon all have a very clear political bias in their enforcement of their own rules, I am not sure how this could even be debatable anymore. I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence only towards groups like the Police, or other unpopular groups... This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular
    - CarelessExpert 6y ago
      Reddit seems to be having issues, first link is spitting our server errors right now. My purpose wasn't to cherry pick, it was to understand what your line is re free/legal speech. The fact the second one isn't a direct call to action but just an implication, and therefore you think it's fine, is useful information. It tells me that your bar and mine are definitely not the same. I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!" Which is of course what makes Trump so effective. Decades of litigation have taught him the artform if plausible deniability. Never say what you want. Imply it and let folks put two and two together Of course, in the case if Parler, there's no shortage of folks who lack similar instincts and therefore say the quiet part loud... > I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence The difference is the CEO of Parler has ruled out moderating that kind of content, including the examples I've cited here, whereas every other site removes it. So the situation simply isn't comparable. > This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular Okay, so where are your examples? I'd be happy to provide my opinion if you'd like.
      - 6y ago
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying. Unfortunately objective reality is extremely polarizing in 2021. Calling for murder and violence is illegal and should be prosecuted under the law. >The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point. Its no mystery why monopolistic tech giants have moved in unison to silence and censor anyone who opposes the narrative pushed by the ruling elite. Extremely low-information people take this to mean silencing Trump and his ignorant followers. Informed people understand that voices across the political spectrum, from advocates for Palestinian rights to journalists who push back against war propaganda, have been silenced by tech giants at the behest of powerful interests. Fortunately, low-information people who numerically dominate our society and mindlessly bleat the propaganda they have been programmed with have nothing to fear from the new totalitarianism. Until of course they get branded as a "Nazi" by having the wrong friend or the wrong relative, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time, or being flagged by a nameless, faceless algorithm that has been "flawlessly" programmed to seek out "Nazis" and ensure that they aren't able to participate in society. Of course when you are unpersoned by a tech giant, and your bank account is cancelled, and you are put on a no fly list and you are restricted from participating in society in every other way, you can always contact the powers-that-be and easily get the situation cleared up, just like all the people who are summarily banned from Google or Facebook without an explanation, right?

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?
- syshum 6y ago
  This is what one would call "cherry picking" a type of logical fallacy, but I will play for the movement. Your first link is 404, so I can not comment on it The second likely would not rise to the level of a "True Threat" The third I think likely would / should be bannable as that is close enough for me to consider it a True Threat. Apple's complaint was the Parler was not aggressive enough in removing posts, not that they were not removing posts at all Apple, Google, and Amazon all have a very clear political bias in their enforcement of their own rules, I am not sure how this could even be debatable anymore. I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence only towards groups like the Police, or other unpopular groups... This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    Reddit seems to be having issues, first link is spitting our server errors right now. My purpose wasn't to cherry pick, it was to understand what your line is re free/legal speech. The fact the second one isn't a direct call to action but just an implication, and therefore you think it's fine, is useful information. It tells me that your bar and mine are definitely not the same. I'll bet you also don't think Trump encouraged the rioting the other day because he didn't explicitly say "hey everyone, riot now!" Which is of course what makes Trump so effective. Decades of litigation have taught him the artform if plausible deniability. Never say what you want. Imply it and let folks put two and two together Of course, in the case if Parler, there's no shortage of folks who lack similar instincts and therefore say the quiet part loud... > I can easily cherry pick comments from Twitter, Facebook, etc that have the same or stronger lang around incitement to violence The difference is the CEO of Parler has ruled out moderating that kind of content, including the examples I've cited here, whereas every other site removes it. So the situation simply isn't comparable. > This level of aggressive enforcement does not seem to be present if the target of the incitement is unpopular Okay, so where are your examples? I'd be happy to provide my opinion if you'd like.
    - 6y ago

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

>This is clearly a strawman argument and frankly such an already polarized statement that I'm not sure there's any point replying. Unfortunately objective reality is extremely polarizing in 2021. Calling for murder and violence is illegal and should be prosecuted under the law. >The real mystery is why nothing was done to this point. Its no mystery why monopolistic tech giants have moved in unison to silence and censor anyone who opposes the narrative pushed by the ruling elite. Extremely low-information people take this to mean silencing Trump and his ignorant followers. Informed people understand that voices across the political spectrum, from advocates for Palestinian rights to journalists who push back against war propaganda, have been silenced by tech giants at the behest of powerful interests. Fortunately, low-information people who numerically dominate our society and mindlessly bleat the propaganda they have been programmed with have nothing to fear from the new totalitarianism. Until of course they get branded as a "Nazi" by having the wrong friend or the wrong relative, or being at the wrong place at the wrong time, or being flagged by a nameless, faceless algorithm that has been "flawlessly" programmed to seek out "Nazis" and ensure that they aren't able to participate in society. Of course when you are unpersoned by a tech giant, and your bank account is cancelled, and you are put on a no fly list and you are restricted from participating in society in every other way, you can always contact the powers-that-be and easily get the situation cleared up, just like all the people who are summarily banned from Google or Facebook without an explanation, right?