4 ms·

Parler did have plans for generating revenue. I'm not sure what your point is. Facebook and Google were operating at a loss initially as well. It seems like yo

Parler did have plans for generating revenue. I'm not sure what your point is. Facebook and Google were operating at a loss initially as well. It seems like you are arguing that deplatforming Parler is more ok, because they never got to the point of being entrenched tech hegemonies? Or are you arguing that Parler is somehow more quilty because they weren't making money yet, so their intentions are bad?

Nextgrid 6y ago
My point is that Facebook, Google and plenty of tech companies created this insurrection (damaging countless lives and relationships in the process), earned billions off it and are now claiming the moral high ground? Screw them. In this case, Parler doesn't sound that bad. At least Parler doesn't have billions of literal blood money and doesn't attempt to get into my life like Facebook does. If Parler should be held accountable for hosting and encouraging this type of content, then should all the other ones. And if the other ones are allowed to stay, then so should Parler.
- betterunix2 6y ago
  That is the equivalent of saying that someone with HIV created HIV -- after all, it was their body that kept producing more virus particles! QAnon and other BS is a virus that exploits the way platforms determine recommendations and whatnot. The insurrection was not created by Facebook; at most you can only say that Facebook should have been more aggressively policing extremists on their platform (and in fact they have been improving their approach to moderation for years -- unfortunately the problem has been getting worse faster than Facebook has improved their handling of it). Parler and Gab, on the other hand, were created as a protest against the moderation that happens on other platforms (even though that moderation is itself insufficient), and that is what they were held accountable for: explicitly and deliberately not conducting moderation. This "both sides" argument is getting tiresome. Parler was created to be a safe haven for the very extremists Facebook is being criticized for not aggressively banning. One side made the effort and came up short, the other side attacked the effort itself. There is really not much of a comparison here.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    > That is the equivalent of saying that someone with HIV created HIV -- after all, it was their body that kept producing more virus particles! QAnon and other BS is a virus that exploits the way platforms determine recommendations and whatnot And just like with HIV, we now understand its method of propagation, know how to curtail it, and actually hold people criminally liable if they knowingly spread it. Why are mainstream social media platforms given a pass here, considering not only do they knowingly operate a system where such content thrives and spreads, but also profiting off its spread? > One side made the effort and came up short One side did not make the effort. They profited off not making the effort despite having ample warning of the upcoming crisis. This doesn't make the other side any better, but neither does it mean that the first side should somehow be treated more leniently than the first one. I'm not defending Parler, but if we're letting Facebook and others get away with this then so should Parler, so that it serves as a reminder to rethink our approach and eventually ban both of them or force them both to reform (as in actually reform, unlike Facebook which merely claims to moderate but only does so when they've been exposed).
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      The problem with Parler was not that terrorists were using its platform. The problem is that Parler refused to even try to ban terrorists from its platform, which should surprise nobody given that Parler was created for the benefit of such groups. Facebook has never gotten a pass on this, in fact they have been widely criticized for failing to be aggressive enough in their efforts to moderate extremist content, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. In a nutshell the difference is this: Parler was created as a safe haven for people and content that had been banned from mainstream platforms (and the majority of small, non-mainstream platforms).
      - Nextgrid 6y ago
        > Facebook has never gotten a pass on this, in fact they have been widely criticized for failing to be aggressive enough in their efforts to moderate extremist content, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. Well now we have an issue where Facebook's unwillingness to moderate has blown up into large-scale domestic terrorism, so big in fact that it created a market for Parler to cater to. So why are we still discussing Parler's ban (which I don't disagree with) but completely ignoring the core issue that Facebook initially caused this and should be banned too?
- yonaguska 6y ago
  Gotcha, I misunderstood.

Nextgrid 6y ago

My point is that Facebook, Google and plenty of tech companies created this insurrection (damaging countless lives and relationships in the process), earned billions off it and are now claiming the moral high ground? Screw them. In this case, Parler doesn't sound that bad. At least Parler doesn't have billions of literal blood money and doesn't attempt to get into my life like Facebook does. If Parler should be held accountable for hosting and encouraging this type of content, then should all the other ones. And if the other ones are allowed to stay, then so should Parler.

betterunix2 6y ago
That is the equivalent of saying that someone with HIV created HIV -- after all, it was their body that kept producing more virus particles! QAnon and other BS is a virus that exploits the way platforms determine recommendations and whatnot. The insurrection was not created by Facebook; at most you can only say that Facebook should have been more aggressively policing extremists on their platform (and in fact they have been improving their approach to moderation for years -- unfortunately the problem has been getting worse faster than Facebook has improved their handling of it). Parler and Gab, on the other hand, were created as a protest against the moderation that happens on other platforms (even though that moderation is itself insufficient), and that is what they were held accountable for: explicitly and deliberately not conducting moderation. This "both sides" argument is getting tiresome. Parler was created to be a safe haven for the very extremists Facebook is being criticized for not aggressively banning. One side made the effort and came up short, the other side attacked the effort itself. There is really not much of a comparison here.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  > That is the equivalent of saying that someone with HIV created HIV -- after all, it was their body that kept producing more virus particles! QAnon and other BS is a virus that exploits the way platforms determine recommendations and whatnot And just like with HIV, we now understand its method of propagation, know how to curtail it, and actually hold people criminally liable if they knowingly spread it. Why are mainstream social media platforms given a pass here, considering not only do they knowingly operate a system where such content thrives and spreads, but also profiting off its spread? > One side made the effort and came up short One side did not make the effort. They profited off not making the effort despite having ample warning of the upcoming crisis. This doesn't make the other side any better, but neither does it mean that the first side should somehow be treated more leniently than the first one. I'm not defending Parler, but if we're letting Facebook and others get away with this then so should Parler, so that it serves as a reminder to rethink our approach and eventually ban both of them or force them both to reform (as in actually reform, unlike Facebook which merely claims to moderate but only does so when they've been exposed).
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    The problem with Parler was not that terrorists were using its platform. The problem is that Parler refused to even try to ban terrorists from its platform, which should surprise nobody given that Parler was created for the benefit of such groups. Facebook has never gotten a pass on this, in fact they have been widely criticized for failing to be aggressive enough in their efforts to moderate extremist content, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. In a nutshell the difference is this: Parler was created as a safe haven for people and content that had been banned from mainstream platforms (and the majority of small, non-mainstream platforms).
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      > Facebook has never gotten a pass on this, in fact they have been widely criticized for failing to be aggressive enough in their efforts to moderate extremist content, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. Well now we have an issue where Facebook's unwillingness to moderate has blown up into large-scale domestic terrorism, so big in fact that it created a market for Parler to cater to. So why are we still discussing Parler's ban (which I don't disagree with) but completely ignoring the core issue that Facebook initially caused this and should be banned too?
yonaguska 6y ago
Gotcha, I misunderstood.