Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 9:24:54 GMT -5
You seem to be asking two questions as though they’re the same question. Did they do something? Yes, they suspended those accounts. Whether or not that is enough is an open question, but they did more than Parler did - which was zero, nada, zilch.
I can’t speak with any authority on the role social media played in the looting over the summer (apparently, neither can you.) I can say that, where I live, those things tend to be opportunistic and not “organized.” If there are instances of organization for those events on social media, I’ll take a look, but they don’t appear to have been as prevalent as what occurred in this instance.
You’re obviously entitled to that opinion regarding what other social media companies “deserve.” But, having seen the examples of what Parler was allowing to sit on their service without consequence, yeah... I believe they deserve what happened to them. They were repeatedly warned and still did nothing. The others, at least, did something. Again, whether it’s enough is an open question, but something is infinitely better than nothing in this case.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 18, 2021 9:39:59 GMT -5
Actually, I don't think the social media companies deserve the treatment they're getting or the treatment many are recommending. But if Parler deserved what it got, then the others do, too. Because I think they all allow similar stuff on their service. Parler may have had a higher concentration of it (and it was basically all right wing), but the others had and still have a shit-ton of it. There are still a ton of antifa accounts in twitter, for instance (and a ton of Proud Boy ones, as well). And there remain vids on YouTube essentially extolling the violence at many of the summer protests. Where's the line? I submit that there isn't a clear one, at all, that the companies who ruined Parler simply drew an arbitrary one (all at the exact same time, lol) and said Parler crossed it. Total bullshit, imo. As to social media and the looting: wgntv.com/news/wgn-investigates/how-police-experts-say-crowds-used-social-media-to-coordinate-looting-in-chicago/That article is doubly on point because it is also asking questions about how much access the authorities should have to social media.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 10:16:14 GMT -5
I disagree. “Similar” does not mean “Same as.” Read the lawsuit and the response (I posted a link to the latter). Parler was warned repeatedly over the couple months of its existence that these violations were occurring, given numerous samples of those violations, and continued to do nothing. While one can reasonably argue that other tech companies don’t do enough, one can’t reasonably argue that the responses to such content have been anywhere even approximating the same. You can call bullshit until it dries in the field, it simply isn’t. Parler was priding itself on its hands off approach... that was the problem. It’s not surprising at all that a coordinated attack on the Capitol was the straw that broke the camel’s back after repeated warnings about it.
Policing social media isn’t easy - how does one monitor all of that traffic? But, companies should be doing something. Would be fantastic if we didn’t have to, but extremists on the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum are why we can’t have nice things. The internet as a place for free, unfiltered, exchange of ideas is a pipe dream... because humans.
I was unaware of that instance in Chicago. I shouldn’t be surprised that social media is being used to coordinate criminal activity. What’s more surprising is that the police knew and it still happened.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2021 9:47:08 GMT -5
Well, the reality it that none of us can claim to know everything that has been on any of these social media platforms, from FB to IG to Snapchat to Twitter to Parler to the rest of them. And I think it stretches the boundaries of common sense to suppose that Parler reached a mythical last straw with its violations at a near simultaneous moment with multiple companies, causing it to be essentially ended. I think it obvious that Apple and Google took Parler off their app stores for political reasons, for PR reasons, and they did so knowing full well that they could get away with it. AWS followed suit, as did some other companies. The idea that what was on Parler was so far beyond the pale, as compared to what has been and is on Twitter and Facebook also strikes me as far-fetched, to say the least. Now, Twitter and FB may very well be doing a much better job responding to complaints, but then Twitter and Facebook are raking in over $3 billion and over $70 billion in revenue per year, respectively. And both have thousands of employees. How good a job were these two paragons of virtue doing in controlling violent or otherwise unacceptable messaging in their first few years of existence, before they were making big money, do you think? I mean, we know--for a fact--that terror orgs like ISIS successfully used FB and twitter for recruitment and communication for years. Sure, eventually Twitter and FB took steps to address this stuff, but it didn't happen overnight, and they sure as hell didn't bankrupt themselves to do it. And as recently as 2019: apnews.com/article/3479209d927946f7a284a71d66e431c7Auto-generating pages to attract violent extremists would, I think, constitute a violation of the terms of service with a lot of companies, including Apple and Google. But no one shut down Facebook (or Twitter). But again, a lot of this is bullshit, in my view. We're expecting far too much from private companies, when it comes to controlling how people use the services they provide.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 26, 2021 8:33:40 GMT -5
|
|