7 ms·

I don't think it's unreasonable for Parler to attempt to create the same kind of mainstream platform that these other services enjoy. Their service is not crimi

I don't think it's unreasonable for Parler to attempt to create the same kind of mainstream platform that these other services enjoy. Their service is not criminal in nature. Regardless of what some may claim, their service is simply a social media platform. If you're a technical user you can probably figure out the 'Darkweb'. You can't blame them for not wanting to restrict their userbase to only technical users. They're trying to be a viable alternative to the Silicon Valley giants. That's a reasonable thing to do.

peteretep 6y ago
> Their service is not criminal in nature They are getting kicked off AWS because of content that is absolutely criminal in nature, and their inability and inaction in moderating it.
- oceanplexian 6y ago
  They provided ~90 example out of millions of posts and comments. I signed up to see what all the fuss was about and didn’t see any examples of violence whatsoever, other than some nutty conspiracy stuff and some vaguely violent language that wouldn’t be out of place on Vox or Mother Jones. If a platform has ANY illegal content what standard is then acceptable? If you moderate 99.999% of your content is it reasonable for you to be blacklisted for the 0.001%? If someone found 90 examples of calls to violence on Twitter would that make it OK to deplatform them too?
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > If you moderate 99.999% of your content is it reasonable for you to be blacklisted for the 0.001%? This sounds like you're trying to get us to pretend along that Parler had a moderation policy that was in any way effective, equally applied, or not just pandering to the crowd it was trying to entice.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      Same kinds of criticism are regularly voiced at Facebook and Twitter too. For instance: https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in... (IMHO both Facebook and Twitter should be shut down. Size matters.)
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    > They provided ~90 example out of millions of posts and comments This argument is problematic. In any criminal endeavor, what most of the criminals do isn’t illegal or even unusual. When HSBC was laundering cartel money, they also served regular customers. They processed credit cards, gave loans and so on. 99.9999% legal activities and yet they were fined billions of dollars for fascinating money laundering operation of few murderous warlords.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      If that’s your logic, then clearly Facebook and Twitter are 1,000x as guilty as Parler, considering that they have hosted extremely violent speech. The genocide in Myanmar, for instance. This is about money and power, nothing else. Facebook is “too big to fail” so clearly it will never face any consequences, while Parler is a random little site that’s easy to pick on.
      - mrtksn 6y ago
        I do not object to the claim that FB/Twitter etc. are no better. I am simply pointing out that "arithmetically most of the things they did are harmless" is not a good argument. Most of the things Bin Laden did are benign, Him studying eating, partying, watching TV, taking a dump, playing a ball etc. probably accounts for %99.999 of his actions and being a horrible terrorist is just %0.001 of who he is, if we are looking for a benign/illegal ratio. IMHO social media needs to be regulated, companies should not be able to simply cut you off from the rest of the public and you shouldn't be unaccountable for your actions and there must be ways for harm reduction. (if you tell/share a something, them maybe people affected by it should have right to equal exposure to challenge it. i.e. their POV could be attached to your post and everyone who interacted with your post receives a notification that the post was challenged)
- idrios 6y ago
  Wouldn't the platform be protected by section 230? I imagine a large part of the reason Parler even exists is to abuse section 230, or get section 230 removed so they can then go after big tech, or call people hypocrites when only their service gets removed. But as it stands, isn't the service protected?
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > The law allows for companies to engage in “good Samaritan” moderation of “objectionable” material without being treated like a publisher or speaker under the law. My understanding is that the law simply says that doing _some_ moderation doesn't make you the publisher.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    Section 230 protects against civil litigation, not criminal.

peteretep 6y ago

> Their service is not criminal in nature They are getting kicked off AWS because of content that is absolutely criminal in nature, and their inability and inaction in moderating it.

oceanplexian 6y ago
They provided ~90 example out of millions of posts and comments. I signed up to see what all the fuss was about and didn’t see any examples of violence whatsoever, other than some nutty conspiracy stuff and some vaguely violent language that wouldn’t be out of place on Vox or Mother Jones. If a platform has ANY illegal content what standard is then acceptable? If you moderate 99.999% of your content is it reasonable for you to be blacklisted for the 0.001%? If someone found 90 examples of calls to violence on Twitter would that make it OK to deplatform them too?
- peteretep 6y ago
  > If you moderate 99.999% of your content is it reasonable for you to be blacklisted for the 0.001%? This sounds like you're trying to get us to pretend along that Parler had a moderation policy that was in any way effective, equally applied, or not just pandering to the crowd it was trying to entice.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Same kinds of criticism are regularly voiced at Facebook and Twitter too. For instance: https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in-myanmars-attacks-on-minorities/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in... (IMHO both Facebook and Twitter should be shut down. Size matters.)
- mrtksn 6y ago
  > They provided ~90 example out of millions of posts and comments This argument is problematic. In any criminal endeavor, what most of the criminals do isn’t illegal or even unusual. When HSBC was laundering cartel money, they also served regular customers. They processed credit cards, gave loans and so on. 99.9999% legal activities and yet they were fined billions of dollars for fascinating money laundering operation of few murderous warlords.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    If that’s your logic, then clearly Facebook and Twitter are 1,000x as guilty as Parler, considering that they have hosted extremely violent speech. The genocide in Myanmar, for instance. This is about money and power, nothing else. Facebook is “too big to fail” so clearly it will never face any consequences, while Parler is a random little site that’s easy to pick on.
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      I do not object to the claim that FB/Twitter etc. are no better. I am simply pointing out that "arithmetically most of the things they did are harmless" is not a good argument. Most of the things Bin Laden did are benign, Him studying eating, partying, watching TV, taking a dump, playing a ball etc. probably accounts for %99.999 of his actions and being a horrible terrorist is just %0.001 of who he is, if we are looking for a benign/illegal ratio. IMHO social media needs to be regulated, companies should not be able to simply cut you off from the rest of the public and you shouldn't be unaccountable for your actions and there must be ways for harm reduction. (if you tell/share a something, them maybe people affected by it should have right to equal exposure to challenge it. i.e. their POV could be attached to your post and everyone who interacted with your post receives a notification that the post was challenged)
idrios 6y ago
Wouldn't the platform be protected by section 230? I imagine a large part of the reason Parler even exists is to abuse section 230, or get section 230 removed so they can then go after big tech, or call people hypocrites when only their service gets removed. But as it stands, isn't the service protected?
- peteretep 6y ago
  > The law allows for companies to engage in “good Samaritan” moderation of “objectionable” material without being treated like a publisher or speaker under the law. My understanding is that the law simply says that doing _some_ moderation doesn't make you the publisher.
- vharuck 6y ago
  Section 230 protects against civil litigation, not criminal.