apple and google both gave parler an ultimatum to start cracking down on threats of violence, and parler refused to do so. so both those big tech companies banned them from their platforms, dealing a huge blow. folks say they shouldn't have been banned, due to free speech. but, i say, they should have been banned, cause threats of violence have no place in the realm of free speech. most lay people just hear 'conservative platform banned from free speech', but they dont realize the part of all the violence and threats to the government.
Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech
Posts
Total:
167
this link lists a bunch of the examples of threats of violence
no it should not have been banned
-->
@n8nrgmi
Principle #1:
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.
Finally, while Parler allows the posting of some “Not Safe For Work” content, we provide a double-filter system to help ensure this content is viewed neither by minors nor by those who choose not to see it.
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's a bit of a complicated question to me. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of big tech companies getting to decide what is and is not allowed to be said. If they have that power then they can easily use it against anyone they don't like.
2nd, they are a private company that needs to protect their interests. Having people use their hardware and software to spread violence and hate is bad for business. If they aren't allowed to police what people can do with their hardware/software then they have no way of protecting their business. this sort of behavior clearly violates their terms of service. If they can't enforce their terms of service, then they have no control over their software.
And 3rd, this sort of online mob is not healthy for democracy or society in general. Allowing people to isolate themselves into little bubble where they can spread increasingly extreme and violent rhetoric is toxic. This sort of thing simply wasn't possible before. People had to interact with others around them. So isolating yourself into an angry, violent little bubble was quite difficult. Now angry, violent and/or crazy people from all over the country or all over the world can connect and spread this insanity. And then it can leak out and infect a larger population.
Democrats would rather censor the views they dislike than discuss them rationally. Discuss-ting!
-->
@MisterChris
Democrats would rather censor the views they dislike than discuss them rationally. Discuss-ting!
how do you have a rational discussion with someone who wants to hang the vice president of the united states because he did what he was constitutionally required to do? That kind of thing is somewhat beyond the ability to rationally discuss.
I agree that rational discussion with people whose views are different than yours is very important. But i think when calls to violence cross the line.
-->
@MisterChris
so it's all well and good that folks on parlor were conspiring to attack DC, and other violent attacks across the country? parlor didn't wanna do anything about it... and that's the way it should be?
-->
@n8nrgmi
so it's all well and good that folks on parlor were conspiring to attack DC, and other violent attacks across the country? parlor didn't wanna do anything about it... and that's the way it should be?
Why don’t you hold Big Tech to the same standard? Namely China and Iran who still have functioning accounts.
-->
@ILikePie5
even if big tech is wrong on that point, it doesn't change anything regarding parler. u r just deflecting.
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm pretty sure Twitter is banned in China. I don't know how much access they have to Parler.
-->
@n8nrgmi
even if big tech is wrong on that point, it doesn't change anything regarding parler. u r just deflecting.
Parler wouldn’t even be known without Big Tech lol. Look at the the root of the problem not the symptoms.
-->
@Conway
I'm pretty sure Twitter is banned in China. I don't know how much access they have to Parler.
I’m referring to the fact that Chinese propagandists and Iranians who chant death to America are still allowed on Twitter. Hell even Democrats who call for uprisings are not deplatformed.
-->
@ILikePie5
Parler wouldn’t even be known without Big Tech lol. Look at the the root of the problem not the symptoms.
the root of the problem is people urging violence. Parler allows this to happen all the time.
I’m referring to the fact that Chinese propagandists and Iranians who chant death to America are still allowed on Twitter. Hell even Democrats who call for uprisings are not deplatformed.
The reason they took it down is the very specific calls to violence. Not against the country in general but against very specific targets. Especially all the calls to murder mike pence. It's one thing to rails against a system, it's another to advocate specific acts of murder.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Democrats would rather censor the views they dislike than discuss them rationally. Discuss-ting!how do you have a rational discussion with someone who wants to hang the vice president of the united states because he did what he was constitutionally required to do? That kind of thing is somewhat beyond the ability to rationally discuss.
-->
@Conway
they took down 1 message. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people saying the same or similar things on parler. Taking down one of them doesn't make them heroes. It doesn't make them even ok.
Tech companies have rules about what kinds of stuff can be put on their app stores. Parler broke those rules. They can either prevent people from calling for murder, or they can not be on the app store. It's pretty simple.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Remember when a far left terrorist attacked right wing congress people. Whatever news sources inspired the violence is not responsible for the event. Just the shooter is. Similarly, Parler should not be accountable for the DC violence. It was out of their control. Only the people who acted should be responsible.
-->
@TheUnderdog
so it's okay for parlor to allow people to plot terrorist attacks?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Similarly, Parler should not be accountable for the DC violence. It was out of their control.
you seem to misunderstand what is happening. They are not being held accountable for the DC violence. If that were true they would be in handcuffs. They are being held accountable for what is happening on their app. Specifically, people calling for the murder of government officials or the overthrow of democracy.
That violates the terms of service of pretty much any company. So they are being removed from app stores. This is exactly what the right has advocated for. They want companies to be able free to do what they want. They want the free market to decide. Well guess what, the market decided it doesn't like advocating for murder and sedition.
is anyone surprised that a bunch of conservatives jumped in to give knee jerk, irrational responses? the conservative stance is that parler shouldn't have been banned, so that's what the conservatives here think. even though it can't be defended rationally. but, since people are primarily tribal, instead of rational, they take the bait and can't defend their position.
-->
@n8nrgmi
I pretty much just presented facts, and I don't consider it a political entity.
Are you calling me a conservative?
-->
@Greyparrot
what's your knee jerk, irrational response to this issue?
-->
@n8nrgmi
what's your knee jerk, irrational response to this issue?
If you are going to trust authority to control the media, then you need to go balls deep all the way.
No half measures.
-->
@ILikePie5
Why don’t you hold Big Tech to the same standard? Namely China and Iran who still have functioning accounts.
Isn't Google owned in part by the Chinese? Why wouldn't they censor platforms critical of China?
-->
@n8nrgmi
since people are primarily tribal, instead of rational, they take the bait and can't defend their position.
There is ultimately only one tribe left.
China.
-->
@n8nrgmi
so it's okay for parlor to allow people to plot terrorist attacks?
Is it ok for Democrats to tell people to cause unrest in the streets?
-->
@ILikePie5
Is it ok for Democrats to tell people to cause unrest in the streets?
That is what Democracy looks like according to Authoritative sources.
-->
@Greyparrot
That is what Democracy looks like according to Authoritative sources.
Rules for thee but not for me
-->
@ILikePie5
u keep deflecting. it doesn't make it ok for parler to do bad, just because liberals do bad.