3 ms·

For the first link, there was just one upvote in 23 hours. For the second link, there was 6 up and 3 down votes in 2 days. The third link has all information re

by bArray 6y ago

For the first link, there was just one upvote in 23 hours. For the second link, there was 6 up and 3 down votes in 2 days. The third link has all information removed, to the point it can't be verified. The fourth link had four upvotes probably in 1 day or more. There's no doubt the material is objectionable, but it was only up for a short time and got very little reach, even getting negative reactions within their own circles. And bare in mind, these aren't exactly random examples either - this is supposed to represent the very worst - and it's just some random people with little reach who get negative reactions from their own followers. Meanwhile over on Twitter you've got people sharing a picture of Trump's severed head, you've got "Hang Mike Pence" trending as a hash tag, you have people celebrating the death of the lady who got shot in the capital, etc. Perhaps a little context?

EpicEng 6y ago
>For the first link, there was just one upvote in 23 hours. For the second link, there was 6 up and 3 down votes in 2 days. The third link has all information removed, to the point it can't be verified. The fourth link had four upvotes probably in 1 day or more. I don't see how upvotes or views are relevant. >There's no doubt the material is objectionable, but it was only up for a short time and got very little reach, even getting negative reactions within their own circles. And bare in mind, these aren't exactly random examples either - this is supposed to represent the very worst - and it's just some random people with little reach who get negative reactions from their own followers. It's only supposed to represent the 15 seconds of work I performed in going through the dump of parler data. There's plenty more if you're interested. Again, whether or not it reached a lot of people is hardly relevant. >Meanwhile over on Twitter you've got people sharing a picture of Trump's severed head, you've got "Hang Mike Pence" trending as a hash tag, you have people celebrating the death of the lady who got shot in the capital, etc. And that shouldn't be allowed either. What's your point?
- bArray 6y ago
  > I don't see how upvotes or views are relevant. Of course it's relevant. If your hate message is received by nobody - who is the victim? You're just shouting into the ether. The larger your reach, the more moderation becomes important. > And that shouldn't be allowed either. What's your point? Because Twitter isn't been wiped from the internet for breaking the exact same ToS. It's clearly selective enforcement.
  - EpicEng 6y ago
    It isn't relevant in regards to why they were de-platformed, but if you want to look there are plenty more with higher view counts. My understanding is that Apple wanted some form of auto-moderation. Parler's self regulation by user votes is a joke and leads to the opposite of free speech. They wanted a plan and a conversation, Parler refused. So, bye bye. Apparently everyone has abandoned them, including their own lawyers. They could have fixed this, but they decided not to, and are now crying foul.

by bArray 6y ago

EpicEng 6y ago

>For the first link, there was just one upvote in 23 hours. For the second link, there was 6 up and 3 down votes in 2 days. The third link has all information removed, to the point it can't be verified. The fourth link had four upvotes probably in 1 day or more. I don't see how upvotes or views are relevant. >There's no doubt the material is objectionable, but it was only up for a short time and got very little reach, even getting negative reactions within their own circles. And bare in mind, these aren't exactly random examples either - this is supposed to represent the very worst - and it's just some random people with little reach who get negative reactions from their own followers. It's only supposed to represent the 15 seconds of work I performed in going through the dump of parler data. There's plenty more if you're interested. Again, whether or not it reached a lot of people is hardly relevant. >Meanwhile over on Twitter you've got people sharing a picture of Trump's severed head, you've got "Hang Mike Pence" trending as a hash tag, you have people celebrating the death of the lady who got shot in the capital, etc. And that shouldn't be allowed either. What's your point?

bArray 6y ago
> I don't see how upvotes or views are relevant. Of course it's relevant. If your hate message is received by nobody - who is the victim? You're just shouting into the ether. The larger your reach, the more moderation becomes important. > And that shouldn't be allowed either. What's your point? Because Twitter isn't been wiped from the internet for breaking the exact same ToS. It's clearly selective enforcement.
- EpicEng 6y ago
  It isn't relevant in regards to why they were de-platformed, but if you want to look there are plenty more with higher view counts. My understanding is that Apple wanted some form of auto-moderation. Parler's self regulation by user votes is a joke and leads to the opposite of free speech. They wanted a plan and a conversation, Parler refused. So, bye bye. Apparently everyone has abandoned them, including their own lawyers. They could have fixed this, but they decided not to, and are now crying foul.