> Instagram actively pays people to engage in said advancement of political agendas.

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 don't claim anything about the veracity of the post you responded to or about your claims either. Except that your claims aren't an apt comparison because your comparison is logically flawed. Instagram paying some users for their content isn't the same as Instagram paying people to advocate a certain political agenda. And having a moderation system in place isn't the same as having a moderation system in place that is designed to ensure only a certain political viewpoint is discussed. And you've made no claims about Instagram enforcing only one political viewpoint.

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.

> And you've made no claims about Instagram enforcing only one political viewpoint.

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 haven't given any evidence that Instagram enforces only one viewpoint. And I'd be shocked if Instagram only pays for political posts from one side of the debate in American politics. That Instagram seeks to counter what it perceives of as false political claims has been convincingly made. That it does so to advance only one certain political agenda has not been made.

My evidence was attempting to show that "claims Instagram thinks are true" is an explicitly political category. By moderating away political claims that diverge from that category, IG is advancing a political agenda.

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

From my perspective the proper response to OP is to either

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.

> designed specifically to enforce a certain political viewpoint

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.

It's not unreasonable for a person instigating something through negative posts to receive negative reactions in return. That seems self evident.

Consequence free speech seems to be what is desired on these platforms. This was inevitable.

You can’t monetize consequence free speech. It has to be in dark places like 4chan.

I think the point is that you don't need to make "negative posts" about those topics, rather discussing them from any angle that isn't the accepted progressive orthodoxy results in the ban hammer.

> discussing them from any angle that isn't the accepted progressive orthodoxy results in the ban hammer

What are some examples of this?

No dog in this particular fight as I don't care either way but to answer your question: I've seen plenty of examples involving TERFs or questioning transgender women in women's sports where the ban hammer was brought out.

Another example is being egalitarian instead of equitarian. Being strictly egalitarian gets you labeled racist pretty quickly in many online forums. Just this past week in my neighborhood Buy Nothing group someone put up an item and made it available only to BIPOC people. Some people called it out as discriminatory and antithetical to community-building. They got called racist and accused of white fragility and were both muted for two weeks. No one on the side of orthodoxy got muted.

In both of the racial examples, people are attempting to correct past injustices. BIPOC people never received a court settlement for the injustices against them. Politicians left it up to citizens on how to repair the damage, so to do nothing seems far short of adequate, but it's a fair debate about how far to go.

How many black people still alive today saw signs that said "No blacks allowed" back in the 60s? I guess your neighbor saw the Buy Nothing post as basically saying "No whites allowed".

I could see the original poster's intent being "I'm sorry BIPOC that you haven't been treated as fairly as I have, and I want to help". Calling that discriminatory is a bit harsh, but I'm sure that doesn't feel good to a non-BIPOC person who's struggling and could really benefit from the item.

I think there's a concerted effort since George Floyd to understand the plight of BIPOC people and help them feel safe and respected in the community, where they at times have felt the need to be invisible to be safe.

It's like doing a fund raiser for indigenous people, trying to acknowledge that a group has been wronged and trying to help that group feel respected again.

But it's a fine line for sure. At the point it becomes an anti-white thing rather than a pro-BIPOC thing, the conditions change dramatically.

We should point out too that white people did get reparations. They lost slaves and the government paid them. You can't claim to be a "strict egalitarian" if you support a system that treats people unequally.

Another example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9019539/Facebook-pr...