5 ms·

Wait you're telling me that platform with 330 Million monthly active users has more problems moderating low engagement content than the platform with 4 millio

Wait you're telling me that platform with *330 Million* monthly active users has more problems moderating low engagement content than the platform with 4 million MAUs? Say it ain't so! - And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images? Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content. Turns out if your only differentiator is you allow X that your competitor doesn't allow, you get a ton of X. Whether it's porn, hate speech, illegal products, you name it. You're inviting yourself to become a haven for X. - Also please confirm: You said Twitter only removes Right Wing content" Do you stand by such a statement? Because further discourse with you from me will rely on speaking within the realm of reality. - Reply to both comments since now I'm rate limited: Two comments back to back showing a tendency to read things in the most convenient way... Those images, literally just those images, are not why Parler was banned. Your argument literally relies on the fact! Otherwise those images exist for Twitter and they'd be kicked off! It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it - I literally gave you the reason right there! You allow X, other place doesn't, you'll be swamped with X. Call it game theory, call it human nature, call it whatever you want, that's how it's worked on the internet since time immemorial, I don't get why Parler was supposed different

shripadk 6y ago
> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images? Yes I am saying these are the images for which Parler was banned. Maybe you should do your research before you happen to accuse me of saying things I never said. These images were provided by Amazon to Parler as a justification to remove Parler from AWS. These images were not taken by me or provided by me. The article which covers these images: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... > Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content. No evidence to back up your claim here. Again, this is the sort of stupid left wing bubble that makes up most left wingers. Unless you can say exactly how much of the content was violent on Parler your guess is as good as mine. I just showed the GP evidence on how Twitter doesn't remove hate speech on its platform much the same as Parler. That is about it. I can dig thousands of tweets for you which show hate speech. I am not going to waste my time doing it. If Amazon can use the above images as justification to remove Parler then Twitter being online is hypocritical.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  It's funny that you ascribed a political slant to me. Go back and read every comment I've made as if I'm a 65 year old white man with greying hair who's voted Republican every year except this one because I didn't approve of Trump's handling of Coronavirus. Does anything change? Do my comments ring any less true? As I explained above, you also don't believe just those images that got them banned, it's the context they exist in that matters, that's literally what the next line says! And of course I explained exactly why I can confidently say Parler's ratio of hate speech would be higher... because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech. False. Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. No matter how much you try to twist it the facts are staring back in your face. That guidelines do exist. There is literally no differentiator between Twitter and Parler. Both take their own sweet time to moderate violent content/hate speech. Yet Amazon finds Parler not moderating "with urgency" a requirement to terminate business with Parler while renewing cloud contracts with Twitter for the same damn thing. I haven't seen a bigger hypocritical bunch. And what will this lead to? Fragmentation and balkanization of the internet.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      > Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. You have not done this. Parler allows hate speech. Parler literally takes it as a principle that they only "censor" illegal content and span jurisdiction. That excludes hate speech. Hate speech is not illegal in Parler and Twitter's jurisdiction for the hundredth time. That's why they were banned.
      - 6y ago
shripadk 6y ago
> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images? And now that I have shown you that Amazon did use those low engagement Parler posts as reason to boot Parler (their email mentions "98 examples"), will it use the same yardstick to boot Twitter out of AWS for the thousands of low engagement violent tweets that is littered across Twitter? If you have a convincing answer for it I'll be glad to engage with you further. I say so because Twitter is hosted on AWS (https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-its-cloud-needs https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-i...) If Amazon cannot kick Twitter out then I say that Big Tech is hypocritical and ideologically biased. Or that Twitter is a big paying customer and Amazon wouldn't want to mess with the relationship it has with Twitter. You pick what is the excuse going to be. --- Replying to your posts as edits because of rate limits *shrugs* > It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts. So why bother? Why is Amazon going out of its way to remove Parler from AWS for low engagement posts? It is not like some high profile user with a large following asked for people to commit violence right? I am literally using your own justification for Parler too. Why is your justification for Twitter okay while not okay for Parler? If Amazon had evidence of high engagement posts spreading violence in Parler it would have attached those images. Not images from low engagement posts. This just goes to show that Big Tech just doesn't want Parler in there. That is all there is to it. It is an ideological battle. Else the same filth you find in right wing Parler you find in Twitter, Facebook and the rest of social media. There is literally no difference between any of these social platforms.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  > Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts. Nope. You see you tacked on your own little part that changes the meaning in a HUGE way. Parler eschewed censorship period. You're slowly inching towards getting this No matter how much engagement a post had, how much vitriol someone spewed, literally the first page is promising there is no deplatforming a user for their speech. So when your differentiator is you don't censor at all, you become a lightning rod for things like hate speech! - I mean seriously this applies to ANYTHING: imagine a burger place called "WcDonalds" We have an 1:1 equivalent to menu to McDonalds. But we're lesser known, long term prospects are unknown. Despite that we aim to be functionally equivalent to McDonalds with one small twist... We allow drug use in our restaurants. Let's say it's a state that decriminalized drugs, we allow you to toke up in line, as you eat, we're saying its your right. - Who do you think ends up going to our WcDonalds? If someone claims WcDonalds locations are just full of drug users, are you going to go "you have no proof of that!!!!"? Isn't it common sense that's the outcome? That's Parler and Twitter. The biggest draw to Parler is that you have free speech regardless of engagement, where Twitter is limited speech. Anything that doesn't fit in the Twitter limited speech, including hate speech and racism, is going to be attracted to Parler. And in Twitter when you see it you can report it and there's a reason for it to be removed! Even if it fails for old low enagament posts! But on Parler, by design, that content will not be removed. No matter how big it gets, how many reports it has, by design, the user won't be deplatformed. - Also seriously I want you to clarify if you actually think Twitter only deletes Right Wing comments, it's a pretty off the wall claim that harms the weight of any further discussion

Wait you're telling me that platform with *330 Million* monthly active users has more problems moderating low engagement content than the platform with 4 millio

shripadk 6y ago

> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images? Yes I am saying these are the images for which Parler was banned. Maybe you should do your research before you happen to accuse me of saying things I never said. These images were provided by Amazon to Parler as a justification to remove Parler from AWS. These images were not taken by me or provided by me. The article which covers these images: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... > Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content. No evidence to back up your claim here. Again, this is the sort of stupid left wing bubble that makes up most left wingers. Unless you can say exactly how much of the content was violent on Parler your guess is as good as mine. I just showed the GP evidence on how Twitter doesn't remove hate speech on its platform much the same as Parler. That is about it. I can dig thousands of tweets for you which show hate speech. I am not going to waste my time doing it. If Amazon can use the above images as justification to remove Parler then Twitter being online is hypocritical.

BoorishBears 6y ago
It's funny that you ascribed a political slant to me. Go back and read every comment I've made as if I'm a 65 year old white man with greying hair who's voted Republican every year except this one because I didn't approve of Trump's handling of Coronavirus. Does anything change? Do my comments ring any less true? As I explained above, you also don't believe just those images that got them banned, it's the context they exist in that matters, that's literally what the next line says! And of course I explained exactly why I can confidently say Parler's ratio of hate speech would be higher... because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech. False. Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. No matter how much you try to twist it the facts are staring back in your face. That guidelines do exist. There is literally no differentiator between Twitter and Parler. Both take their own sweet time to moderate violent content/hate speech. Yet Amazon finds Parler not moderating "with urgency" a requirement to terminate business with Parler while renewing cloud contracts with Twitter for the same damn thing. I haven't seen a bigger hypocritical bunch. And what will this lead to? Fragmentation and balkanization of the internet.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    > Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. You have not done this. Parler allows hate speech. Parler literally takes it as a principle that they only "censor" illegal content and span jurisdiction. That excludes hate speech. Hate speech is not illegal in Parler and Twitter's jurisdiction for the hundredth time. That's why they were banned.
    - 6y ago

shripadk 6y ago

> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images? And now that I have shown you that Amazon did use those low engagement Parler posts as reason to boot Parler (their email mentions "98 examples"), will it use the same yardstick to boot Twitter out of AWS for the thousands of low engagement violent tweets that is littered across Twitter? If you have a convincing answer for it I'll be glad to engage with you further. I say so because Twitter is hosted on AWS (https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-its-cloud-needs https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-i...) If Amazon cannot kick Twitter out then I say that Big Tech is hypocritical and ideologically biased. Or that Twitter is a big paying customer and Amazon wouldn't want to mess with the relationship it has with Twitter. You pick what is the excuse going to be. --- Replying to your posts as edits because of rate limits *shrugs* > It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts. So why bother? Why is Amazon going out of its way to remove Parler from AWS for low engagement posts? It is not like some high profile user with a large following asked for people to commit violence right? I am literally using your own justification for Parler too. Why is your justification for Twitter okay while not okay for Parler? If Amazon had evidence of high engagement posts spreading violence in Parler it would have attached those images. Not images from low engagement posts. This just goes to show that Big Tech just doesn't want Parler in there. That is all there is to it. It is an ideological battle. Else the same filth you find in right wing Parler you find in Twitter, Facebook and the rest of social media. There is literally no difference between any of these social platforms.

BoorishBears 6y ago
> Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts. Nope. You see you tacked on your own little part that changes the meaning in a HUGE way. Parler eschewed censorship period. You're slowly inching towards getting this No matter how much engagement a post had, how much vitriol someone spewed, literally the first page is promising there is no deplatforming a user for their speech. So when your differentiator is you don't censor at all, you become a lightning rod for things like hate speech! - I mean seriously this applies to ANYTHING: imagine a burger place called "WcDonalds" We have an 1:1 equivalent to menu to McDonalds. But we're lesser known, long term prospects are unknown. Despite that we aim to be functionally equivalent to McDonalds with one small twist... We allow drug use in our restaurants. Let's say it's a state that decriminalized drugs, we allow you to toke up in line, as you eat, we're saying its your right. - Who do you think ends up going to our WcDonalds? If someone claims WcDonalds locations are just full of drug users, are you going to go "you have no proof of that!!!!"? Isn't it common sense that's the outcome? That's Parler and Twitter. The biggest draw to Parler is that you have free speech regardless of engagement, where Twitter is limited speech. Anything that doesn't fit in the Twitter limited speech, including hate speech and racism, is going to be attracted to Parler. And in Twitter when you see it you can report it and there's a reason for it to be removed! Even if it fails for old low enagament posts! But on Parler, by design, that content will not be removed. No matter how big it gets, how many reports it has, by design, the user won't be deplatformed. - Also seriously I want you to clarify if you actually think Twitter only deletes Right Wing comments, it's a pretty off the wall claim that harms the weight of any further discussion