4 ms·

> because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech. False. Have already shown with evidence that they were i

> 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...