3 ms·

The person who scraped the site pointed out that users started out shadow-banned, and were only unmuted after it was confirmed their posts fit a certain profile

The person who scraped the site pointed out that users started out shadow-banned, and were only unmuted after it was confirmed their posts fit a certain profile. That’s definitely not neutral. Reference: https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506

deno 6y ago
All your reference shows is all politically-neutral anti-SPAM categories[1]. Compare this with Twitter’s internal moderation tool[2] and their granular suppression capabilities which appear deliberately prone to abuse. [1] https://nitter.mastodont.cat/pic/media%2FEq_b25LXMAEwtNZ.jpg%3Fname%3Dorig https://nitter.mastodont.cat/pic/media%2FEq_b25LXMAEwtNZ.jpg... [2] https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shinji-r.png https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shinj...
- invisible 6y ago
  This list of “moderators” is pretty damning (if we’re talking about neutrality): https://gist.github.com/d0nk/ef4e58645d3250851491e4550cb16e29 https://gist.github.com/d0nk/ef4e58645d3250851491e4550cb16e2...
  - deno 6y ago
    As opposed to Twitter which is known for hiring conservative moderators as they strive for neutrality. I don’t know if the moderation log is in the leaks, but that’s something that you could draw some conclusions from. So far all this is conjecture.
    - invisible 6y ago
      I don’t think this particular conjecture is that sensational and backs up what Amazon has already claimed. This list of moderators overwhelmingly are Republicans/conservatives and some of them make concerning assertions in their bios.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deno 6y ago
        I said it’s conjecture and you don’t disagree. I’ll leave it to you how sensational it is. I have biases but I would have no problem in moderating without them as above else I believe in free speech, so this argument is not very convincing, personally. You might be right, though, I’ve never used Parler, so IDK. But evidence is evidence and that Twitter statement was dishonest.

deno 6y ago

All your reference shows is all politically-neutral anti-SPAM categories[1]. Compare this with Twitter’s internal moderation tool[2] and their granular suppression capabilities which appear deliberately prone to abuse. [1] https://nitter.mastodont.cat/pic/media%2FEq_b25LXMAEwtNZ.jpg%3Fname%3Dorig https://nitter.mastodont.cat/pic/media%2FEq_b25LXMAEwtNZ.jpg... [2] https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shinji-r.png https://krebsonsecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/shinj...

invisible 6y ago
This list of “moderators” is pretty damning (if we’re talking about neutrality): https://gist.github.com/d0nk/ef4e58645d3250851491e4550cb16e29 https://gist.github.com/d0nk/ef4e58645d3250851491e4550cb16e2...
- deno 6y ago
  As opposed to Twitter which is known for hiring conservative moderators as they strive for neutrality. I don’t know if the moderation log is in the leaks, but that’s something that you could draw some conclusions from. So far all this is conjecture.
  - invisible 6y ago
    I don’t think this particular conjecture is that sensational and backs up what Amazon has already claimed. This list of moderators overwhelmingly are Republicans/conservatives and some of them make concerning assertions in their bios.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deno 6y ago
      I said it’s conjecture and you don’t disagree. I’ll leave it to you how sensational it is. I have biases but I would have no problem in moderating without them as above else I believe in free speech, so this argument is not very convincing, personally. You might be right, though, I’ve never used Parler, so IDK. But evidence is evidence and that Twitter statement was dishonest.