[DeonPenny]

Easy amazon interfered when it banned a app simple because of the poltical leanings of the people on its platform. Yet it would never ban youtube or twitter even when violent foreign extremist those to communicate with the world. Do you mean that part.

[plugger]

This seems less like an answer to the question and more a statement of your position. Amazon is domestic so it's kinda hard to accuse them of direct foreign interference.

[vkou]

1. Twitter and YouTube are both full of conservative content.

2. The difference between Parler, Twitter, and Youtube is that the latter two moderate their content.

3. Parler was banned because it wouldn't moderate violent content.

Your interpretation of events is incorrect. Even Parler, in their legal filings, are not claiming that they were silenced because they were a platform for conservative speech.

[dc2k08]

Twitter and facebook both enabled the spreading of a fake news conspiracy in 2020 that the death of drug-addled criminal during the course of a difficult arrest in which a multiethnic police crew applied the protocol that had been signed off on by a black police chief was the result of anti-black racism.

Consequently sections of cities were burned, stores were looted, people were attacked and killed.

These riots, we were instructed to believe, were "mostly peaceful" and helped lessen the impact of covid19.

When is big tech and the mainstream media industry going to be held responsible?

[vkou]

There have been thousands of BLM protests, with millions of people participating them across the entire year. The overwhelming majority of them have been peaceful. The overwhelming majority of the violence inflicted during them has been done by... Police forces. Most of it was done against people legally protesting, not against looters, trespassers or vandals.

Meanwhile, one 'stop the steal' capitol insurrection resulted in five deaths, the evacuation of congress, and the interruption of the peaceful transfer of power.

If every BLM protest killed five people, you might be able to draw some equivalence between the two. As is, the only equivalences you can draw are false ones.

And besides - this is an irrelevant tangent. The parler messages mentioned in the Amazon lawsuit were not something that would have been tolerated on Twitter, or YouTube, regardless of whether they had been posted by BLM protestors, or anyone else. People get banned from Twitter for posting things like that. People do not get banned from Parler for posting things like that. That's why Parler got booted off.

[dc2k08]

Twitter didn't ban a former prime minister of Malaysia for stating "Muslims have the right to be angry and kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past" in the wake of a school teacher being beheaded by a Muslim parent, angered that pupils were being taught freedom of speech includes freedom to offend.

[vkou]

Does Twitter enforce these policies most of the time? Were those tweets direct calls for particular acts of violence against particular people? Because the problem messages on Parler were direct calls for the killing of particular US politicians. You know - the kind of stuff that can get the FBI knocking on your door.

Given the other comment earlier in this subthread, I am not sure if you are legitimately professing a truly extreme form of cultural relativism, or are simply not arguing this in good faith.

But let's not guess. Let's look what actually happened to Mahathir Mohammad and Twitter. [1]

> Twitter took action against a message from the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, on Thursday that declared, “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”

> The post violated Twitter's glorification of violence policy, which requires the violator to remove the tweet before they’re able to tweet from the account again.

Right. I'm going to go with 'probably not arguing this in good faith.'

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-takes-action-as-ex-mal...