Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Has parler gone dark?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Ubbquittious
    Registered Users Posts: 6,189 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    Gregor Samsa wrote: »
    Fact is that Twitter has a moderation policy in place, Parler does not, and have refused to create one. Many hosting companies require a moderation policy to be in place in order to do business. You can try to shoe-horn your political biases into it as much as you want, but facts are facts.

    I haven't heard of such a thing. You can rent servers or fancy cloud sh1t and they dont ask you what its for. Never seen anything as specific as a moderation policy for hosting sites when signing up


  • Options
    #33
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,929 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Ubbquittious wrote: »
    I haven't heard of such a thing. You can rent servers or fancy cloud sh1t and they dont ask you what its for. Never seen anything as specific as a moderation policy for hosting sites when signing up

    Here's Apples, for instance:

    https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#user-generated-content
    To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:
    • A method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app
    • A mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns
    • The ability to block abusive users from the service
    • Published contact information so users can easily reach you

    And here's Google's:

    https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/10286120?hl=en
    User Generated Content
    User-generated content (UGC) is content that users contribute to an app, and which is visible to or accessible by at least a subset of the app's users.

    Apps that contain or feature UGC must:
    • require that users accept the app's terms of use and/or user policy before users can create or upload UGC;
    • define objectionable content and behaviors (in a way that complies with Play’s Developer Program Policies), and prohibit them in the app’s terms of use or user policies;
    • implement robust, effective and ongoing UGC moderation, as is reasonable and consistent with the type of UGC hosted by the app
    • In the case of live-streaming apps, objectionable UGC must be removed as close to real-time as reasonably possible;
    • In the case of augmented reality (AR) apps, UGC moderation (including the in-app reporting system) must account for both objectionable AR UGC (e.g. a sexually explicit AR image) and sensitive AR anchoring location (e.g. AR content anchored to a restricted area, such as a military base, or a private property where AR anchoring may cause issues for the property owner);
    • provide a user-friendly, in-app system for reporting objectionable UGC and take action against that UGC where appropriate;
    • remove or block abusive users who violate the app's terms of use and/or user policy;
    • provide safeguards to prevent in-app monetization from encouraging objectionable user behavior.
    • Apps whose primary purpose is featuring objectionable UGC will be removed from Google Play. Similarly, apps that end up being used primarily for hosting objectionable UGC, or that develop a reputation among users of being a place where such content thrives, will also be removed from Google Play
    .

    In the case of Apple, it was specifically this clause that resulted in Parler app being removed. They were given 24 hours to put a moderation policy in place, and refused to do so.

    And while any cloud based web hosting won't ask you what it's for up front, pretty much all of them (including AWS) have published policies in place that regulate what is acceptable content. and reserve the right to suspend your hosting if you break the terms.


  • Options
    #34
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It is a bit odd that people on an Internet forum are getting excited on ever more internet restrictions. Turkeys and Christmas.

    If a leading politician in some authoritarian quasi democracy was booted off the major social media outlets in that country, eyebrows would be raised.

    Happened and nobody here cared one bit https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/12/twitter-raul-castro-state-media-outlets-blocked
    I wonder, in this case, if Biden made a few calls.

    Yes it was Biden calling not the fact Trump incited a mob to break into capitol building for first time in over 200 years.
    The question is whether companies like Apple and Amazon will now use the ban hammer to ban any speech that the US considers dangerous - we have already seen Al Jazeera and RT having to register as foreign agents

    Twitter have been pretty consistent over the years. They suspend accounts they deem to be spreading misinformation like the hundreds of thousands of Chinese state accounts that were purged last year.

    Indian and Pakistan figures considered to be ringleaders in inciting riots in those countries have been removed.


  • Options
    #35
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,227 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    The online world really has become such a toxic place. Think I was happier with oceanfree chat.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Options
    #36
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    TheValeyard wrote: »
    The online world really has become such a toxic place. Think I was happier with oceanfree chat.

    Or just chatting to my mates


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Church on Tuesday
    Registered Users Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Church on Tuesday


    Bobblehats wrote: »
    ray_parlour350.jpg


    "It's only Ray Parler!"


  • Options
    #38
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    i see boards.ie are running an advert at the moment for cotosen clothing, the favourite clothing of the Right Wing Militia hmmmm


  • Options
    #39
    Bobblehats
    Registered Users Posts: 4,707 ✭✭✭Bobblehats


    TheValeyard wrote: »
    The online world really has become such a toxic place. Think I was happier with oceanfree chat.

    I miss MySpace :o seemed to attract the cool misanthrope chicks.


  • Options
    #40
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,505 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    https://twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1348072426899460102


  • Options
    #41
    Lucifer
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭Lucifer


    From boards.ie FAQ

    This is a private website. There is no "right" to freedom of speech here. We, the Admins, and the Moderators DO want to promote discussion, but FREE un-moderated discussion online turns into a screaming match between children. We believe that rules of etiquette should be applied (see below). Shouting about how we have infringed your "freedom of speech" on a privately owned website is silly. You can use blogger.com to say what YOU like, what you aren’t entitled to is access to the community we have built here without abiding by the community's rules, as decided and enforced by us.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq


    Why should twitter be any different? It is also a private website, and do not want to be associated with certain content.

    They are not banning people for their political view, they are banning for breaking their rules. Anyone who signs up agrees to their terms of service.

    AWS are also a private company, who do not want to be associated with what Parler has become. They had no problem with hosting them and them being right wing. They had no problem with hosting them and it being a trump fan club. They drew the line when it turned into more than that.

    They highlighted what the issues were and Parler didn't want to change.

    Likewise I cannot make a speech in your house if you don't want me to, it is your private house and you can decide what happens there, without me crying censorship.

    Freedom of speech and censorship relates to not being oppressed by a government in airing my views, like what would happen somewhere like China.

    It does not give you a right to say what you want on any platform you like. Most allow it provided you stick to the rules, but it is not a right.

    If they believe that AWS are going beyond what is fair, they can compete with them in capitalist America and open their own hosting and if they are correct they will probably have a queue of customers if amazon are so restrictive.

    And one other thing, if NOBODY wants to host your content, perhaps it may be time to have a look at what your content is, rather than claiming victim.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,092 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    I never used the app just like I never use twitter however I find it disguising what is happening, It is a complete power grab by authoritarians that make up the powers in American big tech, The US and free speech is screwed and all under the guise of the greater good, 'think like us or your gone'. The more I look into it the worse it gets and they keep lying to the public that is is for their own good, whatever happened to freedom and live and let live?
    sheesh wrote: »
    saw a post saying it had hacked as well. and they have downloaded images of peoples driving licences and all images and videos with geo tags intact and every post as well
    They archived whatever was posted to Parler.
    They can't magically get Driver licenses and credit cards unless people posted them online.

    ...Ghost... wrote: »
    Twitter only moderates one side. That much is well established.
    Does freedom of speech/expression not mean they are free to decide what content the host on the website they own?
    Ubbquittious wrote: »
    I haven't heard of such a thing. You can rent servers or fancy cloud sh1t and they dont ask you what its for. Never seen anything as specific as a moderation policy for hosting sites when signing up
    Do you read user agreements or just click yes like everyone else.

    Some hosts may not have one. But do you honestly think Amazon doesn't have a policy against certain content.
    fryup wrote: »
    i see boards.ie are running an advert at the moment for cotosen clothing, the favourite clothing of the Right Wing Militia hmmmm

    They are google ads. Whatever you see is based on your search and browsing history and not the same as what others see.


  • Options
    #43
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,069 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    I believe its been booted off almost everywhere now driving it to the dark side. Where will all the non tech savvy racists now go to vent?

    Smoke signals...?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #44
    eastie17
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭eastie17


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    Hyperbolic much? jeez

    If you want to play those game then you do know the BLM protests that more than 20 people lost their lives was mostly organized through Twitter, with people showing support for the rioters and even organizing bail out money for any thugs(this is what left wing media are calling capital hill protestors) that were arrested. Jack Dorsey donated $3 million to Colin Kaepernick activist organization after Kaepernick said he wants call for a revolution.

    By your logic we should ban twitter also.

    We absolutely should, it’s doing more harm than good now


  • Options
    #45
    Granadino
    Registered Users Posts: 729 ✭✭✭Granadino


    fryup wrote: »
    i see boards.ie are running an advert at the moment for cotosen clothing, the favourite clothing of the Right Wing Militia hmmmm

    Based on your search history , you are being retargeted with ads. You are probably being targeted with these ads as Parler is a hot topic amongst the right wing.


  • Options
    #46
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,069 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    fryup wrote: »
    i see boards.ie are running an advert at the moment for cotosen clothing, the favourite clothing of the Right Wing Militia hmmmm

    If you're seeing an ad for right wing clothing, you've got something in your cache that makes it look like that's what you're interested in.

    No idea who it got there.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Foolish knee-jerk reaction in medium to long term imo

    It gave a relatively easy to moniter,centralised area for police etc to moniter some naive extremists,

    what will happen now is it will delve into smaller and smaller group chats/whatsapp groups proving near impossible to crack.....isis developed their own social media (dunno who hosted it) and afaik it proved v.valueable as a intelligence gathering source,


    looks to me like the police are simply hoping all this will fizzle out and wont need monitering,i hope their right


  • Options
    #48
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,929 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    Here's none other than Ted Cruz in 2017, supporting Big (and little) Tech's right to decide for themselves who can use their services, free of Government interference. This is longstanding Republican policy.
    In an editorial published in Roll Call on Tuesday, Cruz called the erosion of net neutrality "internet freedom," because it provides freedom for companies to write their own rules online.

    "This policy ... seeks to force companies of all sizes to ask the government for prior approval of business decisions," writes Cruz. It appears Cruz believes corporations, instead of the government, should be trusted to give their own consumers fair and equal access to the internet.

    Sen. Cornyn followed Cruz's lead in a tweet Wednesday. "Net neutrality is misnamed. It is government regulation. Why not let the market work?"

    https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/archives/2017/11/24/why-texas-senators-cruz-and-cornyn-oppose-net-neutrality


  • Options
    #49
    Infernal Racket
    Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Infernal Racket


    Lucifer wrote: »
    From boards.ie FAQ

    This is a private website. There is no "right" to freedom of speech here. We, the Admins, and the Moderators DO want to promote discussion, but FREE un-moderated discussion online turns into a screaming match between children. We believe that rules of etiquette should be applied (see below). Shouting about how we have infringed your "freedom of speech" on a privately owned website is silly. You can use blogger.com to say what YOU like, what you aren’t entitled to is access to the community we have built here without abiding by the community's rules, as decided and enforced by us.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq


    Why should twitter be any different? It is also a private website, and do not want to be associated with certain content.

    They are not banning people for their political view, they are banning for breaking their rules. Anyone who signs up agrees to their terms of service.

    AWS are also a private company, who do not want to be associated with what Parler has become. They had no problem with hosting them and them being right wing. They had no problem with hosting them and it being a trump fan club. They drew the line when it turned into more than that.

    They highlighted what the issues were and Parler didn't want to change.

    Likewise I cannot make a speech in your house if you don't want me to, it is your private house and you can decide what happens there, without me crying censorship.

    Freedom of speech and censorship relates to not being oppressed by a government in airing my views, like what would happen somewhere like China.

    It does not give you a right to say what you want on any platform you like. Most allow it provided you stick to the rules, but it is not a right.

    If they believe that AWS are going beyond what is fair, they can compete with them in capitalist America and open their own hosting and if they are correct they will probably have a queue of customers if amazon are so restrictive.

    And one other thing, if NOBODY wants to host your content, perhaps it may be time to have a look at what your content is, rather than claiming victim.

    Exactly this right here. Why do people find all of this so hard to understand?


  • Options
    #50
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Ubbquittious wrote: »
    I haven't heard of such a thing. You can rent servers or fancy cloud sh1t and they dont ask you what its for. Never seen anything as specific as a moderation policy for hosting sites when signing up

    Every Hosting provider has terms and conditions and whilst they may not mention moderation as such they will cover for it under those t&C's. They aren't going to leave themselves open for law suits.


  • Options
    #51
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,837 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Infernal Racket wrote: »
    Exactly this right here. Why do people find all of this so hard to understand?

    I think the problem that people are only now seeing, is that letting the market regulate itself does not work. Funny, because most republicans would have been fully pro-free market up until now - we're all idealists until your ideals come round to bite you in the ass.

    What is/isn't acceptable content is something that needs defined by government really - leaving it up to the market (social media companies in this case) to self-regulate will inevitably lead to selective censorship - whether its censorship of competing platforms, or censorship of views they don't like for whatever reasons.

    Even in this country we are all aware of certain Newspapers & Media groups having certain biases, so why would it be any surprise to see that happening in the world of social media also?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Lucifer
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭Lucifer


    timmyntc wrote: »
    I think the problem that people are only now seeing, is that letting the market regulate itself does not work. Funny, because most republicans would have been fully pro-free market up until now - we're all idealists until your ideals come round to bite you in the ass.

    What is/isn't acceptable content is something that needs defined by government really - leaving it up to the market (social media companies in this case) to self-regulate will inevitably lead to selective censorship - whether its censorship of competing platforms, or censorship of views they don't like for whatever reasons.

    Even in this country we are all aware of certain Newspapers & Media groups having certain biases, so why would it be any surprise to see that happening in the world of social media also?


    It is not censorship. Censorship is not a private company deciding what they are willing to host or allow be posted

    Censorship is exactly what you are proposing. A government deciding what is allowed to be said.


  • Options
    #53
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,837 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Lucifer wrote: »
    It is not censorship. Censorship is not a private company deciding what they are willing to host or allow be posted

    Censorship is exactly what you are proposing. A government deciding what is allowed to be said.

    A company the size of boards can choose to moderate content however they like - but when you get to the near monopoly scale of Twitter, AWS, Facebook - you can't seriously think it's totally okay for media monopolies to self-regulate content?


  • Options
    #54
    Lucifer
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 1,467 Mod ✭✭✭✭Lucifer


    timmyntc wrote: »
    A company the size of boards can choose to moderate content however they like - but when you get to the near monopoly scale of Twitter, AWS, Facebook - you can't seriously think it's totally okay for media monopolies to self-regulate content?

    At what point do you draw the line?

    It is fine for A as a private company. It is not fine for B as a private company.

    It may not be ideal, but do you think the situation is better in China where the government gets to decide what is and is not allowed on the Internet?

    You are describing the exact concept of censorship. That the government gets to decide what can be published and what must be silenced.

    Here is an example. You have fox and cnn. If the current administration in American was allowed they would ban cnn. And likewise, the next would ban fox.

    I am not saying that I like fox or cnn, but you can't have the government decide what is allowed.

    AWS is not the only hosting company. There are many, including AWS who are happy to take your money for your right wing view media and many including AWS who will take your money for left wing media.

    They are drawing the line when you cross into violence and incitement of violence, or the pedalling of complete misinformation.

    If one side is breaking the rules or telling lies, it may seem like they are biased.


  • Options
    #55
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    timmyntc wrote: »
    A company the size of boards can choose to moderate content however they like - but when you get to the near monopoly scale of Twitter, AWS, Facebook - you can't seriously think it's totally okay for media monopolies to self-regulate content?

    I dont know why you are including AWS in with Twitter and Facebook. They do completely different things.


  • Options
    #56
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,837 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Lucifer wrote: »
    At what point do you draw the line?

    It is fine for A as a private company. It is not fine for B as a private company.

    It may not be ideal, but do you think the situation is better in China where the government gets to decide what is and is not allowed on the Internet?

    You are describing the exact concept of censorship. That the government gets to decide what can be published and what must be silenced.

    Here is an example. You have fox and cnn. If the current administration in American was allowed they would ban cnn. And likewise, the next would ban fox.

    I am not saying that I like fox or cnn, but you can't have the government decide what is allowed.

    AWS is not the only hosting company. There are many, including AWS who are happy to take your money for your right wing view media and many including AWS who will take your money for left wing media.

    They are drawing the line when you cross into violence and incitement of violence, or the pedalling of complete misinformation.

    If one side is breaking the rules or telling lies, it may seem like they are biased.

    Would you consider anti-discrimination laws as an attack on individual freedoms? When the government says what grounds you cannot refuse someone entry from a licensed premises, or refuse to hire someone, etc.

    That's the same approach that needs taken in online media really - the government needs to legislate for what speech is protected, and that which is not protected can be allowed or not based on the companies own views. The opposite of censorship I would think.

    Right now those social media companies (& web hosts) are free to deny service for arbitrary reasons & standards which they set themselves. I don't disagree that some of those standards are reasonable, but the fact that they set them themselves and can pick & choose what is up to standard & what is not, is a worrying trend and needs to be tackled.

    The idea of small company A vs big company B having different regs apply doesn't seem fair on the outset, but we discriminate based on size of company or income all the time - look at tax rates, look at other regulations on companies which scale with employee numbers. It's not a totally alien concept to apply more rigorous anti-censorship standards to larger media companies than smaller ones.
    ohnonotgmail wrote:
    I dont know why you are including AWS in with Twitter and Facebook. They do completely different things.
    AWS deplatform sites hosted on their services if they dont meet their standards also, so it is relevant. They are also one of the biggest web hosts and aggressively price competitors out of the market, so very relevant.


  • Options
    #57
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    timmyntc wrote: »

    AWS deplatform sites hosted on their services if they dont meet their standards also, so it is relevant. They are also one of the biggest web hosts and aggressively price competitors out of the market, so very relevant.

    they refuse to do business with certain companies. Are they not entitled to do that? If parler were posting child porn would you be so upset if AWS stopped hosting them?


  • Options
    #58
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,837 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    they refuse to do business with certain companies. Are they not entitled to do that? If parler were posting child porn would you be so upset if AWS stopped hosting them?

    Child porn is illegal and should in no way come under protected speech/content.

    Is a business allowed to refuse to hire people based on protected attributes? (race/gender etc)
    Why should it be any different when it comes to a service they offer? Why should they be allowed to refuse service to someone based on an arbitrary set of standards they make up themselves?

    If your ISP decided they weren't going to keep providing your service because your posts on boards.ie were rude and not up to their community standards, would you be okay with that?


  • Options
    #59
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    timmyntc wrote: »
    Child porn is illegal and should in no way come under protected speech/content.

    Is a business allowed to refuse to hire people based on protected attributes? (race/gender etc)
    Why should it be any different when it comes to a service they offer? Why should they be allowed to refuse service to someone based on an arbitrary set of standards they make up themselves?

    inciting violence and calling for people to be killed is also illegal.
    timmyntc wrote: »
    If your ISP decided they weren't going to keep providing your service because your posts on boards.ie were rude and not up to their community standards, would you be okay with that?

    AWS are not anything analogous to an ISP.


  • Options
    #60
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,837 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    inciting violence and calling for people to be killed is also illegal.

    I've never said that inciting violence should be legal or that a business has to provide a service to someone who does use said service to incite violence.

    I have no gripe with parler being denied service - my issue is with how social media companies & web hosts can arbitrarily deny service based on a set of "community standards" of their own conception. It is letting the market regulate itself, which almost always ends badly.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    AWS are not anything analogous to an ISP.

    I know what AWS does, and that they are not an ISP. But if AWS could deny service to a website based on their standards, why not an ISP deny service to a customer based on the ISPs standards?

    If you're okay with AWS dropping customers as they see fit, why wouldnt you be okay with an ISP doing the same thing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,187 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    timmyntc wrote: »
    I've never said that inciting violence should be legal or that a business has to provide a service to someone who does use said service to incite violence.

    I have no gripe with parler being denied service - my issue is with how social media companies & web hosts can arbitrarily deny service based on a set of "community standards" of their own conception. It is letting the market regulate itself, which almost always ends badly.

    so who should set the standards? somebody has to. should it be the government?
    timmyntc wrote: »
    I know what AWS does, and that they are not an ISP. But if AWS could deny service to a business based on their standards, why not an ISP deny service to a customer based on their standards?


    If you're okay with AWS dropping customers as they see fit, why wouldnt you be okay with an ISP doing the same thing?

    an ISP and a Host are entirely different things. nobody makes a connection to an ISP if you post something online. they do make a connection to whoever hosts it.


Advertisement