I'm not sure I believe this. If it was months in the making on Facebook, why did Facebook not do more to stop it? Reading this it actually gives weight that Facebook was just as responsible for the insurrection as Parler.
I don't disagree with you. The evidence appears to support that conclusion, so I'm trying to understand why Facebook is given a pass. IMO Facebook has been the single greatest catalyst for abusive online behavior in twenty years, but it's in a protected class. I would like to know why. Is it just money?
It’s also, what functions does Facebook serve beyond organizing violence? Clearly it’s a lot.
You can reasonably discuss banning handguns because they are only used to commit violence. You can’t reasonably discussing the ban of all knives, telling people who ask “how am I supposed to cook?” that they just need to bite their food into little pieces.
Are you implying that Parler was created specifically to organize violence? If that's what you're saying then please provide a clear evidence that proves this is the case. Saying something like that just seems really dishonest in most, if not all, contexts.
I can tell you that the content on Parler was, on a percentage basis, far closer to incitement of violence than, say, Reddit. I saw this for myself. I cannot tell you the motivations of the founders since I’m not a mind reader.
I think that's plausible, but I just have to question the framing that Parler served no other purpose than organizing violence. As an aside, Reddit is pretty tame in general, a more fair comparison would be against Facebook or Twitter.
Hard for me to say what Facebook “is” because everyone’s is different. Mine has a lot more folk music on it than politics, for example. That’s one of the problems with it, no watchdog group (like the media) can evaluate it objectively and say “this is what it is.”
I think people treat Facebook differently than Parler because Facebook is a mainstream communications platform and Parler was founded specifically to host content that other platforms found objectionable.
Because dems took total power in the elections and Apple and Google know they are under the antitrust microscope. Its likely indirect bribery in hopes of a returned favor.
Seems like every time big tech went in front of congress- it turned into a public fishing expedition for lobbying dollars.
Democrats overwhelmingly called for censorship and regulation.
Republicans overwhelmingly complained of unfair treatment.
Big tech responds by preemptively censoring and regulating content.
I believe that regulation is coming with dems in total power. Regulation will be written and paid for by big tech as a means to consolidate regulatory capture.
I think you're right, it's indirect bribery. I doubt anything will be done about it.
Now that I think about it: most of the planning happened on American soil under the eyes of the American Government. I'm afraid there's no choice but to abolish government.
> If it was months in the making on Facebook, why did Facebook not do more to stop it?
Two things:
1) If FB is seen to lean too far either left or right, it will create an opportunity for a competitor to emerge on the other side. FB is huge, so they have a lot to lose in that scenario.
2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor.
I don't see what is even slightly surprising about they way they've handled this.
Edit: side note - I personally think #1 is likely at some point in the future. People have already gone a fair way towards segregating themselves into various social/political bubbles; why not even more self-segregation? If enough people want that, then either FB will enable it or a competitor will emerge to enable it.
>2) They literally profit from the circulation of the very stuff that some would have them sensor.
And as far as we know they may have been promoting inflammatory posts to drive engagement. They keep the algorithm they use to do that secret. I think they should show posts from friends in chronological order and let users filter them, or loose their common carrier status.
