4 ms·

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 yo

• 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
    You haven't given any evidence that Instagram enforces only one viewpoint. And I'd be shocked if Instagram only pays for political posts from one side of the debate in American politics. That Instagram seeks to counter what it perceives of as false political claims has been convincingly made. That it does so to advance only one certain political agenda has not been made.
    • whimsicalism 6y ago
      My evidence was attempting to show that "claims Instagram thinks are true" is an explicitly political category. By moderating away political claims that diverge from that category, IG is advancing a political agenda. You're asking me to prove the much harder claim that IG has never taken moderation action against political beliefs on the other side of the political spectrum. Of course, that is a. an extremely hard claim to prove on an internet forum like this, because I'd have to have an index of all of IGs enforcement actions to prove that none of them met this criteria you've set up. b. not even close to proven in the case of Parler by the original poster
      • syops 6y ago
        From my perspective the proper response to OP is to either 1. point out how the claims made about Parler are false. 2. point out that this is done by other large social media websites and thus Parler should not be singled out. Keep in mind that by "this" in 2 I mean specifically that there are large social media sites that are designed specifically to enforce a certain political viewpoint. As I see it neither of these were done by you. I think though that we will not agree on these points and I accept that. Thank you for the engagement. I will read and consider any response you have and leave the discussion at that.
        • whimsicalism 6y ago
          > designed specifically to enforce a certain political viewpoint I'll try to break down my claim more simply. Saying something like "I don't really care about any political issues, but abortion is fundamentally wrong" is a political viewpoint. If IG took moderation action against people who were saying pro-abortion things, we would call that enforcing a certain political viewpoint. Similarly, a statement like "all claims are fine except for those that tie Biden's crime bill to mass incarceration" is, again, a political viewpoint. It perhaps doesn't map cleanly onto left or right or pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump, but the set of claims that IG picks to dispute is political because the issues around Biden's crime bill (for instance) were political. I'm neutral on whether Parler should be "singled out", my point was merely that the two conditions set up by OP are not sufficient to single out Parler, compared to the actions taken by other social media networks. Likewise, thanks for engaging.