How Parler got back into Apple’s good graces

From the Washington Post’s “Social app Parler is cracking down on hate speech — but only on iPhones” posted Monday:

When social media network Parler came back to life on Apple’s App Store Monday, it was designed to be a less offensive version than what users are able to see elsewhere.
Posts that are labeled “hate” by Parler’s new artificial intelligence moderation system won’t be visible on iPhones. There’s a different standard for people who look at Parler on other smartphones or on the Web: They will be able to see posts marked as “hate,” which includes racial slurs, by clicking through to see them.

Parler has resisted placing limits on what appears on its social network, and its leaders have equated blocking hate speech to totalitarian censorship, according to Amy Peikoff, chief policy officer. But Peikoff, who leads Parler’s content moderation, says she recognizes the importance of the Apple relationship to Parler’s future and seeks to find common ground between them.

“At Parler we embrace the entire First Amendment meaning freedom of expression and conscience are protected,” Peikoff said. “We permit a maximum amount of legally protected speech.”

My take: A hate-free walled garden — what a concept!

Meanwhile, I’m not sure what Peikoff means by the “entire First Amendment.” After all, it’s not very long:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

11 Comments

  1. David Emery said:
    It’s interesting how few people actually understand the -limits- the 1st Amendment places on its own applicability.

    4
    May 17, 2021
    • Rodney Avilla said:
      the -limits- the 1st Amendment places on its own applicability.

      In reading the 1st Amendment (thank you PED), I’m not sure I am seeing what limits you’re referring to. Or do you mean limits placed by other court rulings regarding the Amendment?

      0
      May 17, 2021
  2. Paul Brindze said:
    Hmmmm .. what about inciting violence without hate?

    Some thing like:
    “We love them all … that’s why we want to kill them … to put them out of their misery”

    Slippery slope.

    0
    May 17, 2021
  3. Fred Stein said:
    I read wikipedia, Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    IMO – concerning and educational.

    0
    May 17, 2021
  4. Gregg Thurman said:
    Shooting stars burn out very, very fast. The pendulum is constantly in motion and always seeks the middle ground.

    As disconcerting as the alt-right may appear, they aren’t near as bad as the mainstream was during the 1930 – 1960 time period.

    This too shall pass.

    1
    May 17, 2021
  5. Rodney Avilla said:
    I find it interesting that the generation that demanded free speech, no matter how offensive (remember the 60’s?), is now the generation that continues to find ways to limit speech they don’t like (not politically correct).

    0
    May 17, 2021
  6. Joe Murphy said:
    @ Rodney A.
    “… the generation that demanded free speech, no matter how offensive (remember the 60’s?), is now the generation that continues to find ways to limit speech they don’t like..”

    From what I see and hear, the primary ruckus and imperative for being politically correct isn’t coming from that generation.

    1
    May 17, 2021
    • Rodney Avilla said:
      You’re correct. In my attempt to be brief, I over generalized. The generation in the 60’s (and I might add, on the left politically), who later became CEO’s, professors, and senior politicians, readily advanced the politically correct movement in the 90’s (or there about), slowly changing it from a movement to be inclusive (or not offensive- which can be a good thing), to trying to silence their political opponents.

      0
      May 17, 2021
  7. Gregg Thurman said:
    Let’s face it, there just isn’t enough Beatrice Evelyn Hall’s tip thing through the woods these days. All the while there’s plenty of impersonators to “entertain” us.

    The misunderstanding of the First Amendment, as I see it, is that there is no freedom to be found in uttering lies.

    1
    May 18, 2021
    • Rodney Avilla said:
      “there is no freedom to be found in uttering lies.”
      Do we want those who lie, to have freedom of speech?
      So, let’s see, if I can convince those in power that you are lying, or maybe telling partial truths, or just not telling the whole truth (which some consider a form of lying), then I can limit your freedom of speech? Once you loose that right, then you won’t be able to defend or explain your position. Do we really want the government to decide what we can know? listen to? learn about? I know I don’t want Facebook, or Twitter, or the government to make those determinations.

      0
      May 18, 2021

Leave a Reply