4 ms·

False equivocation. This did happen but Twitter promptly banned this and variants [1]. Parler is failing / refusing to moderate. [1] https://www.theguardian.co

• charly187 6y ago
  EDIT: I see you changed your post from "Parler is refusing to moderate" to "Parler is refusing/failing to moderate". The post below is an answer to "Parler is refusing to moderate". This is false. Parler has also been banning accounts explicitly calling for violence. I encourage you all to read the complaint: > AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false—because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more. I know my word probably doesn't mean much to you, but I verified this personally - almost all of the "example" violent post I could find on the news were all deleted and the accounts were banned before Parler was taken down.
  • tptacek 6y ago
    Amazon cited a long string of specific violent posts that they themselves reported to Parler and that Parler didn't remove.
    • nullc 6y ago
      So, Parler perjured themselves in the linked complaint when they stated that every example cited by amazon was removed?
      • rmah 6y ago
        It appears so. Is this surprising?
        • nullc 6y ago
          Did they also perjure themselves when they stated the Amazon letter was published in buzzfeed before being provided to them?
          • tptacek 6y ago
            I don't know, but again: does that matter? Is Amazon obliged to keep their communications with Parler private? Certainly Amazon's customers don't adhere to that norm. The controversy here seems very simple. When Amazon alerted Parler to specific violent posts, did Parler immediately remove them, or did it wait to remove them until shit blew up? I don't know that I need to care whether or when Amazon alerted BuzzFeed. Amazon says it's removing Parler because of Parler's behavior, not because of something Buzzfeed reported.
      • cygx 6y ago
        For reference, this is Parler's claim: > AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false—because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame Parler nonetheless. And because of AWS false claims, leaked to the public, Parler has not only lost current and future customers, but Parler has also been unable to find an alternative web hosting company. In short, AWS false claims have made Parler a pariah. My take will depend on the timeline: If Amazon indeed asked Parler to remove the content weeks ago (as stated in the letter), but Parler only did so "over the last few days" (ie after the shit had hit the fan?), then, I'd argue Amazon does have a point...
• cal5k 6y ago
  Also false equivocation. Twitter failed/refused to moderate content for years throughout their meteoric growth, and only now are they barely getting a handle on it - and even then they seem to apply the rules in an uneven fashion. Expecting any potential competitor to instantly achieve perfect moderation seems like a perfect way to entrench FB, Twitter and others as the de-facto public square.
  • ghayes 6y ago
    Parler is not simply failing to "instantly achieve perfect moderation," and, I personally believe it is disingenuous to speculate the fact. The service's core principals include strict limits to moderation.