4 ms·

> 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 b

> 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.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > Parler allows hate speech. Parler literally says it doesn't allow itself to be used for "civil tort". I can't argue with you if you refuse to even acknowledge the legal terminology used here. Anyways I'll leave this link for you to learn more about how Civil torts are used to combat hate speech: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=uclr https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

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.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > Parler allows hate speech. Parler literally says it doesn't allow itself to be used for "civil tort". I can't argue with you if you refuse to even acknowledge the legal terminology used here. Anyways I'll leave this link for you to learn more about how Civil torts are used to combat hate speech: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=uclr https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...