3 ms·

The problem is that twitter and Facebook already exist and do their jobs well enough and have moderation Any parler type thing is only ever going to get the wo

by 8note 6y ago

The problem is that twitter and Facebook already exist and do their jobs well enough and have moderation Any parler type thing is only ever going to get the worst of the worst of possible users. The folks who get kicked off Facebook and Twitter aren't the people you want to build a business on

freebuju 6y ago
> kicked off Facebook and Twitter aren't the people you want to build a business on They could have if they went with a provider located in another more conservative country. Or long-shot self hosted. Not supporting Parler however, it deserves it's rightful place in the embers of eternal hell for negligently failing to protect & secure sensitive user data.
roenxi 6y ago
That is asserting unsettled matters of fact. Twitter's moderation has become partisan enough that it might be desirable to build a business on people they have kicked off. Notably Trump - while he was supremely unpopular on the left, opinion polling suggests he is leaving a more popular legacy than, eg, George W Bush. Maybe even George H.W. Bush. That is a pretty decent foundation for a business.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > Twitter's moderation has become partisan enough That's also an unsettled assertion. Especially when talking about kicking off Trump, since they had been letting him break the rules for years. Removing his exemption is arguably a reduction in partisan bias.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    That is a particularly difficult argument to make - Twitter put out a statement [0] when they banned him. They do not mention 'breaking the rules for years'. They take a surreal and incoherent view that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." is an incitement of violence. Siding with a political majority is a safe strategy; but that statement is pretty much indefensible. Even if you believe they had grounds for the ban based on a history, their actual reasoning is different from your justification. Nonpartisan moderation would involve, at some level, quotes or instances where Trump said something objectionable. [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.htmlhttps://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      I don't think the statement reflects their full reasoning when you consider the context of how they had been putting out other statements about why they weren't banning him.

by 8note 6y ago

freebuju 6y ago

> kicked off Facebook and Twitter aren't the people you want to build a business on They could have if they went with a provider located in another more conservative country. Or long-shot self hosted. Not supporting Parler however, it deserves it's rightful place in the embers of eternal hell for negligently failing to protect & secure sensitive user data.

roenxi 6y ago

That is asserting unsettled matters of fact. Twitter's moderation has become partisan enough that it might be desirable to build a business on people they have kicked off. Notably Trump - while he was supremely unpopular on the left, opinion polling suggests he is leaving a more popular legacy than, eg, George W Bush. Maybe even George H.W. Bush. That is a pretty decent foundation for a business.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> Twitter's moderation has become partisan enough That's also an unsettled assertion. Especially when talking about kicking off Trump, since they had been letting him break the rules for years. Removing his exemption is arguably a reduction in partisan bias.
- roenxi 6y ago
  That is a particularly difficult argument to make - Twitter put out a statement [0] when they banned him. They do not mention 'breaking the rules for years'. They take a surreal and incoherent view that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." is an incitement of violence. Siding with a political majority is a safe strategy; but that statement is pretty much indefensible. Even if you believe they had grounds for the ban based on a history, their actual reasoning is different from your justification. Nonpartisan moderation would involve, at some level, quotes or instances where Trump said something objectionable. [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.htmlhttps://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I don't think the statement reflects their full reasoning when you consider the context of how they had been putting out other statements about why they weren't banning him.