4 ms·

Don't know if this an issue of good faith. Twitter has 5000 employees, Parler has maybe a few dozen.

filleduchaos 6y ago
So...why are they trying to run a platform when they don't have the employees or volunteers to actually run it? Personally I think the idea that people deserve to be in business even if they're not equipped or qualified to do so to be very strange. If you can't provide the product (whether that's quality physical goods or more abstract things like adequate moderation) then you fold and go out of business - that's the understanding of markets that I grew up with.
- dolni 6y ago
  If the product is a social media site that emphasizes freedom of speech and not scanning your data, it sounds like they were perfectly equipped and qualified to do that. Did they ever claim to have a well-moderated platform? I think that was the selling point.
  - filleduchaos 6y ago
    It doesn't sound like they were equipped or qualified to do that either, as evidenced by their current outage. I don't know why people are acting like Parler is the only platform to have ever hosted content considered questionable by the mainstream. The [\d]chans and various porn sites have been around for years.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
They seem perfectly capable of moderating comments for being insufficiently conservative. They should be able to moderate violent conspiracies too.
ineedasername 6y ago
After an extended period of working with them it seems that Amazon decided they weren't making a good faith effort with a sub-par community moderation system. Community moderation of directed hate or specific threats of violence only works if a majority of the community believes that content shouldn't be there, and that concept is antithetical to Parler's philosophy. Pretty much by definition of the crowd it attracts, the crowd is going to be unwilling to flag or delete posts. Heck, from what I've read about their user on-boarding process, people basically start out partly shadow-banned and have to have enough comment green-lit in order to become full member. This means, given the high (and somewhat extreme) conservative population there, there's a built-in filter that selects for additional and ever-more extreme views. Again, antithetical to community moderation. Regardless of the above, small staff is not a sufficient excuse. Plenty of businesses have hurdles they have to jump over in order to operate legally. If you don't have the staff for it, you don't have what it takes to operate in that industry. Considering that countless other forums large & small manage this task though, it doesn't seem a high barrier of entry.

So...why are they trying to run a platform when they don't have the employees or volunteers to actually run it? Personally I think the idea that people deserve to be in business even if they're not equipped or qualified to do so to be very strange. If you can't provide the product (whether that's quality physical goods or more abstract things like adequate moderation) then you fold and go out of business - that's the understanding of markets that I grew up with.

dolni 6y ago
If the product is a social media site that emphasizes freedom of speech and not scanning your data, it sounds like they were perfectly equipped and qualified to do that. Did they ever claim to have a well-moderated platform? I think that was the selling point.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  It doesn't sound like they were equipped or qualified to do that either, as evidenced by their current outage. I don't know why people are acting like Parler is the only platform to have ever hosted content considered questionable by the mainstream. The [\d]chans and various porn sites have been around for years.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

They seem perfectly capable of moderating comments for being insufficiently conservative. They should be able to moderate violent conspiracies too.

ineedasername 6y ago

After an extended period of working with them it seems that Amazon decided they weren't making a good faith effort with a sub-par community moderation system. Community moderation of directed hate or specific threats of violence only works if a majority of the community believes that content shouldn't be there, and that concept is antithetical to Parler's philosophy. Pretty much by definition of the crowd it attracts, the crowd is going to be unwilling to flag or delete posts. Heck, from what I've read about their user on-boarding process, people basically start out partly shadow-banned and have to have enough comment green-lit in order to become full member. This means, given the high (and somewhat extreme) conservative population there, there's a built-in filter that selects for additional and ever-more extreme views. Again, antithetical to community moderation. Regardless of the above, small staff is not a sufficient excuse. Plenty of businesses have hurdles they have to jump over in order to operate legally. If you don't have the staff for it, you don't have what it takes to operate in that industry. Considering that countless other forums large & small manage this task though, it doesn't seem a high barrier of entry.