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.