Actual terrorism? Al-Queda and ISIS are active on Twitter. There is content still up calling for genocide against certain ethnicities. Real genocide and terrorism. Not the hyperbole in U.S. politics.
U.S. politicians were actively egging on protestors and calling for violence around the country this summer. Where do you draw the line? It's cool if one side does it but not the other?
There's clearly an uneven application of their moderation policies. And, they are afforded legal protections as platforms under the assumption / intent that users create the content and they stay out of curation. IMO, they aren't being equitable with enforcing their own rules and should lose status as platforms. Because clearly they are opinionated in their enforcement of the ToS.
When it became undeniable that the traffic was connected to actual terrorism, other sites acted swiftly to cut it off. Parler did not.
Now, it's arguable that the other sites knowingly facilitating crime and just hoping to escape consequences because no one was going to make a big deal of it, and they only cut it off because the risk of that strategy increased after the Capitol attack. But while that may paint the past actions of the other firms in a worse light, it doesn't paint Parler’s actions before it was cutoff by other suppliers in a better one.
> When it became undeniable that the traffic was connected to actual terrorism, other sites acted swiftly to cut it off.
Remind me when the politicians who promoted the Antifa and BLM riots and actually set up funds so the protestors would be bailed out had their accounts "indefinitely suspended" for doing just what you're describing as the reason Parler got shut down.
Edit to reply the post below:
Actual terrorism? Al-Queda and ISIS are active on Twitter. There is content still up calling for genocide against certain ethnicities. Real genocide and terrorism. Not the hyperbole in U.S. politics.
U.S. politicians were actively egging on protestors and calling for violence around the country this summer. Where do you draw the line? It's cool if one side does it but not the other?
There's clearly an uneven application of their moderation policies. And, they are afforded legal protections as platforms under the assumption / intent that users create the content and they stay out of curation. IMO, they aren't being equitable with enforcing their own rules and should lose status as platforms. Because clearly they are opinionated in their enforcement of the ToS.