Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech

Author: n8nrgmi ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 167
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    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. 

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi

    this link lists a bunch of the examples of threats of violence 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 9,031
    4
    7
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    no it should not have been banned
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @n8nrgmi
    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.



  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,219
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @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. 
  • MisterChris
    MisterChris avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 2,592
    5
    9
    11
    MisterChris avatar
    MisterChris
    Democrats would rather censor the views they dislike than discuss them rationally. Discuss-ting!
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,219
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @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. 

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @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? 
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,482
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @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.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @ILikePie5
    even if big tech is wrong on that point, it doesn't change anything regarding parler. u r just deflecting. 
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @ILikePie5
    I'm pretty sure Twitter is banned in China.  I don't know how much access they have to Parler.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,482
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @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.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 7,482
    3
    5
    10
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @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.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,219
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @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. 
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @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. 


  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,219
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @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. 

  • TheUnderdog
    TheUnderdog avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 450
    2
    3
    9
    TheUnderdog avatar
    TheUnderdog
    --> @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.
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @TheUnderdog
    so it's okay for parlor to allow people to plot terrorist attacks? 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,219
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @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. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    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. 
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @n8nrgmi
    I pretty much just presented facts, and I don't consider it a political entity. 

    Are you calling me a conservative?  
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,100
    3
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @Greyparrot
    what's your knee jerk, irrational response to this issue? 
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 226
    0
    2
    5
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @n8nrgmi
    Mueller... Mueller...  Mueller... https://youtu.be/yUjhSBjxuXA?t=28

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,329
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @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.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,329
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @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?