4 ms·
It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts if you only need a fig leaf to remove the platform - not a great precedent to align with.
by suoduandao3 3y ago
It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts if you only need a fig leaf to remove the platform - not a great precedent to align with.
Also, didn't a spokesperson for Harvard recently say some calls for genocide were acceptable on their platform (campus) depending on context? Why aren't the anti-1st amendment types trying to ban Harvard?
Edit: Not a rhetorical question for the downvoters.
- whoknowsidont 3y agoYour comment seems to have spiraled out into... I don't even know where? Were you combining threads in your head? >It's easy to botspam a competitor with terroristic and genocidal posts I don't think it's necessary to employ conspiracy theory accessories when the stated moderation policy of the platform was "no moderation."
- suoduandao3 3y agoNot combining threads, but it was a rather obscure reference. The president of Harvard recently testified before congress that calls for genocide may not violate Harvard's code of conduct 'depending on context'. Which makes a widespread effort to censor Parler for hosting calls for genocide rather hypocritical IMHO. Hope that's clearer.
- whoknowsidont 3y agoNo not really.
- suoduandao3 3y agoOK, last try for clarity: If you think it's just to debank Parler for hosting genocidal speech and also think it's just NOT to debank Harvard for hosting genocidal speech, I think you're a hypocrite. And if that's not your position I'd be interested to hear how I've misinterpreted it.