4 ms·

Why didn't the primary app involved banned then? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/

Why didn't the primary app involved banned then? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-righ...

unityByFreedom 6y ago
Not sure Facebook was primary but.. Did people really post about storming the capitol using their real names?
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Of course they did - after all, they wouldn't do it if they thought they were in the wrong. In fairness, the vast majority of those who went to the capitol that day were there for the Trump rally, not smashing up congress.
myko 6y ago
Parler's stated goal was to allow that type of speech while Facebook at least put a cursory amount of effort in blocking it.
- bavell 6y ago
  Hmm, so as long as the firehose of vomit continues to spew from the PR dept, it's all good? All you have to do is make it look like you're doing something? Never used parler and not defending them but idk why facebook gets a free pass from you, they are far more to blame for the events that transpired IMO.
  - myko 6y ago
    Facebook doesn't get a free pass from me, I'm just pointing out that Facebook made at least an attempt, publicly, to combat insurrectionists / hate speech while Parler advertised as a safe space for the same. These are just the facts, interpret them as you wish. IMO: Facebook (and YouTube, and Twitter) could and should do a lot more. The more they do the more likely it is they will be legislated out of existence and I'm not sure how they strike a good balance there. I also think Facebook in particular could do better but doesn't want to in order to keep engagement up - yet they want the good PR they can get for banning hate speech. They're trying to have it both ways and are awful. That's still different than Parler where the entire reason it exists is to push radical viewpoints without governance.

Why didn't the primary app involved banned then? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-right.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/facebook-far-righ...

unityByFreedom 6y ago

Not sure Facebook was primary but.. Did people really post about storming the capitol using their real names?

throwaways885 6y ago
Of course they did - after all, they wouldn't do it if they thought they were in the wrong. In fairness, the vast majority of those who went to the capitol that day were there for the Trump rally, not smashing up congress.

myko 6y ago

Parler's stated goal was to allow that type of speech while Facebook at least put a cursory amount of effort in blocking it.

bavell 6y ago
Hmm, so as long as the firehose of vomit continues to spew from the PR dept, it's all good? All you have to do is make it look like you're doing something? Never used parler and not defending them but idk why facebook gets a free pass from you, they are far more to blame for the events that transpired IMO.
- myko 6y ago
  Facebook doesn't get a free pass from me, I'm just pointing out that Facebook made at least an attempt, publicly, to combat insurrectionists / hate speech while Parler advertised as a safe space for the same. These are just the facts, interpret them as you wish. IMO: Facebook (and YouTube, and Twitter) could and should do a lot more. The more they do the more likely it is they will be legislated out of existence and I'm not sure how they strike a good balance there. I also think Facebook in particular could do better but doesn't want to in order to keep engagement up - yet they want the good PR they can get for banning hate speech. They're trying to have it both ways and are awful. That's still different than Parler where the entire reason it exists is to push radical viewpoints without governance.