3 ms·
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, wh
by 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?