Amazon Google and Apple pull the plug on Parler

[skyguy918]

I know you don't agree personally with everything you post, but if you do agree with that sentiment, then perhaps you should voluntarily stop using DDF. I'm pretty sure there are no automated detection tools here for violent or threatening content, nor any hired professional moderators.

Did you miss the part where he says Parler has automated detection tools, but it's used for pornography/nudity/etc? They have the means and chose not to apply it to violence.

[YitzyS]

Did you miss the part where he says Parler has automated detection tools, but it's used for pornography/nudity/etc? They have the means and chose not to apply it to violence.

I didn't go back and reread the entire conversation, but on first impression, it would seem that it takes a much more sophisticated tool to detect incitement within conversations than to scan pictures or videos...

[skyguy918]

I didn't go back and reread the entire conversation, but on first impression, it would seem that it takes a much more sophisticated tool to detect incitement within conversations than to scan pictures or videos...

It's in the screenshot in the tweet (always read primary sources if you can). And I'm fairly certain the exact opposite is true in terms of complexity.

[YitzyS]

It's in the screenshot in the tweet (always read primary sources if you can). And I'm fairly certain the exact opposite is true in terms of complexity.

I can't see photos in tweets here, as my filter started blocking it.

You may be right, I only supposed based on what makes sense to me.

[skyguy918]

I can't see photos in tweets here, as my filter started blocking it.

You may be right, I only supposed based on what makes sense to me.

How would analyzing photos be easier than analyzing text?

[YitzyS]

How would analyzing photos be easier than analyzing text?

The same way my internet filter does it, with checking colors. No, it won't be perfect, but a basic system is not that hard to make.

Text, however, unless you are deleting all posts that contain certain words, need special algorithms to detect behaviors.

[skyguy918]

The same way my internet filter does it, with checking colors. No, it won't be perfect, but a basic system is not that hard to make.

Text, however, unless you are deleting all posts that contain certain words, need special algorithms to detect behaviors.

That's nice that your filter does it, but first of all, the level of blanket filtering of say skin tone that your filter does would not fly outside of the frum/super religious christian circles. And second of all, your skin filter is still a good deal more sophisticated than basic textual filtering. It seems like what you're really saying is that deciding what's objectionable due to nudity/pornography is easier than deciding what's objectionable violence or whatever. But even if that were true, making the system to analyze images or video for objectionable content is still gonna much more complex technologically than analyzing text for objectionable content. Which just means that they feel they know where they want to draw the line for one category, but not the other.

[PlatinumGuy]

Indeed, though there are some threads in which they are barred entry.
I see it from this perspective.

How would you guys feel if the next time a President loses an election, instead of saying 'The dirty radical liberals stole the elections' he says 'the Jews stole the elections'?

Would you not want everybody to stifle the message?

[YitzyS]

How would you guys feel if the next time a President loses an election, instead of saying 'The dirty radical liberals stole the elections' he says 'the Jews stole the elections'?

Would you not want everybody to stifle the message?

Indeed. There is a difference but you do make a good point.

[chinagel]

Section 230 provides companies immunity from the law for third party content. In a free market, the law isn't a factor. You can argue that they shouldn't have section 230, but I don't see how repealing it would have solved this problem in a laisezz-faire way.

If they didn't have that immunity they'd have to moderate both sides equally or face the consequences any time they were in court.

[PlatinumGuy]

If they didn't have that immunity they'd have to moderate both sides equally or face the consequences any time they were in court.

There is never any requirement for them to be equal. They would be potentially liable for illegal content on either side.

[skyguy918]

If they didn't have that immunity they'd have to moderate both sides equally or face the consequences any time they were in court.

The original comment was that a true free market would fix the issue. But in a true free market, the courts (at least in the way you're referring to them) are not a factor.

[chinagel]

There is never any requirement for them to be equal. They would be potentially liable for illegal content on either side.

I never said that.
If they got sued for example for violence that they were used for, they'd have a certain level of deniability. Until all their censorships of the same thing on the other side removes that. (Violence is just the most obvious example, the possibilities are endless.)

[chinagel]

The original comment was that a true free market would fix the issue. But in a true free market, the courts (at least in the way you're referring to them) are not a factor.

Why are courts not a factor in a true free market?

[skyguy918]

Why are courts not a factor in a true free market?

In a true free market Twitter would be able to discriminate however it liked, and the 'victims' would have no recourse in court. Why would you think otherwise?

[chinagel]

In a true free market Twitter would be able to discriminate however it liked, and the 'victims' would have no recourse in court. Why would you think otherwise?

True. and they'd also get sued every time s/o posted a libel about s/o else...

[Shaya E]

True. and they'd also get sued every time s/o posted a libel about s/o else...

Sued? Are you not understanding? In a free market you wouldn't be able to sue someone. Theoretically, the market would punish them and force them to self-govern.

[chinagel]

Sued? Are you not understanding? In a free market you wouldn't be able to sue someone. Theoretically, the market would punish them and force them to self-govern.

So in a free market, you're saying libel would be legal? Incitement to violence?

[aygart]

Sued? Are you not understanding? In a free market you wouldn't be able to sue someone. Theoretically, the market would punish them and force them to self-govern.

-1

[PlatinumGuy]

Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler?

(I haven't fact checked this)




Space is for you to prepare your shocked face.








Zero.

HT: Glenn Greenwald

Being that Parler was run by a couple kids in their parents house, all their data was easily accessible online and is now public. If you search up and down these tweet chains you can see exact geo location of every video uploaded to Parler; and it is very evident many were in the Capitol as well as protests at other state capitals. 

https://twitter.com/benheubl/status/1348953653902794754?s=21