Parler, unlike Facebook, only existed to foment the kinds of rhetoric and ideologies that lead to the 6th.
I was on Parler for several months, trawling it and other sources quite heavily for the last month or so, trying to keep abreast of ... events.
At no time did I see even a single post advocating violent overthrow of the government, white supremacy, etc. Apparently, neither did any of those planning the Capital attack, since they were not Parler members.
So, if you want to deplatform people based on their political leanings, I guess you can go ahead and do that. But, the "reasons" being used to shut down Parler don't seem to be founded in fact.
how do you reconcile this opinion with the reporting that uses gps data from the parler data dump to place parler users at the protest and in the capitol building?
https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-ca...
Guilt by association is something we should avoid. It looks an awful lot like a witch hunt.
Anecdata from HNers in this thread suggests otherwise, and unless you can show evidence that all 4 million users conspired to storm the Capitol building, there's not much of a leg to stand on there.
No, assuming that they exist at all (which seems unlikely given the nature of the incident: peaceful people interested in just “wandering around…sucking on their soda pops” don’t tend to casually hang around riots involving violent clashes with the police, use of chemical irritants on both sides, gunfire, etc.) they aren’t, except to the extent that some of the former may not have been identified yet and moved into the latter category.
Anyone who illegally entered the building and is identified is being charged.
2. The gps data shows them being inside the Capitol building.
Just some examples of those non-existent violent posts
My example and personal experience does so.
Producing a bunch of bad posts that they had not yet deleted also doesn’t prove the claim.
Just as the never-deleted “Trump severed head” picture doesn’t prove evil intent by Twitter, et.al.
Perhaps they just hadn’t gotten to them all. Perhaps their user-driven moderation scheme didn’t scale.
I’m getting fairly tired of being impugned by generalizations; I personally didn’t join Parler to plan evil; I just didn’t want to be on a site where everyone seemed to hate me.
So, I am a counter-example that invalidates the wildly general claim.
That is all.
...until someone up in the food chain will either shut that down too or force them to disassociate with you.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/25/21532883/paypal-cuts-tie...
> Keep some spares in a closet for when the feds inevitably come when someone uses your unmoderated platform to plan crimes.
Section 230.
It is not. The “free market argument” does not account for entrenched monopolies who buy up - or shut down -competitors long before they can become threats.
Anti-trust laws, which have absolutely no teeth since the 80s (and every then...), are not incompatible with free market capitalism.
That's the first time I've ever heard that. Generally, libertarians will state that the existence of monopolies is an outcome of government intervention.
It’s those icky conservatives now, but the same mechanism will be used against more people tomorrow, as needed.
https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-defini...
Is there a regularly updated official list somewhere of newly-considered-offensive words so one can proactively update one's vocabulary?
https://static.attn.com/sites/default/files/allhousesmatter....
And then there is Tor. If you really want to live outside of any moderation, outside of even basic laws, then setup a Tor hidden service. If you aren't going to put in some basic effort to protect yourself (ie what ThePirateBay does every day) and instead run strait to the courts, then I have little sympathy.
The browser makers will find a way to make it happen if they need to.
Vk is very popular and has scaled well.