Republicans have relentlessly attacked "Big Tech" companies for "censoring" conservatives
Under pressure, Apple has caved, reinstating the #Parler app even though, for example, openly Nazi content is still readily available on the site. And that's just the tip of the iceberg...
It's hard to know what's really on Parler because the site doesn't allow full text search: unlike on Facebook or Twitter, you can only search for user names and hashtags
Even before the January 6 insurrection, Parler censored certain hashtags, like the N-Word
This was the bare minimum of what it took to create the veneer of respectability required to pretend that the site wasn't the cesspool of hate speech that it actually is
Parler seems to have expanded the list of banned hashtags to include other code words (eg "skittles"=Muslims)
I'm not a content moderation expert but "卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐卐" might be a tell
More charming Nazi content--with 8.5k views!
Again, tip of the iceberg...
But the problem with Parler isn't just Nazi shit. 5 months ago, the Washington Post noted that the site had become a haven for those distributing images and pictures of children being raped, a/k/a Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) washingtonpost.com/technology/202…
Parler's response was: "we don't go looking for that stuff"
And as a legal matter, they're right: they have no *legal* duty to monitor for CSAM (because that would make websites state actors under the 4th amendment) and the law requires actual knowledge of CSAM
But every respectable company takes basic measures to screen out CSAM, starting with using PhotoDNA that identifies known CSAM so it can be blocked
AFAIK, Parler has refused to implement this *free* tool
Because "free speech" (or whatever)
In short, Parler remains an evil website that no decent company should do business with
It's sad Republicans have succeeded in bullying Apple into making Parler available on its store, especially to children
And even sadder that the Republican persecution complex has blinded them to the true nature of Parler techdirt.com/articles/20200…
Meanwhile, despite its supposed efforts to clean up content on the site, Parler continues to let QAnon conspiracy theories flourish
And #Jews is dominated by posts from DasEchteQ (the Real Q) like this
Parler simply isn't serious about preventing its site from being used as a propaganda mill
In short, nothing has really changed since the @simonwiesenthal Center published this report last year documenting how Parler is used by Nazis to plan another Holocaust wiesenthal.com/assets/pdf/par…
But, apparently, a little window dressing is good enough for Apple!
Anyone who thinks Parler has "cleaned up its act" needs to spend some time looking through the #Jews hashtag parler.com/search?hashtag…
Make sure to disable the filters that allow Parler to pretend that this shit isn't there
Because it is, and the people who want to find it know
On re-reading Apple's letter to Republican lawmakers more carefully, I see that Ken Buck has declared victory prematurely
Apple isn't reinstating the Parler app yet. Apple is saying they will reinstate the app once Parler meets the same standards all other apps meet
Specifically, Parler will have to start proactively filtering objectionable material -- starting with CSAM (PhotoDNA) but also hate speech, incitement to violence, etc
Parler obviously doesn't have such filtering tools today--or you wouldn't see the shit I posted above
I find it hard to believe that Parler is capable of building such a tool anytime soon, but we'll see what bullshit half-ass "fix" they come up with
Apple will probably reject that, and Republicans will have another outrage cycle over "censorship" to raise money about
Note one other thing: Apple words their letter carefully to say that Parler has promised to filter content "on the app"
Which suggests that whatever they're going to do won't stop hate speech, etc from showing up on the website
The one exception would have to be CSAM: because if they start using PhotoDNA to identify and block CSAM on the app, they'll have "knowledge" of it, and so will have to block it on the website as well
But note that they're being forced, kicking and screaming, to do this at all
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Klobuchar emphasizes that Apple won't allow sideloading of apps onto iOS photos (as Google does)
But Apple has, since 2018, allowed progressive web apps (PWAs) to run in the Safari mobile browser
And PWAs are increasingly able to duplicate the functionality of "native" apps
PWAs have some significant advantages over native apps (found in app stores): notably, you can build the same app to run on all major web browsers (except Firefox), so you don't have to build separate Android and iOS versions
Just tuned in to @linamkhan's confirmation hearing. Of course, Wicker focuses on whether social media can be treated as common carriers, citing Justice Thomas
Apples & oranges: Lina's paper was about *economic* regulation of Amazon, not content moderation, protected by the 1A
Unfortunately, she didn't make that distinction clear, just saying that we need to be "a bit market specific"
And I explain the line between regulating economic conduct (what Dems are focused on) and regulating editorial judgments (what Republicans are focused on here: gaidigitalreport.com/2020/10/04/sec…
Hawley isn't subtle about the motive for the bill: he's trying to use #antitrust law to retaliate against a private company for exercising editorial judgment in a way that Hawley doesn't like
The bill's text isn't out yet, but "online hosting services" may well cover other Internet infrastructure, including hosting domain names & "hosting" apps in the Play store
At noon, Prof. Hamburger will repeat his nonsense claims that the First Amendment is a sword by which government can force private websites to host speech they find reprehensible.
Websites have the same First Amendment rights as parade organizers, newspapers or other media to exclude speech they find objectionable, however "unfair" their decisions may be
It's just not the government's job to second-guess those content moderation decisions
Republicans used to understand this. They spent 80 years attacking Fairness Doctrine mandates for broadcasting, yet are now demanding a Fairness Doctrine of their own
Here's Rep @CathyMcMorris Rodgers firmly rejecting such nonsense in late 2019