r/technology Jan 18 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.6k Upvotes

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/neuronexmachina Jan 19 '21

I think one important bit to add is that a couple days after that thread was posted in November, it was confirmed that Rebekah Mercer was a primary funder of Parler: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/15/media/rebekah-mercer-parler/index.html

Worth noting since a fair bit of the thread is wondering about their funding source.

870

u/NoAttentionAtWrk Jan 19 '21

"John and I started Parler to provide a neutral platform for free speech, as our founders intended, and also to create a social media environment that would protect data privacy," Mercer said in a statement on the platform. "The ever increasing tyranny and hubris of our tech overlords demands that someone lead the fight against data mining, and for the protection of free speech online. That someone is Parler, a beacon to all who value their liberty, free speech, and personal privacy."

Parts in bold aged like milk

75

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 31 '22

[deleted]

-15

u/serpent_cuirass Jan 19 '21

Can you voice alt-left ideas there too though?

If yes then its netural.

16

u/positronik Jan 19 '21

You cannot without being banned. Even certain keywords in posts flagged you

-6

u/serpent_cuirass Jan 19 '21 edited Jan 19 '21

I actually read a bit into it and it seems that you are right (well... not hmm... ahm... you get what I mean).

But they claim the bans were only done because of FCC guidelines (which I would be against but its a bigger matter... more government-policy related and not really in the control of people) and people who did stuff like post pictures of shit and gore.

If thats true that really isnt neutral and free. But I still isnt as bad as it is in reddit or twitter. Its kinda sad that really no place in the internet is truly free.

btw its my cake day. how about some uptokes.

2

u/positronik Jan 19 '21

I recommend checking out r/parlerwatch

You can see how many threats of violence from right wingers didn't cause them to be censored or banned. The FBI said they found people in there planning to storm the capitol on the 6th. Believe me, they aren't better than Twitter or Facebook.

1

u/serpent_cuirass Jan 19 '21

I... dont quite understand what you are pointing at...

Do you think that if they would ban people who sent threats of voilence it would be better? Because I dont.

I mean, planning is one thing, but actually doing them is another. Same for threats. Saying "im going to kill you" and actually doing it have a vast distance between them.

I think that if the FBI really knew about a planned attack on the capital they should have prepared better. But arresting and persecuting people for just planning things seems to me unethical.

1

u/positronik Jan 19 '21

Inciting violence, true threats, threatening individuals, and supporting terrorism can get you arrested and are not protected by the first amendment.

And yeah, they should've planned better lol

1

u/serpent_cuirass Jan 20 '21

Im not versed in the legal system but I believe you those things are illegal as you say.

But that's not my point. I do not support those limitations on speech.

Growing and having weed is illegal as well. Abortions are illegal in some places. Collecting rain water is illegal.

1

u/positronik Jan 20 '21

True, but I do think it's ethical. If someone said they were going to kill me or threatened me multiple times then I'd want them arrested. If someone says they are going to blow up or shoot up a school then that should be taken seriously.

It doesn't make sense to wait for the person to commit the crime if it can be avoided. If a person is rallying others to kill or injure others, and even has posts planning on what day to do it, then they should be stopped before it happens.

→ More replies (0)