4 ms·

Does Facebook have a moderation policy in place that will remove these posts? Does Parler?

nix23 6y ago
>Does Parler That's not the point, i'm ~sure that illegal stuff is removed from parler too, and if not that's the Justice who should make the rules and NOT Amazon...like you know Facebook just made those moderation's after a justice ruling.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  Isn't that exactly the point? Apple removed them because: Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues And AWS said: “Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.” If they were removing the illegal content, then why did AWS say they don't have an effective process to remove it? If they can show that they already have effective moderation, then they should win their lawsuit against AWS and quickly be back online.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >If they were removing the illegal content, then why did AWS say they don't have an effective process to remove it? Because you get a Sympathy-Star-Sticker in your book and Amazon is the good guy who try's to safe the United States, it's more Marketing then real fear being extreme right wing. BTW: Wanna buy a real Postage stamp from Hitler? No Problem: https://www.amazon.com/STRIKING-ORIGINAL-ANNIVERSARY-SEIZING-Condition/dp/B0776KMHJ4 https://www.amazon.com/STRIKING-ORIGINAL-ANNIVERSARY-SEIZING... or a beautiful flag? https://www.amazon.ca/German-Imperial-Germany-Ensign-Flags/dp/B000P404MU https://www.amazon.ca/German-Imperial-Germany-Ensign-Flags/d... The original "Mein Kampf" without comments? https://www.amazon.ca/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mein+kampf+original&qid=1610396411&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.ca/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/...
    - Johnny555 6y ago
      Those items may be distasteful, but are they illegal? I'm not aware of a prohibition on selling Nazi memorabilia in this country. On the other hand, inciting violence is illegal: "by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...." Another expletive-laced message posted the day before the riot warned: "To all our enemies high and low you want a war? Well you're asking for one...To the American people on the ground in DC today and all over this great nation, be prepared for anything."
      - nix23 6y ago
        >"by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...." That's not violent per se, maybe the right wing is in fear of polar bears near the Capitol. Please don't get me wrong, but if you let big Marketplaces and not Justice make decisions whats right or wrong...well then that can go really fast the other way too.
        lolc 6y ago
        Don't be silly. Courts will decide based on the meaning in context. A reasonable person may very well conclude that that quote is a call to arms. I mean I don't know how a court would interpret this specific example, but polar bears won't factor in their deliberation. The provisions against incitement of violence in the AWS TOS are standard. If Parler sues AWS, a court will actually decide on whether Parler violated the TOS. And I'm pretty sure that the AWS decision will hold. They didn't do this lightly. Refusing service to trolls is a standard occurrence. The justice system would be clogged immediately if it were forced to decide every TOS violation before the accused party could be banned.
- nicmccool 6y ago
  That is the point though. The reasons cited by AWS for their actions were due to violent posts and content moderation. When addressed with the issue Parler said they'd use volunteers to proactively moderate violent posts, but AWS said that "nascent plant to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts".
  - nix23 6y ago
    >remove dangerous content Really disappointed in HN right now, hacking youtube videos are dangerous too no? Content is not dangerous, peoples are.
    - nicmccool 6y ago
      Youtube has paid staff whose sole duty is to remove videos that violate their TOS. Parler does not. That is the distinction AWS used in there reasonings to terminate service.
      - nix23 6y ago
        >TOS That's a private rule and with Amazon as big as it is, we need to have a discussion if a TOS is even legal, if you take a blind eye on that, nothing stands in the way that big company's take over everything, if you want such a world...well then welcome to cyberpunk.
        Johnny555 6y ago
        For large customers, the TOS is not just a click through agreement, it's actually signed as a part of an overall MSA. I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it.
        nix23 6y ago
        >I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it. Because it clashes often with existing law, many TOS's you can simply ignore (at least in europe) and yes even when you signed it. A TOS does not stand above existing law.

>Does Parler That's not the point, i'm ~sure that illegal stuff is removed from parler too, and if not that's the Justice who should make the rules and NOT Amazon...like you know Facebook just made those moderation's after a justice ruling.

Johnny555 6y ago
Isn't that exactly the point? Apple removed them because: Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues And AWS said: “Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.” If they were removing the illegal content, then why did AWS say they don't have an effective process to remove it? If they can show that they already have effective moderation, then they should win their lawsuit against AWS and quickly be back online.
- nix23 6y ago
  >If they were removing the illegal content, then why did AWS say they don't have an effective process to remove it? Because you get a Sympathy-Star-Sticker in your book and Amazon is the good guy who try's to safe the United States, it's more Marketing then real fear being extreme right wing. BTW: Wanna buy a real Postage stamp from Hitler? No Problem: https://www.amazon.com/STRIKING-ORIGINAL-ANNIVERSARY-SEIZING-Condition/dp/B0776KMHJ4 https://www.amazon.com/STRIKING-ORIGINAL-ANNIVERSARY-SEIZING... or a beautiful flag? https://www.amazon.ca/German-Imperial-Germany-Ensign-Flags/dp/B000P404MU https://www.amazon.ca/German-Imperial-Germany-Ensign-Flags/d... The original "Mein Kampf" without comments? https://www.amazon.ca/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=mein+kampf+original&qid=1610396411&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.ca/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/...
  - Johnny555 6y ago
    Those items may be distasteful, but are they illegal? I'm not aware of a prohibition on selling Nazi memorabilia in this country. On the other hand, inciting violence is illegal: "by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...." Another expletive-laced message posted the day before the riot warned: "To all our enemies high and low you want a war? Well you're asking for one...To the American people on the ground in DC today and all over this great nation, be prepared for anything."
    - nix23 6y ago
      >"by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...." That's not violent per se, maybe the right wing is in fear of polar bears near the Capitol. Please don't get me wrong, but if you let big Marketplaces and not Justice make decisions whats right or wrong...well then that can go really fast the other way too.
      - lolc 6y ago
        Don't be silly. Courts will decide based on the meaning in context. A reasonable person may very well conclude that that quote is a call to arms. I mean I don't know how a court would interpret this specific example, but polar bears won't factor in their deliberation. The provisions against incitement of violence in the AWS TOS are standard. If Parler sues AWS, a court will actually decide on whether Parler violated the TOS. And I'm pretty sure that the AWS decision will hold. They didn't do this lightly. Refusing service to trolls is a standard occurrence. The justice system would be clogged immediately if it were forced to decide every TOS violation before the accused party could be banned.
nicmccool 6y ago
That is the point though. The reasons cited by AWS for their actions were due to violent posts and content moderation. When addressed with the issue Parler said they'd use volunteers to proactively moderate violent posts, but AWS said that "nascent plant to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts".
- nix23 6y ago
  >remove dangerous content Really disappointed in HN right now, hacking youtube videos are dangerous too no? Content is not dangerous, peoples are.
  - nicmccool 6y ago
    Youtube has paid staff whose sole duty is to remove videos that violate their TOS. Parler does not. That is the distinction AWS used in there reasonings to terminate service.
    - nix23 6y ago
      >TOS That's a private rule and with Amazon as big as it is, we need to have a discussion if a TOS is even legal, if you take a blind eye on that, nothing stands in the way that big company's take over everything, if you want such a world...well then welcome to cyberpunk.
      - Johnny555 6y ago
        For large customers, the TOS is not just a click through agreement, it's actually signed as a part of an overall MSA. I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it.
        nix23 6y ago
        >I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it. Because it clashes often with existing law, many TOS's you can simply ignore (at least in europe) and yes even when you signed it. A TOS does not stand above existing law.