5 ms·

What’s interesting about this to me is that Facebook, where most of the planning took place, is still online, while Parler has been, for all intents and purpose

What’s interesting about this to me is that Facebook, where most of the planning took place, is still online, while Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed. I wonder why AANG isn’t colluding to kill F like they did with Parler - by tomorrow morning - now that this has come to light. It seems only fair given that we now have an established standard of user behavior that dictates whether or not companies can continue to exist.

notacoward 6y ago
There are two really simple reasons. One is that any such collusion would itself be a breach of anti-trust. The other is that they can't. Facebook has its own servers in its own data centers, its own fiber lines, etc. They could remove the apps from the iOS and Android app stores, but that wouldn't affect the billions who already have the app or get it preinstalled by carriers. And that's all beside the question of whether Facebook deserves such special treatment, either compared to the others or at all.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed. Parler wasn't “killed” because planning took place there, but because they were openly at least unable if not actually unwilling to take action against a huge backlog of specific problem identified to them; the problem was current and forward, not retrospective.
- rj_kidwin 6y ago
  Amazon has stated that it warned Parler for months without redress, but to offer another perspective, the CEO of Parler stated in an interview that they were notified the day before they got the plug pulled, sought to work with AWS on solving the issue, then were "deplatformed" the following day. He said she said, but obviously both sides are incentivized to make themselves look clean
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Though I doubt that Parler has many employees, it seems unlikely the emails from your hosting company would be read by the CEO. It's entirely possible both people are telling the truth.
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      Your CTO of your social media startup would definitely surface threats of deplatforming from your cloud provider to the CEO.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        In a well run organization with great employees that is what you would expect to happen.
  - amznthrwaway 6y ago
    If you think it’s he said / she said, can I please bet you $10,000 that Amazon is telling the truth, to your $5,000 that Parler is? Winner to be decided by a neutral third party? If you believe that it’s even odds about who is telling the truth, this is an incredibly good offer for you. If you won’t take the offer, that is proof that you know that you are a dishonest pile of human dung. We can get a third party escrow. So do you want a high EV bet, or are you a wildly dishonest pile of human dung?
- AzzieElbab 6y ago
  How did you come up with that conclusion? Honestly, just asking
  - nl 6y ago
    Not the OP, but it's the reason AWS gave: In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective. “Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.” https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
    - AzzieElbab 6y ago
      Even that does not say any planning was done on parler.
      - downandout 6y ago
        This does [1]. According to the description, Parler was the "preferred" platform for planning of right-wing election-related violence. According to the video, now that Parler is gone, Telegram, a tool that over 500 million people use everyday for entirely legitimate purposes, is now nothing more than an outlet for Qanon. If this isn't a prima facie example of the completely balanced, factual, and accurate reporting by our friends at MSNBC, I don't know what is. [1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-are-now-recalibrating-planning-on-an-app-favored-by-isis-99573829778 https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
        AzzieElbab 6y ago
        I read Aws letter not buzzfeed take on it. I advise you do the same
- ttt0 6y ago
  If anything, the same is true for other platforms like Facebook and Twitter as well.
- berryjerry 6y ago
  Parler was killed for one reason. They said they wouldn't ban Trump. It's probably tamer than Facebook, Twitter or even Reddit where one search and you can find threats and calls for violence.
alsetmusic 6y ago
This reminds me of a discussion with a parent who was distressed about Parler being deplatformed. She was never on it, but her choices of news media told her this was “bad”. I argued that threats of violence were viable on the platform. She didn’t seem to believe me. I later sent screenshots of violent rhetoric that I found with a quick web search. No response. There are people who refuse the validity of reality right up until they can’t anymore. Then silence.
- downandout 6y ago
  If you’re referring to me being silent, the discussion seems to have made my point for me. I didn’t see the need to further interject. But here’s my take... If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there - in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Yet it turns out that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter users also engaged in this behavior, and most of it occurred on Facebook. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that these “news” sources are knowingly lying to their audience about the reason big tech colluded to kill Parler. The second is that they believe what they are saying, which means that there is a new standard by which we decide whether or not social networks are allowed to operate - if attacks are planned on a given platform, big tech colludes to instantly shut it down. We know that as of this morning, Facebook is still fully operational. So we either have “news” sources openly lying to their almost exclusively Democratic audience, or there is extreme hypocrisy in the way that big tech applies the new “Parler Standard”. It is one or the other, and neither of these say good things about our society.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there I do listen to, and read, mainstream media (and others), and I haven't seen that explanation. I've seen lots of people on the right attributing it vaguely to the MSM to lead into arguments against it, but that's the only place I've seen that explanation of the deplatforming, rather than the failure to moderate when unacceptable content was identified. > in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Again, no, I've seen plenty of references to planning elsewhere, social media and otherwise, in the MSM. Again, this is a frequent thing I've seen people with a right-wing media preference attribute without detail to the MSM, but not actually seen in the MSM.

notacoward 6y ago

There are two really simple reasons. One is that any such collusion would itself be a breach of anti-trust. The other is that they can't. Facebook has its own servers in its own data centers, its own fiber lines, etc. They could remove the apps from the iOS and Android app stores, but that wouldn't affect the billions who already have the app or get it preinstalled by carriers. And that's all beside the question of whether Facebook deserves such special treatment, either compared to the others or at all.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Parler has been, for all intents and purposes, killed. Parler wasn't “killed” because planning took place there, but because they were openly at least unable if not actually unwilling to take action against a huge backlog of specific problem identified to them; the problem was current and forward, not retrospective.

rj_kidwin 6y ago
Amazon has stated that it warned Parler for months without redress, but to offer another perspective, the CEO of Parler stated in an interview that they were notified the day before they got the plug pulled, sought to work with AWS on solving the issue, then were "deplatformed" the following day. He said she said, but obviously both sides are incentivized to make themselves look clean
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Though I doubt that Parler has many employees, it seems unlikely the emails from your hosting company would be read by the CEO. It's entirely possible both people are telling the truth.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Your CTO of your social media startup would definitely surface threats of deplatforming from your cloud provider to the CEO.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      In a well run organization with great employees that is what you would expect to happen.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  If you think it’s he said / she said, can I please bet you $10,000 that Amazon is telling the truth, to your $5,000 that Parler is? Winner to be decided by a neutral third party? If you believe that it’s even odds about who is telling the truth, this is an incredibly good offer for you. If you won’t take the offer, that is proof that you know that you are a dishonest pile of human dung. We can get a third party escrow. So do you want a high EV bet, or are you a wildly dishonest pile of human dung?
AzzieElbab 6y ago
How did you come up with that conclusion? Honestly, just asking
- nl 6y ago
  Not the OP, but it's the reason AWS gave: In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective. “Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.” https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
    Even that does not say any planning was done on parler.
    - downandout 6y ago
      This does [1]. According to the description, Parler was the "preferred" platform for planning of right-wing election-related violence. According to the video, now that Parler is gone, Telegram, a tool that over 500 million people use everyday for entirely legitimate purposes, is now nothing more than an outlet for Qanon. If this isn't a prima facie example of the completely balanced, factual, and accurate reporting by our friends at MSNBC, I don't know what is. [1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-are-now-recalibrating-planning-on-an-app-favored-by-isis-99573829778 https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
      - AzzieElbab 6y ago
        I read Aws letter not buzzfeed take on it. I advise you do the same
ttt0 6y ago
If anything, the same is true for other platforms like Facebook and Twitter as well.
berryjerry 6y ago
Parler was killed for one reason. They said they wouldn't ban Trump. It's probably tamer than Facebook, Twitter or even Reddit where one search and you can find threats and calls for violence.

alsetmusic 6y ago

This reminds me of a discussion with a parent who was distressed about Parler being deplatformed. She was never on it, but her choices of news media told her this was “bad”. I argued that threats of violence were viable on the platform. She didn’t seem to believe me. I later sent screenshots of violent rhetoric that I found with a quick web search. No response. There are people who refuse the validity of reality right up until they can’t anymore. Then silence.

downandout 6y ago
If you’re referring to me being silent, the discussion seems to have made my point for me. I didn’t see the need to further interject. But here’s my take... If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there - in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Yet it turns out that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter users also engaged in this behavior, and most of it occurred on Facebook. There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that these “news” sources are knowingly lying to their audience about the reason big tech colluded to kill Parler. The second is that they believe what they are saying, which means that there is a new standard by which we decide whether or not social networks are allowed to operate - if attacks are planned on a given platform, big tech colludes to instantly shut it down. We know that as of this morning, Facebook is still fully operational. So we either have “news” sources openly lying to their almost exclusively Democratic audience, or there is extreme hypocrisy in the way that big tech applies the new “Parler Standard”. It is one or the other, and neither of these say good things about our society.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there I do listen to, and read, mainstream media (and others), and I haven't seen that explanation. I've seen lots of people on the right attributing it vaguely to the MSM to lead into arguments against it, but that's the only place I've seen that explanation of the deplatforming, rather than the failure to moderate when unacceptable content was identified. > in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Again, no, I've seen plenty of references to planning elsewhere, social media and otherwise, in the MSM. Again, this is a frequent thing I've seen people with a right-wing media preference attribute without detail to the MSM, but not actually seen in the MSM.