4 ms·

A salient difference is that Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation, when push comes to shove. Parler is founded on the idea of absol

by burke 6y ago

A salient difference is that Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation, when push comes to shove. Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. Even if they win this one, the writing is on the wall for them. EDIT: This is not as true as I thought. Interesting information below!

Miner49er 6y ago
> Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. They claim they are for free speech, but they aren't even close. They remove all kinds of things, just not enough of the things that Amazon wanted. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parler-speedruns-content-moderation-learning-curve-goes-we-allow-everything-to-were-good-censors-days.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...
- whymauri 6y ago
  No 'obscene usernames' is actually hilarious to me. The bastion of free speech won't even allow users to choose their own handles.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    I'm confused as to how some people here are simultaneously digging on Parler for speech they "allowed", and then also that "they weren't really free speech". What is it you wanted them to do? I think it's pretty reasonable to not have "See me on Parler @ParlerLovesNaziPussy" as that content that Parler could not control outside of their platform. Restricting usernames seems like a prudent move, even for a free speech platform.
    - KallDrexx 6y ago
      People aren't digging on parlor for speech they allowed while criticizing them for not being free speech. They are criticizing them because they heavily advertised to people that they should go to parlor claiming that it was meant to fight for free speech because Twitter and other platforms were restricting free speech. Except Parler itself was restricting free speech on it's own and thus people are rightfully pointing out the hypocrisy. It shows that Parler wasn't in favor of free speech, it was in favor of "our side".
  - meekmockmook 6y ago
    "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words"
    - throwaway19937 6y ago
      I've always liked this interpretation of MPAA ratings. “If a man is pictured chopping off a woman’s breast, it only gets an R rating; but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman’s breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness?” — Sally Struthers
  - dkirill 6y ago
    What does decent language requirement have to do with free speech?
- shakezula 6y ago
  Yeah, the idea that Parler was some free-speech bastion is nonsense. They were explicit and judicious with their use of the ban hammer to remove wrongthink from their platform - they just didn't consider the crazy and often extremely violent threats on their platform as wrongthink.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  > just not enough of the things that Amazon wanted. One of the major allegations in the lawsuit is that the company took down everything that Amazon wanted, and that a few days ago Amazon apparently replied that they were "okay" when the materials they asked were taken down. Seems like this will be one of the facts to establish in the suit, however it's part of the body of evidence to support the idea that 1) the suspension was a termination and 2) the termination was unwarranted which in my opinion as a complete lay person seems less sure of proving.
User23 6y ago
> Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. Even if they win this one, the writing is on the wall for them. Absolutely untrue. Parler isn’t a free speech site. Gab on the other hand is and even they moderate. Their policy is to only allow first amendment protected speech, but that excludes quite a bit.
ipsi 6y ago
Which is particularly interesting, since users were apparently shadow-banned until the mods decided their posts were acceptable. Source: https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506
djsumdog 6y ago
> Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation You are not really watching if you think that is what is happening. They are controlling the narrative. They are promoting some topics and pushing down other. Facebook deleted WalkAway, a group that had full moderation, did not allow any posts which called for violence, and which was pure political speech. Reddit is deleting each and every sub that goes against what their management believes; over 2000 have been banned last year only. They are not paying lip service. They are directing narrative. They are banning things they don't like. They are deciding which scientific exports are orthodox and which are banned. They are controlling language. They are controlling thought. If you don't think that's happening, then they are controlling your thoughts as well. This is the most dangerous time for us to be in and this will not end well. Censorship is the tool of cowards. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. We are literally watching Big Tech and Big Media openly rewrite history. We are in 1984 + Fahrenheit 451 and half of us have bought so far into this narrative of protectionism we do not see it at all.
- metiscus 6y ago
  I believe that companies are largely on their own team, neither right nor left. How long before labor begins to be de-platformed for unionization efforts in the big tech companies? I know that there are already allegations that Amazon is acting in an extremely anti-labor way. Will the current argument of "platforms have a right to choose what content they will allow on their service" (which is a common argument for what is going on, among others) also apply in the case that pro-unionization groups are removed? These organisms will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves from what they perceive as threats, both external (political) and internal (labor).
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    > I believe that companies are largely on their own team, neither right nor left Wat? Dude, Twitter, Reddit and Facebook's moderation policies are clearly left to far-left. They've done no blanket banning for calls to violence from the left. None of these people have had their pages, accounts or posts censored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQzLcO5qhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQzLcO5qhY and they clearly called for the types of violence we saw in 2017 and every year since up to and including now: https://youtu.be/BXR3d22BhHs https://youtu.be/BXR3d22BhHs edit: but yes, your point about labour is spot on. I can see that happening next for sure.
newhouseb 6y ago
I believe "absolutely unmoderated" speech isn't technically correct here. As I understand it, Parler does have a form of moderation wherein a "jury" of 5 people evaluate flagged content within a 24 hour window of being flagged. If 4 vote for removal, content is removed. [1] Naturally, if such a platform is dominated by extremists then extreme speech will remain effectively unmoderated (I can't speak to the fraction of the [former?] Parler userbase that is/was made up of violent instigators). [1] Kara Swisher's interview with the Parler CEO on the Sway podcast (I haven't actually used Parler beyond taking a look once out of curiosity)

by burke 6y ago

Miner49er 6y ago

> Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. They claim they are for free speech, but they aren't even close. They remove all kinds of things, just not enough of the things that Amazon wanted. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parler-speedruns-content-moderation-learning-curve-goes-we-allow-everything-to-were-good-censors-days.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...

whymauri 6y ago
No 'obscene usernames' is actually hilarious to me. The bastion of free speech won't even allow users to choose their own handles.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  I'm confused as to how some people here are simultaneously digging on Parler for speech they "allowed", and then also that "they weren't really free speech". What is it you wanted them to do? I think it's pretty reasonable to not have "See me on Parler @ParlerLovesNaziPussy" as that content that Parler could not control outside of their platform. Restricting usernames seems like a prudent move, even for a free speech platform.
  - KallDrexx 6y ago
    People aren't digging on parlor for speech they allowed while criticizing them for not being free speech. They are criticizing them because they heavily advertised to people that they should go to parlor claiming that it was meant to fight for free speech because Twitter and other platforms were restricting free speech. Except Parler itself was restricting free speech on it's own and thus people are rightfully pointing out the hypocrisy. It shows that Parler wasn't in favor of free speech, it was in favor of "our side".
- meekmockmook 6y ago
  "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words"
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    I've always liked this interpretation of MPAA ratings. “If a man is pictured chopping off a woman’s breast, it only gets an R rating; but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman’s breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness?” — Sally Struthers
- dkirill 6y ago
  What does decent language requirement have to do with free speech?
shakezula 6y ago
Yeah, the idea that Parler was some free-speech bastion is nonsense. They were explicit and judicious with their use of the ban hammer to remove wrongthink from their platform - they just didn't consider the crazy and often extremely violent threats on their platform as wrongthink.
thinkingemote 6y ago
> just not enough of the things that Amazon wanted. One of the major allegations in the lawsuit is that the company took down everything that Amazon wanted, and that a few days ago Amazon apparently replied that they were "okay" when the materials they asked were taken down. Seems like this will be one of the facts to establish in the suit, however it's part of the body of evidence to support the idea that 1) the suspension was a termination and 2) the termination was unwarranted which in my opinion as a complete lay person seems less sure of proving.

User23 6y ago

> Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. Even if they win this one, the writing is on the wall for them. Absolutely untrue. Parler isn’t a free speech site. Gab on the other hand is and even they moderate. Their policy is to only allow first amendment protected speech, but that excludes quite a bit.

ipsi 6y ago

Which is particularly interesting, since users were apparently shadow-banned until the mods decided their posts were acceptable. Source: https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506

djsumdog 6y ago

> Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation You are not really watching if you think that is what is happening. They are controlling the narrative. They are promoting some topics and pushing down other. Facebook deleted WalkAway, a group that had full moderation, did not allow any posts which called for violence, and which was pure political speech. Reddit is deleting each and every sub that goes against what their management believes; over 2000 have been banned last year only. They are not paying lip service. They are directing narrative. They are banning things they don't like. They are deciding which scientific exports are orthodox and which are banned. They are controlling language. They are controlling thought. If you don't think that's happening, then they are controlling your thoughts as well. This is the most dangerous time for us to be in and this will not end well. Censorship is the tool of cowards. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. We are literally watching Big Tech and Big Media openly rewrite history. We are in 1984 + Fahrenheit 451 and half of us have bought so far into this narrative of protectionism we do not see it at all.

metiscus 6y ago
I believe that companies are largely on their own team, neither right nor left. How long before labor begins to be de-platformed for unionization efforts in the big tech companies? I know that there are already allegations that Amazon is acting in an extremely anti-labor way. Will the current argument of "platforms have a right to choose what content they will allow on their service" (which is a common argument for what is going on, among others) also apply in the case that pro-unionization groups are removed? These organisms will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves from what they perceive as threats, both external (political) and internal (labor).
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > I believe that companies are largely on their own team, neither right nor left Wat? Dude, Twitter, Reddit and Facebook's moderation policies are clearly left to far-left. They've done no blanket banning for calls to violence from the left. None of these people have had their pages, accounts or posts censored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQzLcO5qhY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQzLcO5qhY and they clearly called for the types of violence we saw in 2017 and every year since up to and including now: https://youtu.be/BXR3d22BhHs https://youtu.be/BXR3d22BhHs edit: but yes, your point about labour is spot on. I can see that happening next for sure.

newhouseb 6y ago

I believe "absolutely unmoderated" speech isn't technically correct here. As I understand it, Parler does have a form of moderation wherein a "jury" of 5 people evaluate flagged content within a 24 hour window of being flagged. If 4 vote for removal, content is removed. [1] Naturally, if such a platform is dominated by extremists then extreme speech will remain effectively unmoderated (I can't speak to the fraction of the [former?] Parler userbase that is/was made up of violent instigators). [1] Kara Swisher's interview with the Parler CEO on the Sway podcast (I haven't actually used Parler beyond taking a look once out of curiosity)