6 ms·

Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works. Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Ja

by hpcjoe 6y ago

Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works. Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for their ... whats the word I heard used about Parler ... complicity? This is a dystopian future.

sharklazer 6y ago
> This is a dystopian future No, pretty sure it's now. This is a dystopian society we live in today.
setpatchaddress 6y ago
This is disinformation. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-during-trumps-pre-riot-speech-parler-talk-grew-darker/4297165001/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-... https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-for-capitol-riot/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zucke... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-capitol-riots/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-c...
- hpcjoe 6y ago
  No, it really wasn't dis/mis information. You can't just label facts you don't like, that go against a narrative that you wish to be true, as disinformation. Twitter, Facebook, and many others do this. They specifically stifle discussion that runs counter to the narratives they wish to promote. That's their choice as private companies. But holding them to account for this, when they claim they wish to be "fair" definitely begs the question of what their definition of "fair" is. It makes for a rather Clintonian discussion.
ABeeSea 6y ago
Parler was kicked off of AWS for violating AWS’s policies. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to tell you that YouTube and Facebook don’t use AWS.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  Why were they removed from Google and Apple's app stores while Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are still available? Twitter uses AWS for some of their stuff. Why aren't they removed for violating AWS's policies?
  - notional 6y ago
    Do you really need an explanation of why a multibillion dollar company wasn't removed and why a fringe app was?
    - squidlogic 6y ago
      Why do you think it wasn't removed?
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      We just want people to admit that the reason was a lie
      - kube-system 6y ago
        This is a silly conclusion. If a gang member and a methodist get into a bar fight, do you think the fair thing is for the bar to ban both gang members and methodists? No -- it is entirely reasonable to treat fringe groups that foster fringe ideas differently than large diverse groups.
        _-david-_ 6y ago
        Since the fringe people were on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube it seems like we should be banning them not Parler.
FireBeyond 6y ago
Facebook was regularly kicking people off for problematic comments (it certainly didn't get all of them). That was many people's motivation for going to Parler in the first place - frustrated with what they believed being tagged as "false", frustrated with repeated bouts in Facebook Jail, etc. There's a dichotomy that one of the major motivations for Parler uptick is because of something you imply never really ever happened on Facebook.
mikece 6y ago
The question today is "how many" but the question tomorrow will be "what are their names?"
- koolba 6y ago
  And they have that information too. Digital cable delivery means that the cable companies have a record of which channel you watch and at what time.
- reilly3000 6y ago
  I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Asking a media outlet the size of their audience is a common figure, something they include in every ad sales presentation. Its relevant to understand the reach of these messages, especially when they have direct ties to foreign adversaries such as in the case of OANN: https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channel-employs-kremlin-paid-journalist https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channe... This is not a censorship dragnet, its a wide-ranging set of inquiries to a diverse set of media (keep scrolling if you just saw the AT&T letter) in response to an attempted insurrection.

by hpcjoe 6y ago

sharklazer 6y ago

> This is a dystopian future No, pretty sure it's now. This is a dystopian society we live in today.

setpatchaddress 6y ago

This is disinformation. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-during-trumps-pre-riot-speech-parler-talk-grew-darker/4297165001/ https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/02/01/civil-war-... https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-for-capitol-riot/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/16/aoc-slams-facebooks-mark-zucke... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-capitol-riots/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-blocks-qanon-accounts-c...

hpcjoe 6y ago
No, it really wasn't dis/mis information. You can't just label facts you don't like, that go against a narrative that you wish to be true, as disinformation. Twitter, Facebook, and many others do this. They specifically stifle discussion that runs counter to the narratives they wish to promote. That's their choice as private companies. But holding them to account for this, when they claim they wish to be "fair" definitely begs the question of what their definition of "fair" is. It makes for a rather Clintonian discussion.

ABeeSea 6y ago

Parler was kicked off of AWS for violating AWS’s policies. I’m pretty sure I don’t have to tell you that YouTube and Facebook don’t use AWS.

_-david-_ 6y ago
Why were they removed from Google and Apple's app stores while Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are still available? Twitter uses AWS for some of their stuff. Why aren't they removed for violating AWS's policies?
- notional 6y ago
  Do you really need an explanation of why a multibillion dollar company wasn't removed and why a fringe app was?
  - squidlogic 6y ago
    Why do you think it wasn't removed?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    We just want people to admit that the reason was a lie
    - kube-system 6y ago
      This is a silly conclusion. If a gang member and a methodist get into a bar fight, do you think the fair thing is for the bar to ban both gang members and methodists? No -- it is entirely reasonable to treat fringe groups that foster fringe ideas differently than large diverse groups.
      - _-david-_ 6y ago
        Since the fringe people were on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube it seems like we should be banning them not Parler.

FireBeyond 6y ago

Facebook was regularly kicking people off for problematic comments (it certainly didn't get all of them). That was many people's motivation for going to Parler in the first place - frustrated with what they believed being tagged as "false", frustrated with repeated bouts in Facebook Jail, etc. There's a dichotomy that one of the major motivations for Parler uptick is because of something you imply never really ever happened on Facebook.

mikece 6y ago

The question today is "how many" but the question tomorrow will be "what are their names?"

koolba 6y ago
And they have that information too. Digital cable delivery means that the cable companies have a record of which channel you watch and at what time.
reilly3000 6y ago
I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Asking a media outlet the size of their audience is a common figure, something they include in every ad sales presentation. Its relevant to understand the reach of these messages, especially when they have direct ties to foreign adversaries such as in the case of OANN: https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channel-employs-kremlin-paid-journalist https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channe... This is not a censorship dragnet, its a wide-ranging set of inquiries to a diverse set of media (keep scrolling if you just saw the AT&T letter) in response to an attempted insurrection.