[newfeatureok]

I'm honestly curious - where is the line drawn between a service being used to do "questionable" things and it being removed?

We can all agree, for example, that the internet at large enables many bad things, but I doubt any of us would ban the internet (though in other countries this happens).

What about reddit? A specific subreddit? A specific post? A specific user? A specific post by a specific user at a specific time? Obviously Reddit isn't going to be banned, but is the mere existence of moderation enough? Or is it the outcome of the moderation, aka, certain content never being present, that is what's desired?

I'm curious how nuanced these things are for Apple and other companies. Is there some sort of algorithm that says: if this app has a news feed, if X% of items in the newsfeed in a 24hr period are objectionable then it will be banned? Or perhaps Y number of days that fulfill the previous criteria before it is banned?

[hooande]

Parler is (or was) the #1 downloaded app on the App Store, according to some metrics. You don't need an algorithm to see that. It's a PR nightmare, and this is the common sense thing for any global brand to do

[newfeatureok]

I don't understand - obviously being #1 will not inherently result in being banned, so the implication is that Parler is bad. If that's the case, doesn't it basically just beg the question I posed in the parent post?

[sergiotapia]

If I create a platform that only follows US-law and allows everything else, I would:

1. Be deplatformed

2. called a racist

3. called a pedophile

4. have my life threatened

that's the state of politics in this country. Thank you Media.

We need something decentralized and bullet-proof. Enough of these charlatans.

[alkonaut]

You’d be accused of creating a platform for nazis and pedophiles unless you remove that content. And rightly so. Allowing everything isn’t a shield from that accusation, nor should it be. Good faith moderation is.

Since there are platforms without that content, the effect of starting a new platform allowing it is that you get a disproportionate amount of the most extreme content. You become the gab or parler or t_d.win.

Next, if your content has an extremely high ratio of content that must be moderated to be allowed in a “parent service” (App Store, cloud provider, credit card company) then your moderation burden is higher than your competition. Your ad revenue is also likely smaller. So basically, it’s simply very difficult economically to create such a platform.

[sergiotapia]

>You’d be accused of creating a platform for nazis and pedophiles unless you remove that content. And rightly so.

I don't agree with this at all. You realize 70+ million people are not nazis, right? They're normal people like you or me who's voice just happens to not be amplified by the media/movies.

Platform would ideally provide controls for you to hide things you don't want to see. Hide nazis, hide perverts, hide furries, hide gun nuts, hide whatever you want to hide.

This is the future and what we should be aiming for.

[Eugeleo]

> You realize 70+ million people are not nazis, right?

(not the OP) Sure, but that's just a strawman, as nobody is saying they are. Twitter, Facebook, and Apple are specifically trying NOT to deplatform all of the 70 mil "alright" people, but only those few who go against the laws, right? Nobody's banning r/concervative, only the T_D got taken down.

> Platform would ideally provide controls for you to hide things you don't want to see. [...] This is the future and what we should be aiming for.

I like this idea very much! This already happens to some level, by following only certain accounts, being part of certain subreddits, or by switching to certain platforms, but I think a "physical" explicit checkmark to hide specific themes might make people think more about what they're actually doing — closing their eyes and ears and hiding themselves in echo chambers.

With that said, I'm sure we both can agree that most companies wouldn't want to provide a platform for nazis and pedophiles (...to discuss their nazi and pedophile things), even if the other users could hide their posts. Because, why would you do that? F*ck them.

[bladefire]

I can't believe this amazing comment was removed, because it's true. Where is the line? No one knows.

"I think a seriously dangerous and underreported factor in these issues is the widespread use of the English language. I think it's time to hold accountable the Oxford English Dictionary company ("Big Word") and their agents, English teachers, for their role in enabling this ghastly event."

[dang]

The comment was in no way "removed". Please don't feed this sort of perception. People are all too ready to leap to it as it is.

If you're not seeing it in the thread it's probably because the thread has been paginated for performance reasons. In that case you have to click More at the bottom to get to the rest.

[alacombe]

> I'm honestly curious - where is the line drawn between a service being used to do "questionable" things and it being removed?

Whether or not it's "right leaning".

[Laarlf]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic but i feel this comment.