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.
> 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.
LINK TO THE PARLER GUIDELINES (because you were scared to link it in the first place): https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf
----
> 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)
NO. I just disproved it quoting straight from their guidelines. They even have guidelines on how to report illegal and hate content here: https://legal.parler.com/documents/Parler-Community-Jury.pdf
> 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).