Author Topic: Big Tech Censorship  (Read 4997 times)

Offline dug

  • Show Organizer
  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville
  • Posts: 1628
Big Tech Censorship
« on: January 12, 2021, 09:56:54 PM »
I’ve avoided the politics tab for a while because there is little point.  I don’t think a single person on here has ever changed their views, and barely even ever conceded a point. 

Still, here I am because of the censorship and anti-competitive practices of big tech.  Since Democrats gained control they have been on a roll banning all kinds of groups they disagree with politically.  Knowing they will never face any challenges, at least until the current people in power over-reach and lose control, just like under Bush II, Obama, and Trump.  The pendulum typically swings the other way eventually. 

I have always said the worst instances of abuse always happen when one party is in control.  Overreach in the war on terror, pushing through affordable care with not a single republican vote, and tons of spending, although neither party seems to care about that any more. 

There isn’t much to be done when the government extends its power.  Limiting the power of big tech is something where we do have some control.  Apple and Google own 99% of the smartphone market.  When Parler started to become competition, within a few days Parler was kicked off both app stores.  To finish them off Amazon kicked them off their cloud service. 

The reasons given were weak.  They had been in existence for a few years, but when they moved to number 1 in the app store, and big tech didn’t have to worry about government repercussions, they exhibited classic monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior and colluded to shut them down.  A much better written article on the topic by Glenn Greenwald is here: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic

We can’t easily divest ourselves from the government, but we can from big tech.  I got my gmail account in 2005 and just finished saving every email off-line so there is nothing left in it now.  All my accounts are updated to send to my new email on protonmail.   I had been working this way for a while and didn’t order anything from Amazon this Christmas, but didn’t cancel my prime account, but I just did.  I stopped using google for a search engine a while ago anyways, but did just delete Chrome, which will be first time probably since it was released it hasn't been on one of my computers (I am however, using Brave, which is based on Chromium but built around privacy).  I have a long list of things to do but those are the first steps. 

Unlike many, I don’t care about their political leanings.  They can believe whatever they like, but the monopolistic behaviors and silencing of opposing voices is too much for me.  I don’t have to support them with my money and data though so I am moving on.     

I would say to those here who value freedom of speech, stop supporting the groups who don’t.  Stop giving away your money and data to people who support censorship. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2021, 10:00:23 PM by dug »
WTB: Eight Ball Deluxe, The Getaway - HSII, Qbert,

Jacksonville Arcade Expo - www.jaxarcadex.com

How come you never see the headline “Psychic Wins Lottery”?

Offline Chris

  • Level 5: Power User!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Posts: 677
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2021, 08:45:52 AM »
Quote
Still, here I am because of the censorship and anti-competitive practices of big tech.  Since Democrats gained control they have been on a roll banning all kinds of groups they disagree with politically.
So your argument is that tech companies conspired to remove Parler, etc. because they don't like right-wingers? What evidence do you have to support this?

Parler in particular had a huge problem with people posting stuff of a threatening and seditious nature and were given a chance to clean it up. They refused, so they were removed. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. don't want to deal with the legal issues invited by companies that are severely lacking in community moderation standards. The first amendment gives them a right to dissociate with those groups.

So there's that. Also, Parler has a track record of banning left-wingers, which is interesting seeing as they are supposedly a safe haven for free speech. Could it be that Parler has the kind of political motivations behind it that you accuse big tech of?

Quote
I have always said the worst instances of abuse always happen when one party is in control.  Overreach in the war on terror, pushing through affordable care with not a single republican vote, and tons of spending, although neither party seems to care about that any more.
Agreed. It will be interesting and probably a little scary to see what happens with Democrats completely in charge. As you said and have said years ago, the pendulum swings when political parties push too hard. The democrat majority is a product of the republicans overplaying their hand the last few years, and as predicted, they lost it all quickly as a consequence.

Quote
There isn%u2019t much to be done when the government extends its power.  Limiting the power of big tech is something where we do have some control.  Apple and Google own 99% of the smartphone market.  When Parler started to become competition, within a few days Parler was kicked off both app stores.  To finish them off Amazon kicked them off their cloud service.
I agree that Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon have too much control over the market and something should be done. It's one of the few things even democrats and republicans will agree with. Whether that's breaking the companies up physically or legislating them, etc. is where the disagreements usually start. I don't think Parler was targeted because they were "competition" as you suggest; Parler is not a competitor to Apple, Google, etc. as neither company has a social media platform and Parler is not in the smartphone hardware business. If anything, Apple, Google, and Amazon are losing money doing this. Parler got banned because they happily ignored problematic speech that they were warned about wouldn't fly on their hosts' services. This has been pretty well documented.

What do you believe is the remedy? Should these companies be forced to host any and all apps on their stores? Should they no longer be allowed to moderate their own content? Should they be forced to put themselves in legal and financial danger? What should the government do about it?

Quote
The reasons given were weak.
Here's Apple's reasoning: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/apple-threatens-ban-parler
As someone who has dealt with publishing apps on the App Store (and has incurred their wrath several times for pushing boundaries), this appears to be unusually nice behavior for Apple. They showed examples of the kinds of stuff they objected to and why it was objectionable, and gave them time to clean it up. Parler refused to even scrub the examples they were given, even though they violated their own TOS. Considering what happened on the 6th and what is being planned for the future, I don't see this reasoning as weak but I welcome your opinion.

Quote
They had been in existence for a few years, but when they moved to number 1 in the app store, and big tech didn%u2019t have to worry about government repercussions, they exhibited classic monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior and colluded to shut them down.
Again, to me this doesn't seem like a move made because of the dems taking over. The dems don't like tech companies either and you'd think they wouldn't want to attract any unwarranted attention from either side, especially considering how narrow of a majority the dems currently have. The bans happened directly in the aftermath of the Jan. 6th attacks, and seems much more likely the catalyst than perceived lightened political pressure, let alone a big tech conspiracy to "get away with censorship."

Quote
We can%u2019t easily divest ourselves from the government, but we can from big tech.
Huge respect for you putting your money where your mouth is. I too have stopped buying from Amazon. I've used Opera as a browser since forever, and I only use my Gmail through Thunderbird etc., so it's not like they're making ad revenue off me at least. I've moved more and more searches to DuckDuckGo, but Google search is miles ahead of all competitors unfortunately. Smartphones, you're kinda stuck with the big two.

Quote
I would say to those here who value freedom of speech, stop supporting the groups who don%u2019t.  Stop giving away your money and data to people who support censorship.
I value freedom of speech obviously, but I respectfully disagree that big tech inherently doesn't value free speech. I just find it far-fetched to imagine decision makers for these companies sitting in an office on the top floor raging about right-wingers and their cursed free speech. I think their motivations are more or less strictly legal and financial. The first amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of said speech, and this, to me, is the lesson Parler is learning the hard way. Similarly, Google, Amazon, etc. are facing their own consequences for their actions from people like you and me to varying degrees.

One question to ponder, and I'd like to hear your feedback. Do you think there could be unintended consequences if government were to step in and force big tech or social media to operate a certain way? Could there be trickle-down effects that make their way to this forum for instance? What makes social media companies inherently different as a private enterprise than The Village, and what makes tech retail different than Walmart?

Quote
I%u2019ve avoided the politics tab for a while because there is little point.  I don%u2019t think a single person on here has ever changed their views, and barely even ever conceded a point.
It's all about who you argue with on here. As radicalized as this place has gotten over the last few years, I've had people tell me I've changed their views on here, and you've changed my views a time or two. Mostly it's a game of planting seeds and then being able to say "see, I told you I was right" years later. That's how you win the internets. ;)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2021, 11:01:19 AM by Chris »

Offline WannaTheater

  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Location: Tampa
  • Posts: 1751
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2021, 11:33:29 AM »
For me, I am torn.  Other than a LinkedIn profile, I do not have any social media accounts.  (But I do/(did) read Trump's tweets and responses).  This is the only account I am "politically" active on.  So I don't really have much skin in the social media game.

From a constitutional standpoint, I do not believe this is a First Amendment issue...at all.  These are private companies.  While I hate to quote an analogy I heard from a very left news source, there was a Supreme Court case in 2018 (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n).  This case basically overturned lower court rulings, and upheld that a privately owned bakery could pick and choose their customers.  (Translated to current events, Twitter is the homophobic bakery, and Trump is the gay couple being denied a wedding cake). 

An interesting read on the First Amendment topic with regard to Parler: https://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-first-amendment-cant-protect-trump-on-twitter-or-save-parler/

I do not believe the justifications are weak.  There are clear cut violations of accepted terms of service.  Where you work I would be willing to bet there is a Code of Conduct/Ethics, that all must abide by.  If a students has permission to host a website for some graduate work, and posts step by step guides to making a fertilizer bomb, and organizes a group to appear in a politically sensitive location on a certain date, would they be allowed to continue to operate because of their constitutional rights?  Is shutting them down censorship?

Regarding violation of Terms of Service, I do see hypocrisy in removing all of Parler-  I am sure there are still many bad actors on YouTube, Twitter, etc. (on left and right side of politics) that are still around.

And I don't know what the big deal is about Amazon.  There are other bookstores around...   :)  JK

Boycotting big tech (especially financially) is enviable and noble.  But not for me.  I enjoy ordering things today, and getting them tomorrow with free shipping and free returns.  We use AWS heavily at the company I work for.  While Amazon is seen by many as the devil, it has added a convenience factor to my life. 

As a side note:  For the Parler community that thought they are/(were) "safe," this article may offer a renewed perspective: 
https://cybernews.com/news/70tb-of-parler-users-messages-videos-and-posts-leaked-by-security-researchers/
While a company can say they are not collecting data, provide you an unmonitored safe space to post whatever, apparently meeting those demands is not easily accomplished.
Pins: Iron Maiden, The Addams Family, Simpsons Pinball Party, Fish Tales, Goldeneye, Terminator 2, No Fear
Arcade: Galaga (MAME), Ice Cold Beer, Defender (JROK-multi), Donkey Kong/Donkey Kong Jr

Offline dug

  • Show Organizer
  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville
  • Posts: 1628
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2021, 12:15:41 PM »
I’m fighting a bit of a headache this morning so here is a quick reply. 

I don’t even know where to start with the bias from Silicon Valley.  It is so self-evident, like the bias in news, it hardly seems something to argue.  When is the last time you saw a fact check on Twitter saying: “This claim about BLM protests being ‘mostly peaceful’ is disputed.”  The question is if their political leanings affect decisions about content. 

Rob Paul was just blocked on Facebook:
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/12/ron-paul-posts-criticism-of-censorship-on-social-media-shortly-before-facebook-blocks/
“With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.”

I would ask, how many people on the left can you name that have been banned or complain about being censored relative to people on the right? 

Here is another article from Turley on the topic that says it much better than I can: https://thespectator.info/2021/01/13/turley-we-are-witnessing-the-death-of-free-speech-on-the-internet/

"The erosion of free speech has been radically accelerated by the Big Tech and social media companies," he added.  "The level of censorship and viewpoint regulation has raised questions of a new type of state media where companies advance an ideological agenda with political allies." (Emphasis added.)
"Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have [Jack] Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and 'protect' them from errant or harmful thoughts,"


I agree they are a private business, but they also act as a platform under section 230.  At what point do you change from a platform to a publisher because you edit what content can be allowed?   

As far as Paler, if it was an issue of content on their platform, how much time should be given to adjust.  In this case the time from the first letter to complete destruction was maybe a few days?
“According to Parler’s suit, AWS effectively shuttered Parler’s online platforms Sunday by suspending its account from the only servers carrying its content. With less than 30 hours notice…”

I have no idea what the terms of service are so they very could have violated them, but the way it happened, where in a matter of days all three players acted to shut them down is what I see as the problem (and collusion).   How much is terms of service violations and how much is convenient justification to silence opposing views and competition?   

We are better off as consumers when we have more choices for products and ideas.  I don’t like the idea of government regulation because they will screw it up.  The people in power will give favors to make it work to their benefit (democrat or republican). 

Which is why I simply asked at the end of the post for people who support free speech and competition to start spending their money and using other services to limit big tech influence.    I agree completely with wannatheater, Amazon does an awesome job, but I’m willing to suffer with perhaps slower shipping or slightly higher costs to promote competition and free speech.   
WTB: Eight Ball Deluxe, The Getaway - HSII, Qbert,

Jacksonville Arcade Expo - www.jaxarcadex.com

How come you never see the headline “Psychic Wins Lottery”?

Offline Chris

  • Level 5: Power User!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Posts: 677
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2021, 09:11:51 AM »
Quote
Rob Paul was just blocked on Facebook
And it looks like he was reinstated almost as quickly. Facebook apparently screwed up and apologized for it. Any other examples of someone on the right/libertarian banned unfairly?

Quote
I would ask, how many people on the left can you name that have been banned or complain about being censored relative to people on the right?
I don't follow political figures, so to be honest I couldn't tell you anyone on the left or right who has been banned. I know a lot of people have been banned for violating various TOS... death threats, incitement, racism, doxxing, etc. and yeah those people seem to tend to be on the right. The people who attacked the Capitol were also firmly on the right. That doesn't seem like an issue with social media companies, it sounds like an issue with the right.

Quote
I agree they are a private business, but they also act as a platform under section 230.  At what point do you change from a platform to a publisher because you edit what content can be allowed?
Community standards are a fine line. Let people post too much garbage, they'll lose users. Not being open enough to conversation, they'll lose users. How is social media even remotely a publisher? They're not in the business of creating, curating, or editing anything, they delete posts and people who suck sometimes. Every website does.

Let's say Parler was treated as a publisher instead of a platform. After all, they delete posts and ban users like any network. Do you think there could be unforeseen consequences? Do you think they could stay in business with the things that get posted there? In what world would it make sense for a massive social media company with millions of users to have to face the brunt of lawsuits because of some libelous clowns on their platform?

Quote
As far as Paler, if it was an issue of content on their platform, how much time should be given to adjust.  In this case the time from the first letter to complete destruction was maybe a few days?
This appears to be untrue.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf

Apparently they've been having a dialogue since mid November about TOS violations. By the time the terrorist attack happened, Parler obviously hadn't done a great job moderating their content. I fail to see what AWS did wrong. They seemingly gave Parler plenty of time to clean things up, what they were doing wasn't nearly good enough, clearly, AWS had enough and kicked them off.

Quote
where in a matter of days all three players acted to shut them down is what I see as the problem (and collusion).
The US government was attacked by a number of extremist right-wing factions, and when the dust settled, it was obvious that social media, particularly Parler, had not done enough to remove bad actors from its service, so big tech in a legal, financial, and ethical frenzy decided to do the hard purge they should have done months ago. If Parler hadn't been pulled from AWS, bad actors would *still* be planning more attacks with little to no moderation happening. Considering this versus a vast left-wing conspiracy of big tech companies colluding to pull the plug on "opposing views and competition" because the dems have a majority, in my opinion doesn't seem to stand up to Occam's Razor quite as well.

Quote
Which is why I simply asked at the end of the post for people who support free speech and competition to start spending their money and using other services to limit big tech influence.
Fair enough, and I support that. A huge number of my friends over the years left most social media due to big tech not doing enough to purge extremism from their services. After the election I saw other friends join Parler.

Where free speech is attacked versus where hate speech isn't tolerated is of course a matter of opinion. Me personally, I'm just not at the level where I can vilify Amazon for removing a social media network that was well-documented as an extremist cesspool with a strong right-wing bias, that had no interest in following the rules or enforcing their own. No hosting company in their right mind would allow behavior like that. I can't think of any large company that successfully plays fast and loose with community standards. You either have them and enforce them, or you're anarchy.

Offline Don Panetta aka 404

  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Location: South Miami
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2021, 10:27:58 AM »
So your argument is that tech companies conspired to remove Parler, etc. because they don't like right-wingers? What evidence do you have to support this?

Parler in particular had a huge problem with people posting stuff of a threatening and seditious nature and were given a chance to clean it up. They refused, so they were removed. Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. don't want to deal with the legal issues invited by companies that are severely lacking in community moderation standards. The first amendment gives them a right to dissociate with those groups.

So there's that. Also, Parler has a track record of banning left-wingers, which is interesting seeing as they are supposedly a safe haven for free speech. Could it be that Parler has the kind of political motivations behind it that you accuse big tech of?

You basically asked for evidence that right wingers were being banned, admit that they were banned for their rhetoric and then claim lefties are banned at parlor without providing evidence.  :o


The fact that twitter has already admitted to banning over 70,000 people from their platform in just the last few days is pretty convincing evidence that they are banning right wingers in mass. They've been doing it while coddling left-wing extremists and their pedophile supporters. The hashtag #1984 is still currently censored since their bans but #KillTrump is still currently available and quite active. 2 high profile left accounts were exposed as pedo accounts this past week. One of which belongs to a youtuber. A third person was just jailed after police uncovered a child porn ring on the platform. Who could forget that Jack Dorsey is also an ardent leftist that has donated millions to far-left, often violent movements.


So this idea that tech is protecting you from some kind of domestic terrorism is just a lie.

Offline dug

  • Show Organizer
  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville
  • Posts: 1628
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2021, 11:08:41 AM »
Well, this appears to be headed off the rails, so I'm out. 

In short, I think big tech has too much power.  You may disagree on how the power is used but I don't think anyone can disagree they have too much.  The anti-competitive practices and are well documented in many industries.  They do lots of things well, but small numbers of players is bad for consumers.

I will leave at asking everyone to support your local businesses, other online stores, products made in the USA, and your local brick and mortar.
WTB: Eight Ball Deluxe, The Getaway - HSII, Qbert,

Jacksonville Arcade Expo - www.jaxarcadex.com

How come you never see the headline “Psychic Wins Lottery”?

Offline Chris

  • Level 5: Power User!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Posts: 677
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2021, 11:59:03 AM »
Quote
In short, I think big tech has too much power.  You may disagree on how the power is used but I don't think anyone can disagree they have too much.  The anti-competitive practices and are well documented in many industries.  They do lots of things well, but small numbers of players is bad for consumers.
Agreed, 100%. And honestly, until last week I was much more tolerant over what social media allowed on their platforms. Now, not so much. That said, I don't approve of them banning right-wingers that have been abiding by the TOS. I'll fight for their right to post as much as anyone else.

Quote
You basically asked for evidence that right wingers were being banned, admit that they were banned for their rhetoric and then claim lefties are banned at parlor without providing evidence.  :o
I asked for evidence they were banned unfairly. I really do want to get to the bottom of that, and would go a long way to change my mind as I don't agree with it.
As for Parler banning left-wingers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler#:~:text=In%20June%20and%20July%202020,prevailing%20viewpoints%20on%20the%20service.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml
Again, I'm not expert on political punditry so I couldn't tell you what they did or didn't do, just that there seems to be evidence of it.

Quote
pedophile supporters [...] pedo accounts [...] child porn ring
Why is that you constantly, completely unprovoked, bring every single political discussion around to CP? It's incredibly creepy. Normal people don't have obsessions about that.

Offline Don Panetta aka 404

  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2014
  • Location: South Miami
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2021, 12:43:06 PM »
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything even so if those links are any indication then parler is actually moderating content and the tech industry is illegally gatekeeping their market share. Oops...

- I wouldn't have to mention pedos and cp if the left weren't so hell bent on normalizing them as part of the LGBTQIA spectrum. Just last year Twitter specifically added provisions to their acceptable use policy to allow talk of pedophilia on their platform. This was quietly removed about 2 months ago.

- Imaging getting irritated that people want to protect children.

Offline Chris

  • Level 5: Power User!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Posts: 677
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2021, 02:06:09 PM »
Quote
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything
Neither are you, but Wikipedia at least cites its sources.

Quote
then parler is actually moderating content and the tech industry is illegally gatekeeping their market share. Oops...
The argument is they aren't moderating appropriately, not that they aren't moderating at all. We'll see how the AWS lawsuit shakes out as to how "illegal" the tech industry is.

Offline dug

  • Show Organizer
  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville
  • Posts: 1628
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2021, 09:10:25 PM »
I thought I was out of this thread but just saw this podcast from the Megan Kelly show that posted yesterday.  She has the CEO of Parler on and while yes it is only his side, at least you are getting information directly and not through other sources.  I listened to it today while driving around and thought it addressed some of the points mentioned here so I wanted to post the link.  I had never used Parler so I didn't know anything about them or how they operated and he explains, among other things, how they operated and did monitoring of content. 

The first part is Kelly talking about censorship in general, and John Matze of Parler starts at 14 minutes: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-megyn-kelly-show-71878122/#
WTB: Eight Ball Deluxe, The Getaway - HSII, Qbert,

Jacksonville Arcade Expo - www.jaxarcadex.com

How come you never see the headline “Psychic Wins Lottery”?

Offline WannaTheater

  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Location: Tampa
  • Posts: 1751
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2021, 08:51:14 AM »
Doug- Will check it out later today.

While many can bash the left/libs for controlling social media, has anyone researched the history of Parler?
Read a bit about Rebekah Mercer (co-founder and financier), and her history with the alt-right.

Regarding the coordinated attack, I think it was a culmination which led to a breaking point.

Here is an article from Engadget which defends Amazon's actions: https://www.engadget.com/amazon-responds-parler-lawsuit-203419366.html
Click through the "In Emails" link which will take you "Exhibit D," which is enlightening.
Pins: Iron Maiden, The Addams Family, Simpsons Pinball Party, Fish Tales, Goldeneye, Terminator 2, No Fear
Arcade: Galaga (MAME), Ice Cold Beer, Defender (JROK-multi), Donkey Kong/Donkey Kong Jr

Offline dug

  • Show Organizer
  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Jacksonville
  • Posts: 1628
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2021, 11:23:57 AM »
First interesting thing from the podcast is he used to work for amazon web services, knows many people there, and said he had a good working relationship up until the ban. 

He said their moderation is done by a team of jurors.  When something is flagged it gets sent to 5 (if I remember correctly) of the jurors who vote on if it violates their guidelines.  Based on that it is approved or not.  He said they have run into problems in the past because the speed content is posted can overwhelm the ability to moderate.  They hired more jurors to accommodate when concerns were raised about the content being posted and how it was being handled.  He talks a bit about trying to get automated tools to help and it is a bit much to rewrite here so I would say listen to the podcast for that part. 

I looked at the link for emails and yes it is offensive, but in the Parler reply they also agreed: "...developing a regular contact with law enforcement to refer the sorts of threats you sent in the second example (a too-common occurrence during these turbulent times, unfortunately). The second example you sent  has been passed on to our regular contact for investigation."  

"The first example, as hateful as it is, would not be deemed a violation of our terms of service. Following Nadine Strossen (New York Law School, ACLU), Parler does not ban "hate speech" insofar as it would be protected by the First Amendment. We agree with Professor Strossen that the best way to resist hate is with more speech. You can read our Community Guidelines, which also describes how enforcement works on Parler, here"  I wanted to review their guidelines, but of course I can't because the site was shut down.

I'm not exactly sure which specific ones he refers to because of the order in the email, and I'm definitely not defending those emails by any means, but if you built a platform on free speech shouldn't it allow offensive things?  I think the whole premise of free speech is to protect things that people don't like.  If no one takes issue with something then you don't need free speech protections. 

Again, not defending bigoted and violent rhetoric, but I think there are many violent tweets on twitter but it doesn't get the same level of scrutiny.  Youtube put out a policy stating if you post content saying the election has widespread fraud you will be banned.  Whether or not you think it happened, I hate the idea you can't even discuss it.  The line drawn is very blurry and especially so when you base it on subjective personal beliefs.  https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/youtube-says-it-will-suspend-channels-claiming-widespread-voter-fraud.html   

As interesting aside, Gab.com posted on this on their news page: "We are documenting millions of illegal posts in our Liberal Hate Machine project which shows just how much hatred and bile is spewed on Twitter, one of our most major competitors. We have been collecting and analyzing over 100 million tweets in the replies section of President Trump’s Twitter account for about a year. We applied sentiment analysis to detect violent and hateful replies. Wait until you see what we found.   

It’s interesting that Twitter remains online and has access to App Stores and Gab does not..."


Personally, I don't like social media and really only have an account so I can do things related to the arcade expo.  I don't follow or read anyone so my talking about this stuff is definitely from an outsiders perspective.  When I discuss these things my case will almost always be based on the default potion of less regulation/intervention.  Which is why I simply asked people to vote with their dollars and data for competition and free speech instead of saying they should be blocked, banned, or regulated.   
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 11:36:55 AM by dug »
WTB: Eight Ball Deluxe, The Getaway - HSII, Qbert,

Jacksonville Arcade Expo - www.jaxarcadex.com

How come you never see the headline “Psychic Wins Lottery”?

Offline Baiter

  • Level 10: Timelord
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Denver
  • Posts: 4699
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2021, 11:30:25 AM »
Keep in mind that there is no such thing is absolute free speech in the United States.  Freedoms get limited when someone tries to infringing on freedoms of others, which can happen in many forms: hate speech, calls to violence, deceit of the public, etc.  Most of the big tech censorship actions are enforcing their own TOS (which they are allowed to do like any business), or they are trying to conform to laws on the books. 

Are they too powerful?  Yes... For example if Facebook enforces policies at it's whims, it affects a huge percentage of the world's online social media.  If Google enforces policies in its search engine, it affects a huge percentage of the world's search activity.  If Twitter rolls out a policy to stop false information campaigns it happens to affect a huge percentage of the world's social media communication as well.  In that market share is significant potential for abuse, but so far it's been directed toward stopping the spread of proven misinformation, which is an important public service.

And then there's this...

Quote
The Pirate Bay, the most censored website in the world, started by kids, run by people with problems with alcohol, drugs and money, still is up after almost two decades,” Kolmisoppi said. “Parlor and gab etc have all the money around but no skills or mindset. Embarrassing.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing

WTB: Defender, Embryon

Offline WannaTheater

  • Level 7: Khaaaan!
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Location: Tampa
  • Posts: 1751
Re: Big Tech Censorship
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2021, 12:04:53 PM »
All good points.

I don't blame big tech.  I blame society.  As an example, Facebook can be used in a positive way, to reconnect with old relationships, communicate with family, etc.  It can also be used in negative ways to incite violence and criminal behavior.  Everyone can scream that Facebook is the devil.  At the end of the day, its the people that are f'in it up, not the technology.
Pins: Iron Maiden, The Addams Family, Simpsons Pinball Party, Fish Tales, Goldeneye, Terminator 2, No Fear
Arcade: Galaga (MAME), Ice Cold Beer, Defender (JROK-multi), Donkey Kong/Donkey Kong Jr