4 ms·

> There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6. Was it the riot or the senate flipping? Sounds like you answered your own question.

> There was not a peep about their content until from their reps until 1/6. Was it the riot or the senate flipping? Sounds like you answered your own question. Tech companies were lenient on hosting a questionable community, until members of that community tried to overthrow the government. For all the moderation the Parler admins allegedly did, it was an open secret that it was the hang out spot for right-wing extremists. Yet Parler was allowed to stay afloat until it became clear that doing so became an issue of national security. The riots happened. The cause and effect here are pretty clear. The Parler community did this to itself.

ctrlp 6y ago
Have you have spent time in parler and can speak to its content? Or are you just amplifying other people's opinions? It is trivial to cherry pick content from Twitter or Facebook that would be outrageous to decent people.
- stevenwoo 6y ago
  Someone published an investigative report on 1/5 about different social media, the calls to violence were worst in his opinion on Parler https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-insurgent-and-maga-right-are-being-welded-together-on-the-streets-of-washington-d-c/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-...
  - ctrlp 6y ago
    I like and read bellingcat, but, if we're being honest, it is not a neutral source of information.
    - eclipxe 6y ago
      Yes it is.
    - Fnoord 6y ago
      > if we're being honest ... > it is not a neutral source of information Why not?
- akmiller 6y ago
  I joined it back in December, not realizing that it was essentially a platform for right wing extremist. I simply thought it was a less restrictive Twitter, based on the conversation I'd heard. After joining and opening the app, and without following anyone, I was immediately slammed with extremist right wing content and outright lies. I'm not one to defend Twitter/Facebook (both should be broken up into smaller companies), but my god...neither do anything close to what I saw with Parler.
mancerayder 6y ago
This is a rational and reasonable point. BUT, let me muddy it and make it harder to make your point feel so confidently clear-cut: Scenario. WhatsApp groups begin to be used as gathering places. Open secret. Bomb or explosion or storming of a government building ensures. Question: is it a question of national security to investigate and pressure to censor or eliminate the platform, and if not why not? Scenario. The bomby extremist-y people on Parler make up .05% of user base. 99.95, while being mostly right-wing, aren't bomby or national security-threatlike. Question: is the tradeoff of punishing the platform by making it disappear, worth it as the only alternative platform to Twitter (which is relied upon by government, health authorities and journalists as the one true place)? I have no problem with arguments in favor of censorship. I DO have acid reflux when I see the lack of nuance, the strong confidence and wording like "pretty clear." No, censorship is never pretty clear and always warrants skepticism and conversation.
- watwut 6y ago
  The big difference is whether platform refuses to moderate those .05% on Parler. Afaik, twitter for all its moderation flaws is not refusing to moderate those and reacts to big real world events significantly more quickly. And yes, twitter did deleted accounts and tweets of people who called for violence during summer. Maybe not perfectly and plus some ambiguous accounts ended closed too, but twitter did put real effort into it. Arguing as of the two were equal two is lacking even basic attempt at nuance. Parler was created because that content was booted from twitter, reddit and public facebook discussion. Literally. So acting like Twitter is the same is unfair despite Twitter deficiciencies.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    Parler was created because there's a perception of biased censorship on Twitter. Never used Parler but can confirm there is a ton of hateful content and calls for violence on Twitter. I'm sorry you think it's unfair to compare the two, because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.
    - 6y ago

ctrlp 6y ago

Have you have spent time in parler and can speak to its content? Or are you just amplifying other people's opinions? It is trivial to cherry pick content from Twitter or Facebook that would be outrageous to decent people.

stevenwoo 6y ago
Someone published an investigative report on 1/5 about different social media, the calls to violence were worst in his opinion on Parler https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-insurgent-and-maga-right-are-being-welded-together-on-the-streets-of-washington-d-c/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-...
- ctrlp 6y ago
  I like and read bellingcat, but, if we're being honest, it is not a neutral source of information.
  - eclipxe 6y ago
    Yes it is.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    > if we're being honest ... > it is not a neutral source of information Why not?
akmiller 6y ago
I joined it back in December, not realizing that it was essentially a platform for right wing extremist. I simply thought it was a less restrictive Twitter, based on the conversation I'd heard. After joining and opening the app, and without following anyone, I was immediately slammed with extremist right wing content and outright lies. I'm not one to defend Twitter/Facebook (both should be broken up into smaller companies), but my god...neither do anything close to what I saw with Parler.

mancerayder 6y ago

This is a rational and reasonable point. BUT, let me muddy it and make it harder to make your point feel so confidently clear-cut: Scenario. WhatsApp groups begin to be used as gathering places. Open secret. Bomb or explosion or storming of a government building ensures. Question: is it a question of national security to investigate and pressure to censor or eliminate the platform, and if not why not? Scenario. The bomby extremist-y people on Parler make up .05% of user base. 99.95, while being mostly right-wing, aren't bomby or national security-threatlike. Question: is the tradeoff of punishing the platform by making it disappear, worth it as the only alternative platform to Twitter (which is relied upon by government, health authorities and journalists as the one true place)? I have no problem with arguments in favor of censorship. I DO have acid reflux when I see the lack of nuance, the strong confidence and wording like "pretty clear." No, censorship is never pretty clear and always warrants skepticism and conversation.

watwut 6y ago
The big difference is whether platform refuses to moderate those .05% on Parler. Afaik, twitter for all its moderation flaws is not refusing to moderate those and reacts to big real world events significantly more quickly. And yes, twitter did deleted accounts and tweets of people who called for violence during summer. Maybe not perfectly and plus some ambiguous accounts ended closed too, but twitter did put real effort into it. Arguing as of the two were equal two is lacking even basic attempt at nuance. Parler was created because that content was booted from twitter, reddit and public facebook discussion. Literally. So acting like Twitter is the same is unfair despite Twitter deficiciencies.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Parler was created because there's a perception of biased censorship on Twitter. Never used Parler but can confirm there is a ton of hateful content and calls for violence on Twitter. I'm sorry you think it's unfair to compare the two, because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.
  - 6y ago