Have you have spent time in parler and can speak to its content? Or are you just amplifying other people's opinions? It is trivial to cherry pick content from Twitter or Facebook that would be outrageous to decent people.

Someone published an investigative report on 1/5 about different social media, the calls to violence were worst in his opinion on Parler https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2021/01/05/how-the-...

I like and read bellingcat, but, if we're being honest, it is not a neutral source of information.

> if we're being honest

...

> it is not a neutral source of information

Why not?

Yes it is.

I joined it back in December, not realizing that it was essentially a platform for right wing extremist. I simply thought it was a less restrictive Twitter, based on the conversation I'd heard. After joining and opening the app, and without following anyone, I was immediately slammed with extremist right wing content and outright lies. I'm not one to defend Twitter/Facebook (both should be broken up into smaller companies), but my god...neither do anything close to what I saw with Parler.

This is a rational and reasonable point. BUT, let me muddy it and make it harder to make your point feel so confidently clear-cut:

Scenario. WhatsApp groups begin to be used as gathering places. Open secret. Bomb or explosion or storming of a government building ensures. Question: is it a question of national security to investigate and pressure to censor or eliminate the platform, and if not why not?

Scenario. The bomby extremist-y people on Parler make up .05% of user base. 99.95, while being mostly right-wing, aren't bomby or national security-threatlike. Question: is the tradeoff of punishing the platform by making it disappear, worth it as the only alternative platform to Twitter (which is relied upon by government, health authorities and journalists as the one true place)?

I have no problem with arguments in favor of censorship. I DO have acid reflux when I see the lack of nuance, the strong confidence and wording like "pretty clear."

No, censorship is never pretty clear and always warrants skepticism and conversation.

The big difference is whether platform refuses to moderate those .05% on Parler. Afaik, twitter for all its moderation flaws is not refusing to moderate those and reacts to big real world events significantly more quickly. And yes, twitter did deleted accounts and tweets of people who called for violence during summer. Maybe not perfectly and plus some ambiguous accounts ended closed too, but twitter did put real effort into it.

Arguing as of the two were equal two is lacking even basic attempt at nuance.

Parler was created because that content was booted from twitter, reddit and public facebook discussion. Literally. So acting like Twitter is the same is unfair despite Twitter deficiciencies.

Parler was created because there's a perception of biased censorship on Twitter. Never used Parler but can confirm there is a ton of hateful content and calls for violence on Twitter. I'm sorry you think it's unfair to compare the two, because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.

You cant really claim that Parler would even attempt fair moderation. Its moderation was very biased, intentionally so actually.

> because anyone who cares an iota about fairness and censorship would prioritize the comparison.

Anyone who cares about fairness and censorship would first look at Parler moderation, then at Twitters one and only then made comparison. Not even looking at Parler and then claiming that "it is totally same and unbiased because that would confirm my pre-existing bias" is opposite of fair and opposite of nuanced.