5 ms·

I think a big part of this is accepting Amazon's claims as fact, which I would not. For example, Amazon claims Parler was not moderating when in fact Parler ha

I think a big part of this is accepting Amazon's claims as fact, which I would not. For example, Amazon claims Parler was not moderating when in fact Parler had some pretty strict moderation enforcement. One could make an argument of whether or not it was successful "enough" and you'd have to compare it to other industry leaders like Facebook and Twitter which both have copious amounts of child pornography, calls for violence, etc. What I've seen is basically some screenshots of some bad posts, which doesn't tell me anything about what was really going on in a very large and complex system.

DonHopkins 6y ago
Parler had some pretty strict moderation enforcement against progressive views, just not against racism, death threats, and successfully planning violent insurrections against the government. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-warned-parler-for-months-about-more-than-100-violent-threats/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa... Filing: Amazon warned Parler for months about “more than 100” violent threats [...] Amazon provided "more than 100 additional representative pieces of content" advocating violence on Parler over the following seven weeks, the company said. Another document in the filing (PDF, also with content warning for racial slurs and threats of violence) lays out dozens of examples of posts Amazon reported to Parler, beginning in mid-December. Those posts call for, among other things: killing a specific transgender person; actively wishing for a race war and the murder of Black and Jewish people; and killing several activists and politicians such as Stacey Abrams, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and former President Barack Obama. Exhibit D (contains racial slurs, etc): https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.13.4.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  I addressed those claims in my last paragraph.
  - ThankYouBernard 6y ago
    No, you want to dismiss evidence that was filed in a court as "just some screenshots".
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    I saw a lot more than screenshots. I saw a violent insurrection against the US government unfold on live TV, incited by Trump himself, with the goal of overthrowing the results of a fair election, armed sedition justified by disproven lies, which was planned and promoted and published in real time on Parler. I also saw a map of the GPS data from Parler users who posted live videos and photos of themselves storming the US Capitol and murdering a police officer and attempting to murder Vice President Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. So yeah, there's a lot more evidence than screen snapshots that you're conspicuously ignoring. https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-capitol-building-1846042905 https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-ca... Parler Users Breached Deep Inside U.S. Capitol Building, GPS Data Shows
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      Great. Now provide the same analysis for Twitter, Facebook, iMessage, etc. The livestreams I watched which were streamed from within the WhiteHouse during the event were all on Periscope (Twitter). I have no doubt that some Parler users went into the White House. I haven't seen any evidence that Parler had no moderation. I haven't seen any evidence that Parler was any different than Facebook or Twitter with regard to users planning illegal/violent acts, making violent comments, etc.
      - DonHopkins 6y ago
        You haven't earned the right or respect for me to bother proving anything to you, since you're obviously a troll arguing in bad faith. None of your replies to anyone even bothered to address the points they raised to counter your frivolous arguments. You're as non-sensical and delusional as any of Trump's supporters. The Gish Gallop doesn't work here. Give it up, buddy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
nobody9999 6y ago
Whether or not your (that is Parler's) statements or Amazon's statements are correct are issues of fact to be adjudicated in the litigation. From a practical standpoint, your opinion (and mine for that matter, which I haven't expressed for this reason) is irrelevant. As such, it seems to me that all we can really say is that the judge's refusal to grant the TRO (given the tests[0] applied in deciding such things) while not dismissing the case outright, isn't a positive development for Parler. Further, the judge's ruling appears to have questioned the legal basis for Parler's claims. That doesn't bode well for them either. All that said, claiming that one side or the other is factually correct without having all the evidence seems both biased and premature. I'll wait until the truth comes out. Because in the end, it always does. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65
chevill 6y ago
The document states that Parler agreed they had a massive backlog of reported content to review that "potentially promoted violence". Even Parler isn't making the claim here that they were doing a good job of moderating. They are arguing that it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about lots of things. There's plenty of reasons to dislike mainstream social media companies and the large companies that do business with them. But not everything is a conspiracy.
- visarga 6y ago
  > it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it spoken as if there is just one cloud hosting provider in the world; it's parlers job to take care of their own security and resilience Let's say I call Jim's taxi every day, I am his client, and one day Jim refuses to serve me, can I sue him or should I just call another taxi?
  - chevill 6y ago
    Not sure what you're getting at here. I wasn't supporting Parler's lawsuit. I'm simply responding to the parent comment that was claiming that Parler has good moderation.

DonHopkins 6y ago

Parler had some pretty strict moderation enforcement against progressive views, just not against racism, death threats, and successfully planning violent insurrections against the government. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-warned-parler-for-months-about-more-than-100-violent-threats/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa... Filing: Amazon warned Parler for months about “more than 100” violent threats [...] Amazon provided "more than 100 additional representative pieces of content" advocating violence on Parler over the following seven weeks, the company said. Another document in the filing (PDF, also with content warning for racial slurs and threats of violence) lays out dozens of examples of posts Amazon reported to Parler, beginning in mid-December. Those posts call for, among other things: killing a specific transgender person; actively wishing for a race war and the murder of Black and Jewish people; and killing several activists and politicians such as Stacey Abrams, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and former President Barack Obama. Exhibit D (contains racial slurs, etc): https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.13.4.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...

Consultant32452 6y ago
I addressed those claims in my last paragraph.
- ThankYouBernard 6y ago
  No, you want to dismiss evidence that was filed in a court as "just some screenshots".
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  I saw a lot more than screenshots. I saw a violent insurrection against the US government unfold on live TV, incited by Trump himself, with the goal of overthrowing the results of a fair election, armed sedition justified by disproven lies, which was planned and promoted and published in real time on Parler. I also saw a map of the GPS data from Parler users who posted live videos and photos of themselves storming the US Capitol and murdering a police officer and attempting to murder Vice President Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. So yeah, there's a lot more evidence than screen snapshots that you're conspicuously ignoring. https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-capitol-building-1846042905 https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-ca... Parler Users Breached Deep Inside U.S. Capitol Building, GPS Data Shows
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    Great. Now provide the same analysis for Twitter, Facebook, iMessage, etc. The livestreams I watched which were streamed from within the WhiteHouse during the event were all on Periscope (Twitter). I have no doubt that some Parler users went into the White House. I haven't seen any evidence that Parler had no moderation. I haven't seen any evidence that Parler was any different than Facebook or Twitter with regard to users planning illegal/violent acts, making violent comments, etc.
    - DonHopkins 6y ago
      You haven't earned the right or respect for me to bother proving anything to you, since you're obviously a troll arguing in bad faith. None of your replies to anyone even bothered to address the points they raised to counter your frivolous arguments. You're as non-sensical and delusional as any of Trump's supporters. The Gish Gallop doesn't work here. Give it up, buddy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

nobody9999 6y ago

Whether or not your (that is Parler's) statements or Amazon's statements are correct are issues of fact to be adjudicated in the litigation. From a practical standpoint, your opinion (and mine for that matter, which I haven't expressed for this reason) is irrelevant. As such, it seems to me that all we can really say is that the judge's refusal to grant the TRO (given the tests[0] applied in deciding such things) while not dismissing the case outright, isn't a positive development for Parler. Further, the judge's ruling appears to have questioned the legal basis for Parler's claims. That doesn't bode well for them either. All that said, claiming that one side or the other is factually correct without having all the evidence seems both biased and premature. I'll wait until the truth comes out. Because in the end, it always does. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

chevill 6y ago

The document states that Parler agreed they had a massive backlog of reported content to review that "potentially promoted violence". Even Parler isn't making the claim here that they were doing a good job of moderating. They are arguing that it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about lots of things. There's plenty of reasons to dislike mainstream social media companies and the large companies that do business with them. But not everything is a conspiracy.

visarga 6y ago
> it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it spoken as if there is just one cloud hosting provider in the world; it's parlers job to take care of their own security and resilience Let's say I call Jim's taxi every day, I am his client, and one day Jim refuses to serve me, can I sue him or should I just call another taxi?
- chevill 6y ago
  Not sure what you're getting at here. I wasn't supporting Parler's lawsuit. I'm simply responding to the parent comment that was claiming that Parler has good moderation.