> Capitol Riots and the posts were still there. If they had
> any moderation it was not at all effective even for the
> most obviously unacceptable content.
That's clearly a failing of the moderation system. I imagine they were very overwhelmed that day, as all social media platforms probably were (including Twitter and Facebook from what I saw).
One problem Parler specifically are up against is that they were already unofficially blacklisted in multiple places that would allow them to raise the funding to hire moderators, due to cancel culture and the fear of it. They already couldn't get advertising, investments, etc. Now the situation is even worse, and when it reappears, it will likely have even less resources for content moderation.
The only way out for them will be to distribute the problem of content moderation as some other platforms have apparently done (I am told Minds do this). Of course you have to rely on randomly selecting a fair jury in order for it to work - something that won't happen now.
Observe: That's generally the point when political speech crosses the line from 'soap box' to 'bullet box.' [1] Trump and his friends crossed that line on January 6th. #eattherich, Chapo Trap House, etc, has yet to do so.
You're drawing false equivalences.
[1] Despite having lost its case at both the ballot box, and the jury box. [2]
There's no doubt the material is objectionable, but it was only up for a short time and got very little reach, even getting negative reactions within their own circles. And bare in mind, these aren't exactly random examples either - this is supposed to represent the very worst - and it's just some random people with little reach who get negative reactions from their own followers.
Meanwhile over on Twitter you've got people sharing a picture of Trump's severed head, you've got "Hang Mike Pence" trending as a hash tag, you have people celebrating the death of the lady who got shot in the capital, etc.
Perhaps a little context?
I don't see how upvotes or views are relevant.
>There's no doubt the material is objectionable, but it was only up for a short time and got very little reach, even getting negative reactions within their own circles. And bare in mind, these aren't exactly random examples either - this is supposed to represent the very worst - and it's just some random people with little reach who get negative reactions from their own followers.
It's only supposed to represent the 15 seconds of work I performed in going through the dump of parler data. There's plenty more if you're interested. Again, whether or not it reached a lot of people is hardly relevant.
>Meanwhile over on Twitter you've got people sharing a picture of Trump's severed head, you've got "Hang Mike Pence" trending as a hash tag, you have people celebrating the death of the lady who got shot in the capital, etc.
And that shouldn't be allowed either. What's your point?
Of course it's relevant. If your hate message is received by nobody - who is the victim? You're just shouting into the ether. The larger your reach, the more moderation becomes important.
> And that shouldn't be allowed either. What's your point?
Because Twitter isn't been wiped from the internet for breaking the exact same ToS. It's clearly selective enforcement.
My understanding is that Apple wanted some form of auto-moderation. Parler's self regulation by user votes is a joke and leads to the opposite of free speech. They wanted a plan and a conversation, Parler refused. So, bye bye.
Apparently everyone has abandoned them, including their own lawyers. They could have fixed this, but they decided not to, and are now crying foul.
No man, it wasn't. They are just lying to you. Try to be more credulous.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
[0] mentioned in the article: "I wish they[sic] were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but..."
Also the Parler system is that you essentially are sandboxed for a short period of time when you first join - if you get tonnes of negative responses you get removed. So the fact they got removed in the first 24 hours makes sense.
So: No man, it wasn't. They are just lying to you. Try to be more credulous.
> to have some disgusting content on it.
You can't state that as fact. The platform itself was not inherently about spreading objectionable material. It was about being more free than Twitter.
> And I have yet to hear anyone discuss how "anything goes"
> and social media do not mix.
As with all free speech, it had legal limits, such as threats of violence. We can argue about how effective the moderation system was in Parler, but I know for a fact that they repeatedly removed material that broke the law.