It both:
a. pays popular users
b. Puts warnings on political issues, like statements that Biden's crime bill contributed to mass incarceration [0]
[0] https://twitter.com/ben_awareness/status/1339293381625864195
There appears to be quite a difference between what Instagram does and what Parler does. The two do not appear to be comparable.
I haven't seen evidence that Parler's payments are specifically tied to promoting certain political agendas versus just being an influential poster.
> You have not demonstrated that this is extensive
Well, I've demonstrated it as convincingly as the user above who linked to a twitter post of someone just saying they have "robust moderation."
I was just pointing out that your statements, if true, still don't support your conclusion as they don't provide an apt comparison to the claims about Parler.
I think I've made pretty explicit claims about political moderation by Instagram. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of racism/sexism/etc. so I find it hard to mind, but as I've shown, they also moderate contested political claims, like stuff about Biden's crime bill, Hunter Biden, etc.
Those are political issues, and I've provided evidence of them enforcing that viewpoint. The original comment provided no actual evidence of Parler enforcing a single viewpoint, but we all know what Parler is so it doesn't take (me at least) much convincing.
I've explained both why my comparisons are not logically flawed (no evidence that Parler pays for a "certain political agenda") and have stronger epistemic backing than the claims being made about Parler.
You're asking me to prove the much harder claim that IG has never taken moderation action against political beliefs on the other side of the political spectrum.
Of course, that is
a. an extremely hard claim to prove on an internet forum like this, because I'd have to have an index of all of IGs enforcement actions to prove that none of them met this criteria you've set up.
b. not even close to proven in the case of Parler by the original poster
1. point out how the claims made about Parler are false.
2. point out that this is done by other large social media websites and thus Parler should not be singled out.
Keep in mind that by "this" in 2 I mean specifically that there are large social media sites that are designed specifically to enforce a certain political viewpoint. As I see it neither of these were done by you.
I think though that we will not agree on these points and I accept that. Thank you for the engagement. I will read and consider any response you have and leave the discussion at that.
I'll try to break down my claim more simply. Saying something like "I don't really care about any political issues, but abortion is fundamentally wrong" is a political viewpoint. If IG took moderation action against people who were saying pro-abortion things, we would call that enforcing a certain political viewpoint.
Similarly, a statement like "all claims are fine except for those that tie Biden's crime bill to mass incarceration" is, again, a political viewpoint. It perhaps doesn't map cleanly onto left or right or pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump, but the set of claims that IG picks to dispute is political because the issues around Biden's crime bill (for instance) were political.
I'm neutral on whether Parler should be "singled out", my point was merely that the two conditions set up by OP are not sufficient to single out Parler, compared to the actions taken by other social media networks.
Likewise, thanks for engaging.
How do you do that? I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately, and it's pretty disheartening to read.
Would rather do something like what you say, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
[1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it.
The US has always had limits on free speech.
> Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Incitement, sedition, public security and harm to others seem to be relevant to this discussion.
But not to my comment, and not just because I'm not from the USA.
I'm not speaking in favor of parler if that's what you assumed (for some reason). Specially if it is, like the top comment said, just a propaganda machine trying to enforce a single viewpoint. That's antithesis to free speech.
Where you see “pro-censorship”, many see speech that historically has never been protected in the US like calls to violence, or speech that insights others to violence.
Companies gave Trump et. al. the benefit of the doubt on the “inciting violence” part, until the violence actually materialized and the FBI warned of groups organizing online to coordinate future violent attacks.
I didn't use the word "bizarrely" and I'm not talking about condemnation of unprotected speech (and again, not just because I'm not from the USA). I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example.
> [Trump]
Again, I wasn't talking about parler nor about Trump. I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to imply that I'm talking about stuff I'm not, or steering the conversation toward subjects I've never even alluded to.
Sorry, I meant "ironic".
> I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", and that's just an example.
Maybe downvoted far down the thread, but the majority of the upvoted "censorship" discussions have been directly related to Big Tech's deplatforming of Trump & Parler in response to the capital attacks, and how the existing limits on US free speech apply to these decisions.
No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself.
> [Trump and parler again]
Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since.
[1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
Can you link to these posts?
I've been following the threads, but haven't seen people arguing that the concept of free speech itself is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse".
The only "censorship" I've seen people supporting is against speech that has never been protected by the 1st amendment, which isn't being "pro-censorship" or "censorship" at all, it's just the same laws we've had here in the US for centuries.
Again, happy to take a look at what you're seeing on HN if you can link to a few threads.
By the way, you're completely free to defend these gigantic corporations deplatforming whoever they want; I wasn't talking about that in my original comment. That implication was already present in my first reply, but maybe my saying it outright will convince you that I don't mean anything bad with my comments.
Because you said: "I've noticed lately that HN commentary (at least in threads like this) has trended increasingly pro-censorship[1] lately", "[1]: Which is a bit ironic, thinking about it."
I haven't had that experience and don't understand the irony. Just trying to understand where you're coming from and thought links might help.
I think I misunderstood "lately" to mean the censorship / violent speech debate about the resulting Big Tech deplatformings, which is why I keep bringing those up. In the US, taking down violent, insightful speech is not considered censorship, which is why I was confused about who you're referring to that is "pro-censorship", but again maybe I crossed some wires there.
I care about free speech a lot and if there's a growing trend that speech that's always been protected by the 1st amendment is being targeted, it's a line we all need to be very sensitive to and vigilant in defending.
And here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25715809
(It bears noticing how the post whose thread that comment belongs to is certainly not about the banning of Trump or parler).
The US has long done a “controlled burn” in banning violent speech, but we do need to be vigilant that it doesn’t turn into a wild fire.
I don’t understand why they removed the tweet instead of labeling it if they really want to be in the fact checking business.
There’s no feasible zero-censorship scenario (see “yelling fire in a crowded theater”, etc.) so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree. But pretty much no one wants preapproval of every utterance either, so everyone is also “anti-censorship”.
If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
(Zero censorship is kind of like absolute anarchy: an interesting thought experiment that may be useful to inform a practical debate.)
I've seen people arguing that the concept of free speech is "outdated" and that societies that hold it are "doomed to collapse", just as an example of what I meant in my first comment.
> so pretty much everyone is “pro-censorship” to some degree
Please, don't. You're arguing against an extreme of my comment instead of what I actually meant[1] (which, of course, you're free to do, but I would also be just as free to dismiss it as a bad faith argument), but also you're extending something you might believe onto others. You're of course free to be "pro-censorship", but you don't know what everyone else thinks, and certainly not what I think.
> The use of the term “censorship” is itself a negative signal, as it preempts useful discussion by imposing a false dichotomy.
I completely disagree with this. The example I gave is absolutely an argument in favor of censorship.
> If you see someone talking about “damping positive disinformation feedback loops” or something like that, rather than “censorship”, that’s one signal there’s a substantive discussion taking place.
Excusing it by saying "dampening positive disinformation feedback loops" is excusing censorship. You might refuse to call it such, but I don't have a reason not to.
[1]: For starters, I'm aware that there's unprotected speech for a reason, and I never called condemnation of such speech "censorship".
I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic — which I think you actually agree with. But you’re trying to argue with me anyway.
I was just trying to answer your question on how to recognize a more nuanced and productive discussion: look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
Not really, no, what makes it difficult for me to continue this conversation is that I had no interest in having this conversation in the first place. My first comment was just asking the other person how he dealt with these threads, as I wasn't sure what he meant exactly or if he had a trick or something.
I certainly didn't want to start arguing the merits of free speech again (I already said I found it disheartening to read).
> I didn’t present any position at all other than saying that neither extreme is realistic
And since I never spoke in favor of any extreme, I argued with you because your point about "everyone being pro-censorship" wasn't apropos... Something you seem to know too.
> look for people arguing about specific behaviors; avoid people arguing over the definition of the word “censorship”.
I've seen the same people arguing both in favor of the same "specific behavior" you mentioned and against free speech[1]. And no, those discussions were anything but productive or nuanced. With that in mind, I have no interest in looking for that.
[1]: Not that differentiating between that and censorship wasn't already a distinction without a difference (as I already implied in my previous comment), but I must say that those discussions did make it evident that they were ultimately arguing for the same thing.
I guess the point I was trying to make is whether or not Parler is moderated to me seems irrelevant to the permissibility of this action.
Almost anyone would agree that a platform which allows any speech at all is a 'free speech platform' even if they don't agree with allowing certain kinds of speech.
Most people would agree a platform that allows any speech outside of socially accepted exceptions (e.g. threats of violence, slander) is a 'free speech platform'.
But for people who are largely not allowed to share their views (rightly or wrongly) a platform which is heavily moderated for ideological conformity can also be a 'free speech platform' if they agree with the ideology, because they are free to speak all the speech they want to speak and are prevented from doing on other platforms. It's pretty clear that Parler falls into this category.
https://about.fb.com/news/2019/10/mark-zuckerberg-stands-for...
https://twitter.com/johnfpfaff/status/1128369019164200960?la...
> $9.7 billion in funding for prisons, [including] incentive grants to ... qualifying states that enforced mandatory sentencing of 85% of a person's sentence conviction,
> [eliminating federal grants for] lower-income prison inmates to receive college educations during their term of imprisonment,
and funding for 100,000 more police officers.
a. how federal action modeled action for states, including substantial incentive schemes for incarceration (indeed that is how almost every Federal bill works)
b. how the rate of incarceration given the crime being committed increased post-crime bill.
I think it is a discussion to be had, not something to be a priori fact-checked as "False."
I assume that point was an extension of OP's comment of: "that they use to ensure ideological conformity in their posts."
For those interested, here is a link to the USA Today article from the screenshot evaluating whether "the crime bill brought mass incarceration to Black Americans": https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/07/03/fac...
> Stephen Ross Johnson, of Knoxville, Tennessee, a board member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and past president of the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told USA TODAY that it is "over simplistic" to say the 1994 crime bill led to mass incarceration.
> Asked if the bill caused or largely contributed to it, Johnson says: “The bottom line answer to that is no. Was it a link in the chain? Yes. Is it the beginning of the chain? No.”
> Johnson argues that the roots of mass incarceration can be found in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with legislation that created, among other things, the RICO statute, which broadened the scope of federal law as the war on drugs began to take shape.
I'd say I agree with the points in the article over the non-contextual, anonyomous, blanket statement that the crime bill brought ("caused") mass incarceration of Black Americans.
Perhaps it is not an appropriately nuanced claim - I would be curious if there is equal enforcement of the "contextual" clarity of claims made in all political memes though. My guess is no, and it is also a quite common view among academics that the crime bill is a large link in the story behind mass incarceration.
I haven't, for instance, seen fact-checking of memes about Russia "stealing" the election or Donald Trump being a servant of Putin, despite those claims being potentially "non-contextual."
You may agree with the points. But does that make it beyond the pale of discussion and must be "fact-checked" away?
e: Rather than downvotes, I would be curious what others' thoughts are here.
Have you heard of the Mueller Report? There's been extensive fact-checking on this, and Trump obstructed the investigation.
I have, of course. My claim is just that Russia "stealing" the election might be non-"contextual" if what's been shown is that Russia ran extensive misinformation campaigns, since the election was still ultimately decided by people voting, no evidence of extensive fraud, etc. , etc.
Of course, perhaps it is still a "steal" simply because of the effect of that interference/influence campaign. And similarly, perhaps the 1994 crime bill had an influence on future downstream state actions around incarceration. There's a discussion to be had about the topic. Neither "fact-check"-ing seems non-ideological to me.
Presumably this was all in an effort to say something along the lines of - "because of the unique situation Parler is in, these actions were permissible." No?
they are doing bulk scrapping of Parler and they do many other sites like Reddit too, and particularly stuff that is being taken down for archival purposes
also there is nothing - and I mean nothing, but particularly threats of violence - in Parler you don't see in Twitter in more abundance, only it's more typically leftists on Twitter and rightists on Parler
Source?