4 ms·

I refuse to believe they've got banned because of the lack of user management features. In fact, the existence of very crazy people on the platform shouldn't be

I refuse to believe they've got banned because of the lack of user management features. In fact, the existence of very crazy people on the platform shouldn't be a platform problem, you can always let know authorities about any danger, report and ban users. If we apply the same rules for everyone, Amazon and Apple should be banning Twitter too, because you can see dozens of messages everyday of people death threatening others, in fact, you can still read old messages of politics inciting rioting, reporters doxxing other reporters, etc. and nothing happened since.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
If you see something objectionable on Twitter, report it. It will be addressed. The problem that Amazon has with Parler is that they repeatedly informed them about specific posts with violent content and Parler didn't remove them.
- meerita 6y ago
  Same in Parler. I can't believe Parler doesn't ban any account who breaks the their Terms and Conditions
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Can you provide evidence of this moderation ? From all accounts Parler was self-moderated by the community and links such as the following are still present: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=...
- loremipsium 6y ago
  >If you see something objectionable on Twitter, report it. It will be addressed. And as we all know twitter applies their community guidelines equally on all its users regardless of their political stance.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    Do you have any evidence otherwise?
    - aldarisbm 6y ago
      There actually is a lot of evidence on this, people reposting word for word tweets by other people and getting banned
- cynoclast 6y ago
  No it won't. People have. Twitter doesn't to shit against left wing racists, left wing violence advocates, or anything china does. This is a flat out lie. It's politics and anyone pretending differently is lying.
namuol 6y ago
The difference is that Twitter and Facebook make a real effort to police violent or otherwise dangerous communications on their platforms. Parler was literally created as a safe haven for stuff that gets you banned on other platforms.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  In the US, maybe, but Facebook definitely failed in case of the Rohingya genocide. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... For a company based in the most racism-sensitive part of the Western world, they do not seem to care as much for non-American instances thereof. Their response in Myanmar was far from adequate. They took down a few accounts after a few months and that was that.
  - varjag 6y ago
    Zuckerberg was famously calling Twitter's decision to narrate Trump tweets with factcheck warnings 'wrong' just some months ago. It's little do do with geography, and everything to do with their former position becoming politically untenable.
  - zpeti 6y ago
    A lot of people are bringing up points about how big FB and Twitter is and they inevitably have bad content... so... Let's take into account that parler (and other platforms) caused 1 night of rioting. Facebook caused GENOCIDE - the active killing of a population.
    - maeln 6y ago
      Let's be honest, the difference here is that one happened in America and the other in a country far from America with nobody powerful enough to defend the population being killed. If some big government would have threaten FB if they did not deal with the rohingya genocide, FB would have try to show that they care. But nobody big enough did so FB can just do nothing.
- 6y ago
cynoclast 6y ago
This is a good point. Literally everything parler is accused of twitter has done, is doing, and is going to continue doing. It's straight up partisan censorship now that the party that controls twitter/amazon/facebook/google also controls their regulating body. It's a case of regulatory capture.
chr1 6y ago
Most likely explanation is that Amazon simply doesn't want problems with the party that controls the whole government now, and was threatening to split them up. So banning parler was essentially a form of lobbying.
- kilroy123 6y ago
  Not just that but a big cheap PR stunt. How much does this really cost them? I doubt Parler has that much money to put up a big legal fight. This is a cheap a PR win for Amazon.
dstick 6y ago
> I refuse to believe they've got banned because of the lack of user management features. > you can always let know authorities about any danger, report and ban users One contradicts the other? They didn't do #2, so #1 happened.
- meerita 6y ago
  How do you know they didn't? Is it because you could read a post and wasn't banned in time? That happens all the time in Twitter. In addition, you can read old tweets who are the same.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    Because the CEO went on TV and said so.
    - meerita 6y ago
      The CEO actually said they deleted all > 10 posts. The riot on the Capitol was actually organized, surprise, on Facebook!
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Intention matters, as does scale. Cars kill far more people than serial killers, yet any sane person prefers the company of car dealers to serial killers. This is so obvious, it's stretching my ability to feign an assumption of good faith.
- yonixw 6y ago
  But they both cars in your case...
landryraccoon 6y ago
The authorities in this case would be the Department of Justice, which until January 20th still reports to Donald Trump. If tech companies shut down services that are actively supporting an existential threat to the US as a constitutional republic, it seems to me that it's their clear moral and ethical duty to stop providing service to those threats if at all possible. Furthermore, at this point it's clearly in their self interest to break all ties with Parler, since they open themselves to liability if Parler organizes another successful terrorist attack, now that they know that such activities are being organized there. If anything, I would argue that they should have policed that content in a much more opinionated fashion far sooner. It's only because things have escalated to the point of violence that it's now so controversial. Let me give an example to illustrate - suppose that Al Queda, or ISIS, or some other terrorist organization was using AWS or GCP. Would it be so controversial to refuse service to those organizations then? At the very least I don't see why as private businesses they couldn't decide that serving such organizations is too much risk to take on.

cycrutchfield 6y ago

If you see something objectionable on Twitter, report it. It will be addressed. The problem that Amazon has with Parler is that they repeatedly informed them about specific posts with violent content and Parler didn't remove them.

meerita 6y ago
Same in Parler. I can't believe Parler doesn't ban any account who breaks the their Terms and Conditions
- threeseed 6y ago
  Can you provide evidence of this moderation ? From all accounts Parler was self-moderated by the community and links such as the following are still present: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=...
loremipsium 6y ago
>If you see something objectionable on Twitter, report it. It will be addressed. And as we all know twitter applies their community guidelines equally on all its users regardless of their political stance.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence otherwise?
  - aldarisbm 6y ago
    There actually is a lot of evidence on this, people reposting word for word tweets by other people and getting banned
cynoclast 6y ago
No it won't. People have. Twitter doesn't to shit against left wing racists, left wing violence advocates, or anything china does. This is a flat out lie. It's politics and anyone pretending differently is lying.

namuol 6y ago

The difference is that Twitter and Facebook make a real effort to police violent or otherwise dangerous communications on their platforms. Parler was literally created as a safe haven for stuff that gets you banned on other platforms.

inglor_cz 6y ago
In the US, maybe, but Facebook definitely failed in case of the Rohingya genocide. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... For a company based in the most racism-sensitive part of the Western world, they do not seem to care as much for non-American instances thereof. Their response in Myanmar was far from adequate. They took down a few accounts after a few months and that was that.
- varjag 6y ago
  Zuckerberg was famously calling Twitter's decision to narrate Trump tweets with factcheck warnings 'wrong' just some months ago. It's little do do with geography, and everything to do with their former position becoming politically untenable.
- zpeti 6y ago
  A lot of people are bringing up points about how big FB and Twitter is and they inevitably have bad content... so... Let's take into account that parler (and other platforms) caused 1 night of rioting. Facebook caused GENOCIDE - the active killing of a population.
  - maeln 6y ago
    Let's be honest, the difference here is that one happened in America and the other in a country far from America with nobody powerful enough to defend the population being killed. If some big government would have threaten FB if they did not deal with the rohingya genocide, FB would have try to show that they care. But nobody big enough did so FB can just do nothing.
6y ago

cynoclast 6y ago

This is a good point. Literally everything parler is accused of twitter has done, is doing, and is going to continue doing. It's straight up partisan censorship now that the party that controls twitter/amazon/facebook/google also controls their regulating body. It's a case of regulatory capture.

chr1 6y ago

Most likely explanation is that Amazon simply doesn't want problems with the party that controls the whole government now, and was threatening to split them up. So banning parler was essentially a form of lobbying.

kilroy123 6y ago
Not just that but a big cheap PR stunt. How much does this really cost them? I doubt Parler has that much money to put up a big legal fight. This is a cheap a PR win for Amazon.

dstick 6y ago

> I refuse to believe they've got banned because of the lack of user management features. > you can always let know authorities about any danger, report and ban users One contradicts the other? They didn't do #2, so #1 happened.

meerita 6y ago
How do you know they didn't? Is it because you could read a post and wasn't banned in time? That happens all the time in Twitter. In addition, you can read old tweets who are the same.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  Because the CEO went on TV and said so.
  - meerita 6y ago
    The CEO actually said they deleted all > 10 posts. The riot on the Capitol was actually organized, surprise, on Facebook!

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Intention matters, as does scale. Cars kill far more people than serial killers, yet any sane person prefers the company of car dealers to serial killers. This is so obvious, it's stretching my ability to feign an assumption of good faith.

yonixw 6y ago
But they both cars in your case...

landryraccoon 6y ago

The authorities in this case would be the Department of Justice, which until January 20th still reports to Donald Trump. If tech companies shut down services that are actively supporting an existential threat to the US as a constitutional republic, it seems to me that it's their clear moral and ethical duty to stop providing service to those threats if at all possible. Furthermore, at this point it's clearly in their self interest to break all ties with Parler, since they open themselves to liability if Parler organizes another successful terrorist attack, now that they know that such activities are being organized there. If anything, I would argue that they should have policed that content in a much more opinionated fashion far sooner. It's only because things have escalated to the point of violence that it's now so controversial. Let me give an example to illustrate - suppose that Al Queda, or ISIS, or some other terrorist organization was using AWS or GCP. Would it be so controversial to refuse service to those organizations then? At the very least I don't see why as private businesses they couldn't decide that serving such organizations is too much risk to take on.