> "Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks, and every last one of them was banned in less than 24 hours because conservatives truly love free speech," one user recently wrote on Twitter.
It sounds like they were banned for being antagonistic assholes, not for being liberals.
I mean...that's kind of the reason a lot of these people got banned from Twitter/etc, too, being antagonistic assholes, not for being conservative. So kind of ironic if they and the platform are saying Parler is better because "free speech".
It doesn't matter what they were banned for, it's still hypocritical for a platform apparently based around "free speech" to ban people for speech they don't agree with.
I don't think it's hypocritical at all. The U.S. is based around free speech and we ban all of types speech for good reasons.
It obvious that "we want to allow someone to say anything they could say on twitter+(spout conspiracy theories and implicit/explicit racist shit)" is both freer than twitter, and not as free as previous+harass people.
I really don't think allowing right wing nuts to voice their opinion but not letting users harass each other makes a hypocrite?
Every forum needs human moderation, but that doesn't imply that this moderation cannot be done in good or bad faith. Just like a good judge is not congruent to a big, deterministic computer.
So you're saying you believe Parler to be moderating in better faith than Twitter/Facebook/etc? 'cause I think for your statement to be relevant that would have to be the assertion...
Upthread everyone is arguing that everything except imminent incitement to violence is free speech. Aren't mere insults free speech? Do you not like it when it's aimed at you?
It sounds like they were banned for being antagonistic assholes, not for being liberals.