3 ms·

The difference is that Twitter and Facebook make a real effort to police violent or otherwise dangerous communications on their platforms. Parler was literally

by 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.
meerita 6y ago
That is not factual. You still can see how they bypass some content, so it's really biased content policing. I don't like that. They're not applying the same rules and claiming they're doing the effort and Parler or other aren't is not a good argument.

by namuol 6y ago

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.

meerita 6y ago

That is not factual. You still can see how they bypass some content, so it's really biased content policing. I don't like that. They're not applying the same rules and claiming they're doing the effort and Parler or other aren't is not a good argument.