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)
But it doesn't take long to find openly Nazi content like this
parler.com/post/dd1e7fab-…

Just try looking through the #HitlerWasRight hashtag parler.com/search?hashtag…

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 Image
More charming Nazi content--with 8.5k views!

Again, tip of the iceberg... Image
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 Image
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 Image
And obviously anti-semitic hashtags like #ItsTheJews and #JewsAreNotWhite Image
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 ImageImageImage
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 Image
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 Image
Specifically, Parler will have to start proactively filtering objectionable material -- starting with CSAM (PhotoDNA) but also hate speech, incitement to violence, etc Image
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
 

Keep Current with Berin Szóka 🌐

Berin Szóka 🌐 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BerinSzoka

21 Apr
Livetweeting this hearing on app store competition

The central premise, that app stores have "gatekeeper" control, is greatly exaggerated, if not wrong
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
Read 28 tweets
21 Apr
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"

I debunk Thomas's opinion here (with @corbinkbarthold) lawfareblog.com/justice-thomas…
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…
Read 9 tweets
19 Apr
Hawley's bill would force Amazon to spin off its Web Services division

He doesn't even allege any economic harms flowing from owning both a marketplace and a hosting service

Obviously, he's trying to punish Amazon for booting Parler after the January 6 insurrection
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 Image
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

If so, the bill would punish Google, too
Read 7 tweets
30 Mar
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.
His Fairness Doctrine for the Internet is the opposite of what the right has argued for decades, as @AriCohn and I explained here

lawfareblog.com/wall-street-jo…
Read 28 tweets
25 Mar
Another "Big Tech" hearing today (noon ET) with G, TW & FB CEOs

Dems will complain that tech companies don't moderate enough content and Republicans will say they're being "censored"

Both sides will attack 230, but the real issue is the First Amendment

energycommerce.house.gov/committee-acti…
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
Read 134 tweets
23 Mar
.@BrendanCarrFCC is on a @FSFthinktank zoom now & about to talk about social media regulation
us02web.zoom.us/j/85978754303

Here's the thread I posted the last time he talked about #Section230

tl;dr: No, the FCC can't mandate "transparency" for content moderation akin to NN rules
Requiring ISPs to disclose how they block, throttle and prioritize is radically different from regulating how websites moderate content

The DC Circuit upheld 2015 NN rules because they applied only to ISPs that held themselves out as *not* curating the broadband experience
By contrast, social media ALL provide a curated, edited experience

And the First Amendment protects that exercise of editorial control

Read our comments to the FCC on the unconstitutionality of the NTIA's proposed #Section230 rules

techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!