5 ms·

You've made an argument that Instagram engages in some form of advancing certain viewpoints. You have not demonstrated that this is extensive and that Instagra

by syops 6y ago

You've made an argument that Instagram engages in some form of advancing certain viewpoints. You have not demonstrated that this is extensive and that Instagram enforces ideological conformity or that Instagram actively pays people to engage in said advancement of political agendas. There appears to be quite a difference between what Instagram does and what Parler does. The two do not appear to be comparable.

bzb6 6y ago
Get an Instagram account and say something against feminism, diversity, fat people, etc and see what happens.
- beepboopbeep 6y ago
  It's not unreasonable for a person instigating something through negative posts to receive negative reactions in return. That seems self evident.
  - dd36 6y ago
    Consequence free speech seems to be what is desired on these platforms. This was inevitable. You can’t monetize consequence free speech. It has to be in dark places like 4chan.
  - Wintamute 6y ago
    I think the point is that you don't need to make "negative posts" about those topics, rather discussing them from any angle that isn't the accepted progressive orthodoxy results in the ban hammer.
    - bzb6 6y ago
      Even here: my comment is already flagged.
    - awb 6y ago
      > discussing them from any angle that isn't the accepted progressive orthodoxy results in the ban hammer What are some examples of this?
      - malandrew 6y ago
        No dog in this particular fight as I don't care either way but to answer your question: I've seen plenty of examples involving TERFs or questioning transgender women in women's sports where the ban hammer was brought out. Another example is being egalitarian instead of equitarian. Being strictly egalitarian gets you labeled racist pretty quickly in many online forums. Just this past week in my neighborhood Buy Nothing group someone put up an item and made it available only to BIPOC people. Some people called it out as discriminatory and antithetical to community-building. They got called racist and accused of white fragility and were both muted for two weeks. No one on the side of orthodoxy got muted.
        awb 6y ago
        In both of the racial examples, people are attempting to correct past injustices. BIPOC people never received a court settlement for the injustices against them. Politicians left it up to citizens on how to repair the damage, so to do nothing seems far short of adequate, but it's a fair debate about how far to go. How many black people still alive today saw signs that said "No blacks allowed" back in the 60s? I guess your neighbor saw the Buy Nothing post as basically saying "No whites allowed". I could see the original poster's intent being "I'm sorry BIPOC that you haven't been treated as fairly as I have, and I want to help". Calling that discriminatory is a bit harsh, but I'm sure that doesn't feel good to a non-BIPOC person who's struggling and could really benefit from the item. I think there's a concerted effort since George Floyd to understand the plight of BIPOC people and help them feel safe and respected in the community, where they at times have felt the need to be invisible to be safe. It's like doing a fund raiser for indigenous people, trying to acknowledge that a group has been wronged and trying to help that group feel respected again. But it's a fine line for sure. At the point it becomes an anti-white thing rather than a pro-BIPOC thing, the conditions change dramatically.
whimsicalism 6y ago
> Instagram actively pays people to engage in said advancement of political agendas. I haven't seen evidence that Parler's payments are specifically tied to promoting certain political agendas versus just being an influential poster. > You have not demonstrated that this is extensive Well, I've demonstrated it as convincingly as the user above who linked to a twitter post of someone just saying they have "robust moderation."
- syops 6y ago
  I don't claim anything about the veracity of the post you responded to or about your claims either. Except that your claims aren't an apt comparison because your comparison is logically flawed. Instagram paying some users for their content isn't the same as Instagram paying people to advocate a certain political agenda. And having a moderation system in place isn't the same as having a moderation system in place that is designed to ensure only a certain political viewpoint is discussed. And you've made no claims about Instagram enforcing only one political viewpoint. I was just pointing out that your statements, if true, still don't support your conclusion as they don't provide an apt comparison to the claims about Parler.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > And you've made no claims about Instagram enforcing only one political viewpoint. I think I've made pretty explicit claims about political moderation by Instagram. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of racism/sexism/etc. so I find it hard to mind, but as I've shown, they also moderate contested political claims, like stuff about Biden's crime bill, Hunter Biden, etc. Those are political issues, and I've provided evidence of them enforcing that viewpoint. The original comment provided no actual evidence of Parler enforcing a single viewpoint, but we all know what Parler is so it doesn't take (me at least) much convincing. I've explained both why my comparisons are not logically flawed (no evidence that Parler pays for a "certain political agenda") and have stronger epistemic backing than the claims being made about Parler.
    - syops 6y ago

by syops 6y ago

bzb6 6y ago

Get an Instagram account and say something against feminism, diversity, fat people, etc and see what happens.

beepboopbeep 6y ago
It's not unreasonable for a person instigating something through negative posts to receive negative reactions in return. That seems self evident.
- dd36 6y ago
  Consequence free speech seems to be what is desired on these platforms. This was inevitable. You can’t monetize consequence free speech. It has to be in dark places like 4chan.
- Wintamute 6y ago
  I think the point is that you don't need to make "negative posts" about those topics, rather discussing them from any angle that isn't the accepted progressive orthodoxy results in the ban hammer.
  - bzb6 6y ago
    Even here: my comment is already flagged.
  - awb 6y ago
    > discussing them from any angle that isn't the accepted progressive orthodoxy results in the ban hammer What are some examples of this?
    - malandrew 6y ago
      No dog in this particular fight as I don't care either way but to answer your question: I've seen plenty of examples involving TERFs or questioning transgender women in women's sports where the ban hammer was brought out. Another example is being egalitarian instead of equitarian. Being strictly egalitarian gets you labeled racist pretty quickly in many online forums. Just this past week in my neighborhood Buy Nothing group someone put up an item and made it available only to BIPOC people. Some people called it out as discriminatory and antithetical to community-building. They got called racist and accused of white fragility and were both muted for two weeks. No one on the side of orthodoxy got muted.
      - awb 6y ago
        In both of the racial examples, people are attempting to correct past injustices. BIPOC people never received a court settlement for the injustices against them. Politicians left it up to citizens on how to repair the damage, so to do nothing seems far short of adequate, but it's a fair debate about how far to go. How many black people still alive today saw signs that said "No blacks allowed" back in the 60s? I guess your neighbor saw the Buy Nothing post as basically saying "No whites allowed". I could see the original poster's intent being "I'm sorry BIPOC that you haven't been treated as fairly as I have, and I want to help". Calling that discriminatory is a bit harsh, but I'm sure that doesn't feel good to a non-BIPOC person who's struggling and could really benefit from the item. I think there's a concerted effort since George Floyd to understand the plight of BIPOC people and help them feel safe and respected in the community, where they at times have felt the need to be invisible to be safe. It's like doing a fund raiser for indigenous people, trying to acknowledge that a group has been wronged and trying to help that group feel respected again. But it's a fine line for sure. At the point it becomes an anti-white thing rather than a pro-BIPOC thing, the conditions change dramatically.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> Instagram actively pays people to engage in said advancement of political agendas. I haven't seen evidence that Parler's payments are specifically tied to promoting certain political agendas versus just being an influential poster. > You have not demonstrated that this is extensive Well, I've demonstrated it as convincingly as the user above who linked to a twitter post of someone just saying they have "robust moderation."

syops 6y ago
I don't claim anything about the veracity of the post you responded to or about your claims either. Except that your claims aren't an apt comparison because your comparison is logically flawed. Instagram paying some users for their content isn't the same as Instagram paying people to advocate a certain political agenda. And having a moderation system in place isn't the same as having a moderation system in place that is designed to ensure only a certain political viewpoint is discussed. And you've made no claims about Instagram enforcing only one political viewpoint. I was just pointing out that your statements, if true, still don't support your conclusion as they don't provide an apt comparison to the claims about Parler.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > And you've made no claims about Instagram enforcing only one political viewpoint. I think I've made pretty explicit claims about political moderation by Instagram. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of racism/sexism/etc. so I find it hard to mind, but as I've shown, they also moderate contested political claims, like stuff about Biden's crime bill, Hunter Biden, etc. Those are political issues, and I've provided evidence of them enforcing that viewpoint. The original comment provided no actual evidence of Parler enforcing a single viewpoint, but we all know what Parler is so it doesn't take (me at least) much convincing. I've explained both why my comparisons are not logically flawed (no evidence that Parler pays for a "certain political agenda") and have stronger epistemic backing than the claims being made about Parler.
  - syops 6y ago