What you mean is Twitter doesn't prioritize your singular reports on low engagement tweets from years ago.
If they had more engagement they could have more reports.
But keep martyring yourself, it results in amusing justifications like thinking there wouldn't be racist people who had clamored for the assassination of the first black president of the United States :)
-
Also your bringing up that PM is a great example too!
Twitter has bent over backwards for politically influential individuals. Twitter was under the impression nothing Trump could do would get his account banned while president, they even said as much!
It took 5 deaths at the Capitol during an attempted attack on Congress as a direct result of his actions for them throw in the towel.
I mean the man threatened nuclear war over Twitter and Twitter didn't bat an eyelid. Compared to that a poorly worded comment about genocide seems about par?
> What you mean is Twitter doesn't prioritize reports on low engagement tweets.
It is funny you can find these low engagement tweets not a big deal while the threat report that Amazon sent to Parler literally contained a low engagement post too. It wasn't a verified handle that posted that violence induced post. Yet Parler was kicked off of Amazon while you are here providing justifications for Twitter. How does that make you feel?
These are the low engagement Parler posts. Can you extend the same justification you gave for Twitter to Parler too?
Wait you're telling me that platform with *330 Million* monthly active users has more problems moderating low engagement content than the platform with 4 million MAUs?
Say it ain't so!
-
And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content.
Turns out if your only differentiator is you allow X that your competitor doesn't allow, you get a ton of X.
Whether it's porn, hate speech, illegal products, you name it.
You're inviting yourself to become a haven for X.
-
Also please confirm: You said Twitter only removes Right Wing content"
Do you stand by such a statement? Because further discourse with you from me will rely on speaking within the realm of reality.
-
Reply to both comments since now I'm rate limited:
Two comments back to back showing a tendency to read things in the most convenient way...
Those images, literally just those images, are not why Parler was banned. Your argument literally relies on the fact!
Otherwise those images exist for Twitter and they'd be kicked off!
It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it
-
I literally gave you the reason right there! You allow X, other place doesn't, you'll be swamped with X.
Call it game theory, call it human nature, call it whatever you want, that's how it's worked on the internet since time immemorial, I don't get why Parler was supposed different
> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
And now that I have shown you that Amazon did use those low engagement Parler posts as reason to boot Parler (their email mentions "98 examples"), will it use the same yardstick to boot Twitter out of AWS for the thousands of low engagement violent tweets that is littered across Twitter? If you have a convincing answer for it I'll be glad to engage with you further. I say so because Twitter is hosted on AWS (https://www.techradar.com/in/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-i...)
If Amazon cannot kick Twitter out then I say that Big Tech is hypocritical and ideologically biased. Or that Twitter is a big paying customer and Amazon wouldn't want to mess with the relationship it has with Twitter. You pick what is the excuse going to be.
---
Replying to your posts as edits because of rate limits *shrugs*
> It was those images PLUS context, and you argue the context is they're right leaning, and I argue the context is they refused to censor hate speech and ended up being a haven for it
Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts.
So why bother? Why is Amazon going out of its way to remove Parler from AWS for low engagement posts? It is not like some high profile user with a large following asked for people to commit violence right? I am literally using your own justification for Parler too. Why is your justification for Twitter okay while not okay for Parler?
If Amazon had evidence of high engagement posts spreading violence in Parler it would have attached those images. Not images from low engagement posts. This just goes to show that Big Tech just doesn't want Parler in there. That is all there is to it. It is an ideological battle. Else the same filth you find in right wing Parler you find in Twitter, Facebook and the rest of social media. There is literally no difference between any of these social platforms.
> Censor hate speech in low engagement content? Isn't that the very reason you gave for why Twitter is not removing those hate speech filled posts? Because they are surprise, surprise low engagement posts.
Nope. You see you tacked on your own little part that changes the meaning in a HUGE way.
Parler eschewed censorship period.
You're slowly inching towards getting this
No matter how much engagement a post had, how much vitriol someone spewed, literally the first page is promising there is no deplatforming a user for their speech.
So when your differentiator is you don't censor at all, you become a lightning rod for things like hate speech!
-
I mean seriously this applies to ANYTHING: imagine a burger place called "WcDonalds"
We have an 1:1 equivalent to menu to McDonalds.
But we're lesser known, long term prospects are unknown.
Despite that we aim to be functionally equivalent to McDonalds with one small twist...
We allow drug use in our restaurants.
Let's say it's a state that decriminalized drugs, we allow you to toke up in line, as you eat, we're saying its your right.
-
Who do you think ends up going to our WcDonalds?
If someone claims WcDonalds locations are just full of drug users, are you going to go "you have no proof of that!!!!"? Isn't it common sense that's the outcome?
That's Parler and Twitter. The biggest draw to Parler is that you have free speech regardless of engagement, where Twitter is limited speech. Anything that doesn't fit in the Twitter limited speech, including hate speech and racism, is going to be attracted to Parler.
And in Twitter when you see it you can report it and there's a reason for it to be removed! Even if it fails for old low enagament posts!
But on Parler, by design, that content will not be removed. No matter how big it gets, how many reports it has, by design, the user won't be deplatformed.
-
Also seriously I want you to clarify if you actually think Twitter only deletes Right Wing comments, it's a pretty off the wall claim that harms the weight of any further discussion
I read your long winding post and it still is unable to address my points. You are just beating around the bush with all sorts of analogies.
It's funny to see how the left wing was crying over censorship in Parler now suddenly says that Parler was banned because it wasn't censoring anything. Isn't this what leftists were saying just a year back:
Here is another quote from Amazon's email which talks about Parler removing violent posts:
"You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency."
This is Amazon crying about Parler removing violent posts but "not always with urgency". What the actual fuck? Why should Parler do anything with "urgency" just because Amazon asked for it? Is Amazon the US Government? I have been reporting accounts and tweets for months on Twitter and it hasn't yet been removed. But Amazon is greater than you, me and everyone else. If it asks something you better deliver immediately or else you'll be booted from their platform.
But they are doing nothing about the low engagement violent tweets on Twitter which is hosted on AWS infrastructure. I haven't seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life!
Amazon doesn't realise it but it has given so much ammunition for Parler to sue in a court case. They literally have admitted in the email that Parler is removing violent posts but not with the same urgency that it wants. Well news flash: no social media platform in the World removes any post with urgency. I sometimes get notifications for reports I had submitted months ago with "Sorry we did not find it violating our policies and it cannot be taken down". On posts that are literally violent.
Unless you have used the garbage reporting system that these social media companies have in place and experienced it first hand you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content.
Beating around what bush?! I've literally addressed, line by line, every single point you made.
The analogy is there to aid your understanding, but if you want to block your ears and go "lalalala left wingerr lalalalala" I guess it won't help right? I told you to stop ascribing your political leanings to me, nothing I've said is partisan. It's lazy attempts to distract from actual discourse.
-
You chose one point to explode which isn't even related to the topic at hand and still won't answer if you actually think "Twitter only removes Right Wing content" which is what started this whole thing!
And you just spent an entire comment complaining about Parler's removals... you want to be embarrassed real quick?
My points about Parler... come from Parler!
Here's their exact words:
> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._
You say
>you don't have any right to talk about Parler and its efficacy in removing illegal content
Another weasel! Hate speech is not illegal! At least not in the US!
My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech yet amusingly you're trying to distract with all sorts of talk about Amazon when _the literal community guidelines_ are bragging that you won't be banned for any opinion... which includes hate speech!
Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.
I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:
1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)
2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.
Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle. Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
Just wanted to chime in and say I thought your argument was reasonable. After you sent those counterexamples of conservative tweets that Twitter hadn’t deleted, I think the other commenter stopped engaging meaningfully. Sorry you had to suffer through this.
My answer was not whether Twitter did delete all conservative tweets or not. My answer was to this statement by the original commenter:
> Twitter is already very judicious when it comes to any use of the word 'kill' nowadays=s, or anything that could be violent. Just requires a report.
Which is not true. Even those counterexamples of conservative tweets being violent and Twitter not removing them proves my point itself. That no matter how much you report Twitter won't remove violent posts. It doesn't matter if the tweet is from left or right. Which is the entire premise of Amazon booting Parler from using AWS. That Parler isn't removing such low engagement violent tweets (and cites 98 examples in their email). While Amazon signed a deal with Twitter renewing their cloud contract inspite of Twitter not removing thousands of low engagement violent tweets (be it on the left or the right). This is hypocritical.
However, whenever Twitter has censored it has censored right wing accounts. Name one prominent left wing account that Twitter has banned. Can you name even one? I'll wait.
Provide one example of a prominent “left wing account” that ought to have been banned because they doxxed someone or made violent threats that wasn’t banned. I’ll wait. Did Bernie Sanders tweet that we should hang Mike Pence?
I don’t consider myself a left winger. Name a prominent mainstream conservative (in the vein of say Bush) that ought to have been banned that wasn’t. I’ll wait.
I can’t name a single mainstream libertarian, paleoconservative, neoconservative, kooky rationalist, or anarcho-primitivist who has been banned, and that’s simply because the Cato Institute and Less Wrong don’t go around saying we should execute politicians by firing squad. If that’s the only kind of intellectual contribution you have to make to society, I think you need to take a long hard look at your priorities.
Are you kidding me? Who TF is @SmashRacismDC? I looked them up and they had only 800+ followers on Instagram. This is in no way, shape or form a prominent left wing account.
> Provide one example of a prominent “left wing account” that ought to have been banned because they doxxed someone or made violent threats that wasn’t banned. I’ll wait. Did Bernie Sanders tweet that we should hang Mike Pence?
That is a direct threat of assassination towards the sitting President of the United States. Whether you like him or hate him you do not get to threaten a sitting President with decapitation.
Quoting her verbatim: "All I had to do was delete the post". That is all that these hate inciting leftist handles get on Twitter. A slap on the wrists. All that was required for her to do is issue a fake apology and then delete her tweet. But then she posts tweets gloating about how she could get away so easily. Utterly shameful!
Did Twitter not ban Steve Bannon for calling for beheading of Dr Fauci (and rightly so)? I support the ban on Steve Bannon. But when Twitter can ban Steve Bannon and it lets go of Kathy Griffin that is when I have a problem. This is clearly selective enforcement of policy. Because it is ideological. Twitter is known to employ people who are left wing leaning and do not have tolerance for right wingers. Jack Dorsey admitted it himself. So it is obvious that their ideological beliefs have percolated through to even moderating content. That is fine if that is what they want their platform to be. No issues with that. But when they start taking a moral high ground and dictating to Parler on what is right and what is wrong I call them bloody hypocrites. Because that is what they have also been doing themselves! They are no saints.
Also, let us not forget what Twitter was. Twitter was a platform that enabled ISIS propaganda to spread unchecked for 2 years - from 2013 to 2015 until finally it deleted all terror material from the site after intense public pressure. And during those 2 years they enabled ISIS to recruit sympathizers from across the World. Twitter even got sued in 2016 for the same : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/14/widow-ame...
Quoting from the article:
"Tamara Fields, a Florida woman whose husband Lloyd died in the 9 November attack, accused Twitter of having knowingly let the militant Islamist group use its network to spread propaganda, raise money and attract recruits. She said the San Francisco-based company had until recently given Isis an “unfettered” ability to maintain official Twitter accounts.
“Without Twitter, the explosive growth of Isis over the last few years into the most-feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible,” says the complaint filed on Wednesday in the federal court in Oakland, California.
Fields says that at the time of her husband’s death, Isis had an estimated 70,000 Twitter accounts, posting 90 tweets per minute."
Was Twitter ever held accountable for this? Never. It will never be held accountable. Because rules on facilitating hate speech and terror networks only apply to Parler. Not to Twitter, Facebook and Google. These platforms are above the Law and above everyone else. You and me included.
> I don’t consider myself a left winger. Name a prominent mainstream conservative (in the vein of say Bush) that ought to have been banned that wasn’t. I’ll wait.
There isn't any left. Those who ought to have been banned have been banned along with those who did nothing egregious. It was a proper purge. Either you are with the Establishment and Big Tech or you are purged. As simple as that. So now the only thing left is to ask Twitter when it is going to take action on prominent left wing accounts that violated its policies but Twitter gave them a free pass.
> I can’t name a single mainstream libertarian, paleoconservative, neoconservative, kooky rationalist, or anarcho-primitivist who has been banned, and that’s simply because the Cato Institute and Less Wrong don’t go around saying we should execute politicians by firing squad.
Because you have your eyes and ears closed. Maybe you should take a good look at the photo Kathy Griffin posted. You don't need anyone to say they will "execute politicians by firing squad" when they themselves hold the decapitated head of the sitting President of the United States.
> If that’s the only kind of intellectual contribution you have to make to society, I think you need to take a long hard look at your priorities.
Calling out hypocrisy has nothing to do with intellectual contributions to society. Both can co-exist. Just because you are incapable of calling out hypocrisy doesn't mean I shouldn't. I'll do what I feel I should do with my life and you can do what you feel with your life. Thankfully I am not a Citizen of USA else I'll be shunned/shamed/cancelled/boycotted/banned or worse killed for my beliefs or my skin color. You are happy being in a Big Tech dominated, censored internet, with an invisible social ranking system which can boot you out based on the political flavour of the day... then that is your choice. Remember that what is popular today will not be 20 years from now. Politics change, people change. You may in the future be at the receiving end of such a digital purge too because a Party of your opposing belief might come to power. Why? Because the red line has been crossed when it comes to censorship. A precedent has been set. Now it can be used for the right reasons or misused for the wrong reasons. Knowing how humans think I am leaning safely towards the latter.
> > I don’t consider myself a left winger. Name a prominent mainstream conservative (in the vein of say Bush) that ought to have been banned that wasn’t. I’ll wait.
> There isn't any left. Those who ought to have been banned have been banned along with those who did nothing egregious. It was a proper purge.
Lol ok, “there isn’t [sic] any left.”
Perhaps as an American I’m not familiar with what passes for conservatism in your country. But if your definition of conservatives excludes George Bush, Lindsey Graham, David Koch, Ron Paul, etc., then sure, all conservatives have been banned from Twitter!
I’m a gun-owning Christian non-Democrat living in the downtown of a big city. Having a pearl-clutching violence-endorsing non-American tell me I should worry about BLM and the Democrats “purging” people with my beliefs is surreal. If Bush is a liberal to you guys then I guess I’m as liberal as can be.
> George Bush, Lindsey Graham, David Koch, Ron Paul, etc., then sure, all conservatives have been banned from Twitter!
Do I feel they are truly conservatives? Nope. Not at all. At least not in the what conservatism means.
> violence-endorsing non-American
When did I endorse violence? Are you out of your mind? I literally said that I would want to see the insurrectionists thrown behind bars for what they did. Point to the part where you found me endorsing violence or take back your words.
> I should worry about BLM and the Democrats “purging” people with my beliefs is surreal
I never once mentioned BLM or Democrats purging conservatives. I accused the leftist lobby in Big Tech doing the purge because of how tied they are to their ideology. Whether BLM/Democrats had a role in it I don't know. So I won't even drag them into this. You want to extrapolate to include BLM and Democrats that is your headache not mine.
> If Bush is a liberal to you guys then I guess I’m as liberal as can be.
Bush was an opportunist. An establishment war hawk. A Conservative only by name but a Statist in every sense of the word. Bush was anything but for limited Government. These are the people you resonate with? People who bombed other countries ruthlessly based on a hunch that there are "weapons of mass destruction" (ex: Iraq and Afghanistan)? And you have the gumption to say I endorse violence? Look into a mirror and you'll see the person who endorses violence stare back at you.
lol @ someone claiming to promote limited government in America putting the Cato Institute in scare quotes
Listen buddy, if none of George Bush, Lindsey Graham, David Koch, Ron Paul, or the Cato Institute represent “true conservatives” to you, then I’m glad the notion of conservatism wherever you’re from is not one shared by my fellow Americans. Have a good day and please don’t come here.
Suspended on Twitter? More like locked out for 5 minutes until she removed her tweet. She is doing perfectly fine with her 2.1 million followers right here: https://twitter.com/kathygriffin?s=09
I can't find Steve Bannon's Twitter account anywhere. Now why is that so? Can you find it for me?
Unless you are talking about a different Kathy Griffin she hasn't been suspended.
As far as losing her job is concerned that is not something I was even bothered about. Since when did discussion on Big Tech censorship turn into resultant unemployment because of stupidity?
I don't mind those terrorists who invaded the Capitol be tried and thrown behind bars let alone be put in no fly lists or be removed from their jobs. Insurrection has to have consequences. I just don't want Big Tech's ideological censorship. Because this emboldens Big Tech to do more ideological censorship not less. Let the law take its course. Let the insurrectionists face real life consequences for their treason including but not limited to loss of job, putting on no fly lists and even prison time. It doesn't require Big Tech censorship to achieve those consequences. Or apply the rules to everyone in the same way. If you are going to ban Steve Bannon for beheading statements then ban Kathy Griffin for holding a decapitated head of the President. As simple as that.
If the Big Tech companies can't do it then I'll call them hypocrites. Then they have no moral standing when it comes to Parler. What is the difference between Parler and them? Nothing at all.
Notice how you completely skipped the part where I mentioned how Twitter enabled ISIS to operate with impunity for 2 years and only focused on my last paragraph? Yeah that shows where your mind is.
You realize the account in question for Bannon had also gotten away with temporary suspension in the past right?
It's almost like you didn't realize suspensions default to being temporary... it's newsworthy to be permanently suspended, and it only happens with a heavy pattern of rule breaking, once or twice didn't do it...
You don't even know what a Twitter suspension is and yet you're going after this.
-
Also I skipped the part about Isis because:
a) Twitter literally spent years fighting Daesh on their platform and you're cluelessly trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
b) If I had followed every lazy diversion you dropped in that diatribe I'd need to start billing you here.
> You realize the account in question for Bannon had also gotten away with temporary suspension in the past right?
Nope. I never heard of Bannon's Twitter account being temporarily suspended in the past. Can't find any source for it. It can't be possible because this account was created post-pandemic (aka 2020). If you can point me to any source which confirms what you say I'll be willing to change my stance that Twitter did give him a "chance" first. If you are talking about Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos account being banned then that is not the same as Bannon's account (called War Room: Pandemic - Suspended account here: http://twitter.com/WarRoomPandemic).
The best part is that Bannon did not even put the video on Twitter but instead put it on Facebook. But still got suspended by Twitter. Whereas Kathy Griffin posted the photo and video of the photoshoot on Twitter and got a rap on her knuckles.
a) Twitter literally spent years fighting Daesh on their platform and you're cluelessly trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
Yeah that is why they were sued for it right? Maybe you can tell the widow of the man who died because of an ISIS attack this logical reasoning. Let us see if she will be convinced with your reasoning.
That lawsuit was thrown out. You know why? Because of Section 230. Which surprisingly only applies to Big Tech. Not to small tech like Parler.
trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something...
Isn't that what was done to Parler? Using the users posts to ban Parler from all platforms. By trying to paint them as being in bed with them or something. Section 230 was turned into a joke when it came to Parler. What is the use of Section 230 if a platform can be censored and banned nevertheless?
"A US judge...tossed out a lawsuit accusing Twitter of abetting terrorism by allowing Islamic State propaganda to be broadcast using the messaging platform. District Court Judge William Orrick granted a motion by Twitter to dismiss the case, reasoning that providing a platform for speech is within the law and that the company did not create the content. The Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being held responsible for what users post."
Your really want me to expose you don't you? How convenient of you to not link to the Parler Guidelines that you quote out of. What was the reason not to link? You thought I am a dummy who can't look up the Parler Guidelines and not see for myself and just accept your arguments at face value?
> Here's their exact words:
> We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. _In no case will Parler decide what will content be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue._
Right. And as usual you conveniently skipped the part that comes after this in the "Principles" section which is what any leftist liberal would do. This again busts your propaganda about Parler allowing violence, hate speech on their platform as being mentioned in their policy. Lie by selectively quoting guidelines. You can play this game all you want but it won't work in a Court of Law nor will it work with me. All Parler has to do now is sue Amazon for lying in their email that Parler doesn't have a policy on tackling hate speech.
> My comment repeatedly says Parler allows hate speech
Bullcrap. I'll disprove your nonsense by quoting straight out of the Parler Guidelines:
"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil
torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a
reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences
such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our
platform in this way.
Sometimes the law properly requires us to exclude content from our
platform once it is reported to us or to our Community Jury—content we
would make it a priority to exclude anyway. Obvious examples include:
child sexual abuse material, content posted by or on behalf of terrorist
organizations, intellectual property theft.
However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported
content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it
necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the
commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to
interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public
Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance."
In case you did not know the meaning, "civil torts" encompasses hate speech and much much more.
> Stop doing this. Stop trying to throw up a smoke screen by building up strawman after straw man.
I am not. You are. You just embarrassed yourself by selectively quoting from the guidelines. Stop lying to just prove a point. By not linking to the Guidelines you made it amply clear what your intent is.
----
> I won't answer you anymore until you answer two questions:
You won't be able to answer after you read this comment anyways. I did not want to embarrass you but you are repeatedly asking for it so I'll gladly oblige.
----
> Answer thise questions, not with another unrelated question or diatribe which I'll easily dismantle.
You couldn't dismantle anything. On the contrary I dismantled your lie that Parler doesn't have a hate speech policy in place.
> Just yes or no, or you'll have shown who's really beating around the bush
> 1. Does Parler allow hate speech (with the reminder that it is not illegal in their jurisdiction)
> 2. Do you believe Twitter only deletes Right Wing content.
YES. Left wingers are left untouched. The only time the left wing was up in arms against Twitter was when their bot/fake/pseudonym-based accounts were deleted and they trended #StopTheLeftPurge. No prominent left winger was banned. No account of any prominent left winger who called for assassination of Trump was banned. Most prominent left wingers were left alone with just a rap on their knuckle after they posted incendiary tweets (some of them were even anti-semetic). And those who posted anti-semetic tweets were Congressmen/women. Not some lunatic with zero followers and with low engagement tweets. If a prominent Right wing account had posted something similar they would have gotten an insta-ban. That ex-PM of Malaysia literally called for genocide of millions of French. Was his account banned? Nope. After that there have been multiple terror attacks in France. If Trump's speech can be linked to US Capitol violence then why can't the ex-PM of Malaysia's tweet be linked to the series of terror attacks that put France on the edge? See the dichotomy?
Do you have evidence of any prominent Left wing personality being banned from Twitter? I can give you examples of hundreds of prominent Right wing personalities purged from Twitter. Name one prominent left wing personality who was banned from Twitter. I'll wait.
----
Now instead of arguing with me if you had just bothered to look this up yourself you would have gotten to the truth. But nope. You want to waste your time and my time going around in circles and posting ridiculous analogies. And even worse you are unable to comprehend anything in full. Be it the article which I linked of Amazon falsely accusing Parler or the Parler Guidelines themselves. This is because you are more interested in proving me wrong than trying to understand the subject matter at hand. In the process you are just exposing yourself completely.
I have answered all your questions without beating around the bush or posting stupid analogies. After this point I won't give any further replies as the discussion is devolving into an argument over who is right and who is wrong rather than the pressing issue of Big Tech dominance (Which is what I am concerned about and which you seem to not care about - which is fine as well. To each his own).
> That ex-PM of Malaysia literally called for genocide of millions of French.
That's inaccurate. What he "literally" wrote was: “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
I read his whole quote. He's a nutjob but accusing him of calling for genocide is inaccurate. Also, perhaps France should consider saying sorry for testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific and maybe relinquishing its occupied islands and terrorities like French Guyana back to the indigenous people that deserve independence. It is 2021, not 1821 anymore.
You brought up the Principles but refused to clarify where they ban hate speech, did you read them?
Because they don't ban hate speech or racism...
One is anti-illegal activity (hate speech is not covered here)
One is anti-spam. Hate speech is not covered here.
I didn't make up any quotes, I didn't omit anything that supported your point, if anything the principles I omitted solidify my point...
They have principles as an addendum.
Those are a chance to clarify that while they are pro-free speech by default they reserve certain rights. And yet they refused to call out legal things like racism and hate speech...
You're literally making my case for me.
-
And on the Twitter front, you just admitted it right? Twitter removes left wing content, you linked it yourself. Case closed.
You haven't meaningfully replied for several comments, so I don't mind if you save your breath after your replies being dismantled over and over again.
"You brought up the Principles but refused to clarify where they ban hate speech, did you read them?"
OMG did you even bother to read what I wrote? I literally mentioned that "civil torts" encompasses "hate speech". Maybe you should Google what "civil torts" means.
Quoting verbatim from the Guidelines: "Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts"
DEFINITION of a "tort": A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
In fact a "civil tort" is more accurate term than "hate speech". It is more broader than all the specific hate combating policies that social media companies have in place. There is a complete paper on how torts can be used to combat "hate speech": https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
> You haven't meaningfully replied for several comments, so I don't mind if you save your breath after your replies being dismantled over and over again.
I have meaningfully replied. You don't have the patience to read what I wrote causing me to repeat myself ad nauseam. You can start your learning process by understanding what "civil tort" means. Then come back here once you learnt the definition.
> And on the Twitter front, you just admitted it right? Twitter removes left wing content, you linked it yourself. Case closed.
Linked what myself? Twitter hasn't closed prominent left wing accounts. I am still waiting for you to provide one. All the accounts that it has closed are bots/fake and some fringe accounts with hundred followers or so. The day Twitter bans Kathy Griffin I'll say Twitter is not biased. Else they are hypocrites. As simple as that.
----
Replying here because of rate limits:
> Because Parler's guidelines are saying since it's not tortious they wouldn't deplatform the user!
That is a very bad reading of what Parler's guidelines state. They are simply saying that they won't be used as a tool for civil tort. In other words, they won't subject themselves to anything that can constitute a civil tort. They aren't going to be the judge/jury to say whether a statement is deeply hateful or harmless hate. They just won't be a party to any of it (doesn't matter if the statement is harmless hate or deeply hateful). It doesn't matter if a US Court Judge rules finally that the statement was defamatory or not. That is for the Court to decide not Parler. Parler won't even entertain something it feels will cause Civil Tort. How is it decided? Parler has Guidelines for that too. They have a Community Jury setup (site is obviously down so I am linking to a Cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1oI4Ww...)
"However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square."
They clarify it even further that even if the law doesn't require them to remove reported content/ban a member they will do it if they feel it interferes with the mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Please tell me how hate speech is "welcoming" and "nonpartisan" in any way, shape or form.
> I mean in your mind I guess it's ok to make a comment that just states the word nig*r over and over because it's not tortious right?
If Parler feels this is amounts to Civil Tort they will remove it. Now they won't obviously check which jurisdiction the user messaged from, which court will take up the case and how will it be decided. That is not in the scope of what Parler can do. Parler also doesn't have resources to go through all that to decide whether a statement constitutes a case for Civil Tort or not. Parler is just going to assume that yes this amounts to Civil Tort and just remove the offending content. Simple as that. Now obviously they won't do it immediately. Just like Twitter won't remove a Tweet immediately if you call someone a nig*r (especially if the person is being creative with how he writes it). I have seen Tweets that contain abuse/hate speech and it stays up for months. It is impossible to moderate every single tweet or parley. Even when reported it takes time. But to expect perfection from a 4 million user site while a 330 million users site is still suffering from moderation issues is a bit too much.
> And also what are you even trying to say, that the reason why Parler was banned was those images?
Yes I am saying these are the images for which Parler was banned. Maybe you should do your research before you happen to accuse me of saying things I never said. These images were provided by Amazon to Parler as a justification to remove Parler from AWS. These images were not taken by me or provided by me.
> Haha, no. It was because of the ratio of that kind of content to all the content.
No evidence to back up your claim here. Again, this is the sort of stupid left wing bubble that makes up most left wingers. Unless you can say exactly how much of the content was violent on Parler your guess is as good as mine. I just showed the GP evidence on how Twitter doesn't remove hate speech on its platform much the same as Parler. That is about it. I can dig thousands of tweets for you which show hate speech. I am not going to waste my time doing it. If Amazon can use the above images as justification to remove Parler then Twitter being online is hypocritical.
It's funny that you ascribed a political slant to me.
Go back and read every comment I've made as if I'm a 65 year old white man with greying hair who's voted Republican every year except this one because I didn't approve of Trump's handling of Coronavirus.
Does anything change? Do my comments ring any less true?
As I explained above, you also don't believe just those images that got them banned, it's the context they exist in that matters, that's literally what the next line says!
And of course I explained exactly why I can confidently say Parler's ratio of hate speech would be higher... because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
> because their differentiator is literally not moderating hate speech since it counts as free speech.
False. Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines. No matter how much you try to twist it the facts are staring back in your face. That guidelines do exist.
There is literally no differentiator between Twitter and Parler. Both take their own sweet time to moderate violent content/hate speech. Yet Amazon finds Parler not moderating "with urgency" a requirement to terminate business with Parler while renewing cloud contracts with Twitter for the same damn thing. I haven't seen a bigger hypocritical bunch.
And what will this lead to? Fragmentation and balkanization of the internet.
> Have already shown with evidence that they were indeed moderating hate speech and did indeed have it clearly, unambiguously defined in their guidelines.
You have not done this. Parler allows hate speech.
Parler literally takes it as a principle that they only "censor" illegal content and span jurisdiction. That excludes hate speech.
Hate speech is not illegal in Parler and Twitter's jurisdiction for the hundredth time.
Parler literally says it doesn't allow itself to be used for "civil tort". I can't argue with you if you refuse to even acknowledge the legal terminology used here.
https://twitter.com/cecilyy15/status/410145078670536704?s=20
https://twitter.com/cjevans64/status/333093612520865792?s=20
https://twitter.com/dlwest4/status/387428416753917952?s=20
https://twitter.com/_dresslr/status/455476238334033920?s=20
There are literally pages more.
What you mean is Twitter doesn't prioritize your singular reports on low engagement tweets from years ago.
If they had more engagement they could have more reports.
But keep martyring yourself, it results in amusing justifications like thinking there wouldn't be racist people who had clamored for the assassination of the first black president of the United States :)
-
Also your bringing up that PM is a great example too!
Twitter has bent over backwards for politically influential individuals. Twitter was under the impression nothing Trump could do would get his account banned while president, they even said as much!
It took 5 deaths at the Capitol during an attempted attack on Congress as a direct result of his actions for them throw in the towel.
I mean the man threatened nuclear war over Twitter and Twitter didn't bat an eyelid. Compared to that a poorly worded comment about genocide seems about par?