4 ms·

By cheering this on, many people here are supporting a barrier-to-entry that they also fall short of.

tuxracer 6y ago
If society may be destabilized because one has the knowhow to create something of this scale but not the resources to properly moderate specific violent threats then perhaps a barrier-to-entry preventing that is a good thing
- chaganated 6y ago
  Only an ideologue would buy that. So many threats, plots, doxxings, stalkings left unmoderated on Facebook and Twitter--and that's only summer of 2020! This is clearly retaliation for the H1-B caps / S230 threats of the outgoing administration, rather than corporate concern for the stability of the republic. How many people here can even say "corporate concern" with a straight face? Business is war, alliances change. What they do to the MAGA grannies today might not be so amusing when the targets change.
  - rualca 6y ago
    > So many threats, plots, doxxings, stalkings left unmoderated on Facebook and Twitter Parler's userbase is comprised of people who were either banned or migrated away from Facebook and Twitter in protest of them cracking down on hate speech and systematic appeals to violent action. They moved to Parker as Parker rather explicitly stated they would not act on hate speech and systematic appeals to violent action.
Z4YzKhxSzpbQLGP 6y ago
Evidence suggests the site was actively moderated. They actively encourage, organized, an participated in the forming radical cells, their plans, and execution. Its purpose was to attack our democracy. To replace it with something lacking the freedoms we take for granted every day. They should be federally investigated on these grounds. Don't act like it was some innocent people putting together a social media site just because it wasn't allowed to bear fruit. Your argument is week. I don't think any startups on here are activity trying to destabilize the American government in favor of racist authoritarians? That is pretty fucking high bar to qualify for. And why doesn't everyone at Amazon get a say in how there work is used in the world? Should we actively work for people and causes that go against our beliefs? It is a simple matter. They are such assholes no one with a brain is wants to help them. And thankfully, they are allowed to refuse them service over because of their actions. And finally, freedom of speech? Really? Have you ever seen content policies? Or do disagree with those as well? And any moderation (although like I said above the site was actively moderated to conform to particular content and social graphs).
smt88 6y ago
Powerful people funded Parler and promoted it publicly, and they specifically marketed it to people who create this type of ToS violation. It's safe to say few other companies have scaled through that mechanism and simultaneously targeted hard-to-moderate audiences.

If society may be destabilized because one has the knowhow to create something of this scale but not the resources to properly moderate specific violent threats then perhaps a barrier-to-entry preventing that is a good thing

chaganated 6y ago
Only an ideologue would buy that. So many threats, plots, doxxings, stalkings left unmoderated on Facebook and Twitter--and that's only summer of 2020! This is clearly retaliation for the H1-B caps / S230 threats of the outgoing administration, rather than corporate concern for the stability of the republic. How many people here can even say "corporate concern" with a straight face? Business is war, alliances change. What they do to the MAGA grannies today might not be so amusing when the targets change.
- rualca 6y ago
  > So many threats, plots, doxxings, stalkings left unmoderated on Facebook and Twitter Parler's userbase is comprised of people who were either banned or migrated away from Facebook and Twitter in protest of them cracking down on hate speech and systematic appeals to violent action. They moved to Parker as Parker rather explicitly stated they would not act on hate speech and systematic appeals to violent action.

Z4YzKhxSzpbQLGP 6y ago

Evidence suggests the site was actively moderated. They actively encourage, organized, an participated in the forming radical cells, their plans, and execution. Its purpose was to attack our democracy. To replace it with something lacking the freedoms we take for granted every day. They should be federally investigated on these grounds. Don't act like it was some innocent people putting together a social media site just because it wasn't allowed to bear fruit. Your argument is week. I don't think any startups on here are activity trying to destabilize the American government in favor of racist authoritarians? That is pretty fucking high bar to qualify for. And why doesn't everyone at Amazon get a say in how there work is used in the world? Should we actively work for people and causes that go against our beliefs? It is a simple matter. They are such assholes no one with a brain is wants to help them. And thankfully, they are allowed to refuse them service over because of their actions. And finally, freedom of speech? Really? Have you ever seen content policies? Or do disagree with those as well? And any moderation (although like I said above the site was actively moderated to conform to particular content and social graphs).

smt88 6y ago

Powerful people funded Parler and promoted it publicly, and they specifically marketed it to people who create this type of ToS violation. It's safe to say few other companies have scaled through that mechanism and simultaneously targeted hard-to-moderate audiences.