Untitled topic

I’m unreservedly no.

However I have sympathy for those that made this decision: The federal government is under control of one party now - they know that Clipper Chip 2.0 is a possibility.

Honest question: Who decides? How do they decide?

And the fact that there are unmoderated calls to violence and to overthrow our government had nothing to do with it?

I have no particular comment about Parler specifically, but in the general case:

Suppose you're a single-person startup of an app called "Speak!". Speak! is pretty niche, but one day, a group of the X-People are ostracized on all the popular forums: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

Because Speak! is the only remaining bastion for the X-People all of them flock to Speak!. Let's say the X-People say things that aren't exactly popular among those who are not X-People.

BigCo claims that Speak! is not properly moderated. You say that you're only a single person and a certain level of moderation cannot be expected given N number of employees.

If BigCo bans Speak! on the grounds that Speak! is not sufficiently moderated, would that mean that any small person operation who operates a surprisingly large userbase cannot operate?

I think there should be objective quantitative measures that any company can use that's applied evenly across companies. Should a company with 10,000 moderators be held to the same standard of moderation as an extremely popular forum with only a single moderator? You decide.