4 ms·

> 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 thi

> 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.

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.