3 ms·

I don't think they could ever prove there was collision though. For one, I don't think anybody except Gab was worried about Parler as a competitor. For two, if

I don't think they could ever prove there was collision though. For one, I don't think anybody except Gab was worried about Parler as a competitor. For two, if you do something egregious in front of 3 shopkeepers, and the whole town is looking at the shopkeepers to see what they'll do, and they all decide to ban you from their respective stores, it's not collision.

crmrc114 6y ago
Don't forget gab was banned by visa. It gets a bit crazy when you consider the nz mosque shooting was livestreamed on facebook- no one shut Facebook down. I can go on Twitter right now and find calls for violence. The whole thing feels like a very selective attack aimed at any small competition the dares base it's moderation in line with the first amendment. 1. They are a private company, don't like it build your own Twitter A. Okay, that has been done twice now. 2. Well aws is a private company don't like it build your own servers. B. Okay that has also been done twice now. 3. The next items in the list of deplatforming attacks are DNS, Certs and ability to process credit cards. It gets a bit silly when it's rules for thee with the tech olagarchs yet I can still find elsagate videos on YouTube and calls to harm others on Twitter.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
NoOneNew 6y ago
In less than a week, all the major tech players banned/ended the same entity. While sure, they found certain infringements due to their ToS, there's a large swath of entities that infringe on their ToS who are not banned. Along with, it's painfully easy to prove it's because the ones not banned are politically aligned with the platform. To state it's a ban due to violence, absolute bullshit. There are tons of Facebook livestreams of violence, gang based, that NZ shooting, and just random people thinking they're cool and hurting folks to gain popularity (and making an easy case for prosecutors). Facebook hasn't been banned from Google Play Store or Apple App Store yet. "But they don't have to moderate due to 230". Well, why does Parler have to then? I'm actually okay with Parler being shut down (mostly because I never used it or really care) but then I want to see the same punishment for other social media platforms. Hold one accountable, hold them all accountable. No favoritism just because you wear a certain color tie during political meetups. Sure, maybe there is no law that really punishes selective enforcement of company policy. However, can you really say that it's not absurd and ethically fucked up? Can you really not see, "Wow, these companies do hold too much power in public discourse and can twist, bend narratives in their favor"? As the general public, we need to vote with our wallets as well as ballots. These companies need to know that this shit isn't cool or funny. Giving them blank cheques everyday because we're too lazy to change our habits will never help. Complacency isn't an excuse after a certain point.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  It’s not clear to me that those companies have more power in our information landscape than MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. Nor is it obvious that it is more ethically problematic for them to have an editorial slant.
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  The culture of the companies that ban and report on Parler are predominantly left of center. It is not realistic to expect fairness in any way, including ToS enforcement. In an alternate universe where Parler had been a tech giant and the rest of SV aligned with them, it would be Twitter who got shut down.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Facebook doesn't have the ability to watch every livestream on its service, but they absolutely do shut them down when people report them, and, moreover, proactively reach out to law enforcement when violent activities are being livestreamed or posted to its service. And that's the difference from Parler: Parler revels in attracting those types of posts, and per Amazon's court filings, Parler does nothing to remove violent posts on the service.

crmrc114 6y ago

Don't forget gab was banned by visa. It gets a bit crazy when you consider the nz mosque shooting was livestreamed on facebook- no one shut Facebook down. I can go on Twitter right now and find calls for violence. The whole thing feels like a very selective attack aimed at any small competition the dares base it's moderation in line with the first amendment. 1. They are a private company, don't like it build your own Twitter A. Okay, that has been done twice now. 2. Well aws is a private company don't like it build your own servers. B. Okay that has also been done twice now. 3. The next items in the list of deplatforming attacks are DNS, Certs and ability to process credit cards. It gets a bit silly when it's rules for thee with the tech olagarchs yet I can still find elsagate videos on YouTube and calls to harm others on Twitter.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

NoOneNew 6y ago

In less than a week, all the major tech players banned/ended the same entity. While sure, they found certain infringements due to their ToS, there's a large swath of entities that infringe on their ToS who are not banned. Along with, it's painfully easy to prove it's because the ones not banned are politically aligned with the platform. To state it's a ban due to violence, absolute bullshit. There are tons of Facebook livestreams of violence, gang based, that NZ shooting, and just random people thinking they're cool and hurting folks to gain popularity (and making an easy case for prosecutors). Facebook hasn't been banned from Google Play Store or Apple App Store yet. "But they don't have to moderate due to 230". Well, why does Parler have to then? I'm actually okay with Parler being shut down (mostly because I never used it or really care) but then I want to see the same punishment for other social media platforms. Hold one accountable, hold them all accountable. No favoritism just because you wear a certain color tie during political meetups. Sure, maybe there is no law that really punishes selective enforcement of company policy. However, can you really say that it's not absurd and ethically fucked up? Can you really not see, "Wow, these companies do hold too much power in public discourse and can twist, bend narratives in their favor"? As the general public, we need to vote with our wallets as well as ballots. These companies need to know that this shit isn't cool or funny. Giving them blank cheques everyday because we're too lazy to change our habits will never help. Complacency isn't an excuse after a certain point.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
It’s not clear to me that those companies have more power in our information landscape than MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. Nor is it obvious that it is more ethically problematic for them to have an editorial slant.
1MachineElf 6y ago
The culture of the companies that ban and report on Parler are predominantly left of center. It is not realistic to expect fairness in any way, including ToS enforcement. In an alternate universe where Parler had been a tech giant and the rest of SV aligned with them, it would be Twitter who got shut down.
gamblor956 6y ago
Facebook doesn't have the ability to watch every livestream on its service, but they absolutely do shut them down when people report them, and, moreover, proactively reach out to law enforcement when violent activities are being livestreamed or posted to its service. And that's the difference from Parler: Parler revels in attracting those types of posts, and per Amazon's court filings, Parler does nothing to remove violent posts on the service.