> That is the equivalent of saying that someone with HIV created HIV -- after all, it was their body that kept producing more virus particles! QAnon and other BS is a virus that exploits the way platforms determine recommendations and whatnot
And just like with HIV, we now understand its method of propagation, know how to curtail it, and actually hold people criminally liable if they knowingly spread it.
Why are mainstream social media platforms given a pass here, considering not only do they knowingly operate a system where such content thrives and spreads, but also profiting off its spread?
> One side made the effort and came up short
One side did not make the effort. They profited off not making the effort despite having ample warning of the upcoming crisis. This doesn't make the other side any better, but neither does it mean that the first side should somehow be treated more leniently than the first one.
I'm not defending Parler, but if we're letting Facebook and others get away with this then so should Parler, so that it serves as a reminder to rethink our approach and eventually ban both of them or force them both to reform (as in actually reform, unlike Facebook which merely claims to moderate but only does so when they've been exposed).
The problem with Parler was not that terrorists were using its platform. The problem is that Parler refused to even try to ban terrorists from its platform, which should surprise nobody given that Parler was created for the benefit of such groups. Facebook has never gotten a pass on this, in fact they have been widely criticized for failing to be aggressive enough in their efforts to moderate extremist content, conspiracy theories, and misinformation.
In a nutshell the difference is this: Parler was created as a safe haven for people and content that had been banned from mainstream platforms (and the majority of small, non-mainstream platforms).
> Facebook has never gotten a pass on this, in fact they have been widely criticized for failing to be aggressive enough in their efforts to moderate extremist content, conspiracy theories, and misinformation.
Well now we have an issue where Facebook's unwillingness to moderate has blown up into large-scale domestic terrorism, so big in fact that it created a market for Parler to cater to.
So why are we still discussing Parler's ban (which I don't disagree with) but completely ignoring the core issue that Facebook initially caused this and should be banned too?
And just like with HIV, we now understand its method of propagation, know how to curtail it, and actually hold people criminally liable if they knowingly spread it.
Why are mainstream social media platforms given a pass here, considering not only do they knowingly operate a system where such content thrives and spreads, but also profiting off its spread?
> One side made the effort and came up short
One side did not make the effort. They profited off not making the effort despite having ample warning of the upcoming crisis. This doesn't make the other side any better, but neither does it mean that the first side should somehow be treated more leniently than the first one.
I'm not defending Parler, but if we're letting Facebook and others get away with this then so should Parler, so that it serves as a reminder to rethink our approach and eventually ban both of them or force them both to reform (as in actually reform, unlike Facebook which merely claims to moderate but only does so when they've been exposed).