"You brought up the Principles but refused to clarify where they ban hate speech, did you read them?"

OMG did you even bother to read what I wrote? I literally mentioned that "civil torts" encompasses "hate speech". Maybe you should Google what "civil torts" means.

Quoting verbatim from the Guidelines: "Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts"

DEFINITION of a "tort": A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.

In fact a "civil tort" is more accurate term than "hate speech". It is more broader than all the specific hate combating policies that social media companies have in place. There is a complete paper on how torts can be used to combat "hate speech": https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

> You haven't meaningfully replied for several comments, so I don't mind if you save your breath after your replies being dismantled over and over again.

I have meaningfully replied. You don't have the patience to read what I wrote causing me to repeat myself ad nauseam. You can start your learning process by understanding what "civil tort" means. Then come back here once you learnt the definition.

> And on the Twitter front, you just admitted it right? Twitter removes left wing content, you linked it yourself. Case closed.

Linked what myself? Twitter hasn't closed prominent left wing accounts. I am still waiting for you to provide one. All the accounts that it has closed are bots/fake and some fringe accounts with hundred followers or so. The day Twitter bans Kathy Griffin I'll say Twitter is not biased. Else they are hypocrites. As simple as that.

----

Replying here because of rate limits:

> Because Parler's guidelines are saying since it's not tortious they wouldn't deplatform the user!

That is a very bad reading of what Parler's guidelines state. They are simply saying that they won't be used as a tool for civil tort. In other words, they won't subject themselves to anything that can constitute a civil tort. They aren't going to be the judge/jury to say whether a statement is deeply hateful or harmless hate. They just won't be a party to any of it (doesn't matter if the statement is harmless hate or deeply hateful). It doesn't matter if a US Court Judge rules finally that the statement was defamatory or not. That is for the Court to decide not Parler. Parler won't even entertain something it feels will cause Civil Tort. How is it decided? Parler has Guidelines for that too. They have a Community Jury setup (site is obviously down so I am linking to a Cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1oI4Ww...)

From their guidelines (again linking to the Cached version:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oNJnp_...):

"However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square."

They clarify it even further that even if the law doesn't require them to remove reported content/ban a member they will do it if they feel it interferes with the mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Please tell me how hate speech is "welcoming" and "nonpartisan" in any way, shape or form.

> I mean in your mind I guess it's ok to make a comment that just states the word nig*r over and over because it's not tortious right?

If Parler feels this is amounts to Civil Tort they will remove it. Now they won't obviously check which jurisdiction the user messaged from, which court will take up the case and how will it be decided. That is not in the scope of what Parler can do. Parler also doesn't have resources to go through all that to decide whether a statement constitutes a case for Civil Tort or not. Parler is just going to assume that yes this amounts to Civil Tort and just remove the offending content. Simple as that. Now obviously they won't do it immediately. Just like Twitter won't remove a Tweet immediately if you call someone a nig*r (especially if the person is being creative with how he writes it). I have seen Tweets that contain abuse/hate speech and it stays up for months. It is impossible to moderate every single tweet or parley. Even when reported it takes time. But to expect perfection from a 4 million user site while a 330 million users site is still suffering from moderation issues is a bit too much.