San Antonio Express-News

Big Tech clout hits with bans on Parler, Trump

Free speech vs. threats debated

- By Sarah Frier BLOOMBERG

As Facebook and Twitter banished users and groups supporting the violent mobs at the Capitol last week — including President Donald Trump — downloads surged for a less restrictiv­e social media app called Parler. But in an effort to prevent further riot organizing, Google and Apple booted Parler from their app stores, and Amazon shut off its web services.

“We will not cave to pressure from anti-competitiv­e actors!” John Matze, Parler’s chief executive officer, said on his site Friday. “We WON’T cave to politicall­y motivated companies and those authoritar­ians who hate free speech!”

In reality, Matze doesn’t have much choice. His free-speech-centric network, where some extremists turned to rally insurgents and organize future uprisings, was deemed an “ongoing and urgent public safety threat” by Google. Apple quickly rejected as insufficie­nt a Parler plan to moderate its content. Amazon employees asked that the web giant “deny Parler services until it removes posts inciting violence, including at the Presidenti­al inaugurati­on.”

Access to the website appeared to be cut off after midnight Sunday in California when Amazon shut down access to its servers. With an internet ecosystem dominated by a few big players, the app has little chance of survival without access to these mainstream channels.

The Parler restrictio­ns underscore how technology companies have increasing­ly been held accountabl­e for the potential consequenc­es of what happens on their

services, where they have greater visibility than government­s do — and the ability to take quicker action.

For years, large tech companies avoided such debates by claiming to be content-neutral. Meddling and misinforma­tion campaigns in the 2016 presidenti­al election made it clear that these companies, and their software algorithms and content moderation, had realworld impact.

Now, pressured by lawmakers, civil rights advocates and even their own workers, the big tech companies are realizing just how much power and responsibi­lity they have over public conversati­on — including over apps they didn’t create.

Such monopoly-like powers are already under scrutiny by U.S. regulators, with Google and Facebook battling government antitrust lawsuits. At the same time, the companies have come under fire for their lackadaisi­cal practices on content moderation, when being too permissive on incendiary speech can lead to realworld violence or illegal activity.

The tech companies’ moves were mostly applauded by government officials and critics, and many openly asked why it took so long to crack down. But their subjective nature worried some advocates.

“It should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensa­ble for the speech of billions — especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” Kate Ruane, senior legislativ­e counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement after Trump was banned on the plat

forms.

“It is our hope that these companies will apply their rules transparen­tly to everyone.”

Parler already faced major hurdles. The company is seeking to take on much larger services with establishe­d user bases, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Trump backer’s money

The Henderson, Nev.based upstart network gained some traction in 2020 as it capitalize­d on fears of anti-conservati­ve bias by the main platforms, and it worked. Backed by Trump supporter Rebekah Mercer, the daughter of hedge fund investor Robert Mercer, Parler was the top program on Apple’s App store Saturday before it was banned, with millions of total downloads.

The app functions similarly to Twitter, where users post short messages in a feed where others can follow and interact.

As Twitter and Facebook became increasing­ly willing to label or fact-check Trump’s content in recent months, some Republican lawmakers and media figures, like South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and conservati­ve radio personalit­y Mark Levin, encouraged supporters to follow them on Parler.

Yet because of its narrower focus on right-wing users seeking more freedom from

the big tech company’s rules, some Parler users complained that it felt like an echo chamber of likeminded people rather than a place to engage in the debate — or conflict — that has become a hallmark of Twitter’s service. Trump himself doesn’t have a Parler account.

While Facebook and Twitter have stricter content policies, those networks were also found to have hosted users planning the mob violence at the Capitol, including those who directed large followings to shift over to Parler. When it permanentl­y axed Trump’s account, Twitter said it saw evidence of new riots planned for Jan. 17, while Facebook said it has taken down 600 militarize­d social groups so far.

The platforms’ artificial intelligen­ce has been improving at catching offending posts, in some cases before they are seen by a significan­t number of users. Even if the mainstream apps didn’t aggressive­ly take down such content, the overwhelmi­ng volume of posts and users also probably means they’d be unlikely to face Parler-level scrutiny from app stores.

“Perfect moderation is impossible but there’s a difference between trying and not trying,” wrote Benedict Evans, an independen­t technology analyst and former partner at venture cap

ital firm Andreessen Horowitz, on Twitter.

Parler CEO Matze encouraged users to find workaround­s, like using the website on a browser or installing the app on Android phones through online stores besides Google Play. He also told them to cancel their Amazon subscripti­ons, dump Apple, and to “call, write and email your congressma­n and senators and expose this anti-competitiv­e behavior.”

Denies inciting violence

On Sunday, after the crackdown on his app, Matze clarifed his earlier comments.

“In an interview this week, some believe I gave the impression that I somehow did not care whether Parler is used to incite violence. I want to set the record straight: That interpreta­tion could not be further from the truth,” he said. “We do not condone or accept violence on our platform and we never will.”

He said Parler’s community guidelines expressly prohibit threats of violence or incitement, and the company has been working to enforce the rules.

Even as its technologi­cal backbone is disabled by the tech giants, Parler may continue to exist on a smaller scale. Google restricted Gab, another “free speech”branded site popular with right-wing extremists, in 2017 for violating its hate speech policy.

In 2018, Gab was banned by domain provider Godaddy.com and Paypal after an anti-semitic user shot 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Since the Capitol insurrecti­on, Gab has been “The paradigm shift to new platforms that support free speech will happen overnight,” Gab’s account tweeted. To Parler’s Matze, Gab said, “Best of luck, sincerely.”

 ?? Gabby Jones / Bloomberg ?? Parler’s narrower focus was on right-wing users seeking more freedom from big tech companies’ rules, but calls for uprisings resulted in bans.
Gabby Jones / Bloomberg Parler’s narrower focus was on right-wing users seeking more freedom from big tech companies’ rules, but calls for uprisings resulted in bans.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States