A decent distinction to make is Facebook on the face of it tries to moderate they're just bad at it and make decisions a lot of people aren't happy with where Parler's moderation system was almost entirely pro forma relying largely on showing reports to a panel of random users.
I'm not sure how hard FB actually tries to moderate extremist political content.
They're pretty damn good at quickly taking down child porn and copyrighted movies/music, because those are areas where big money & potential criminal liability are on the line.
In contrast, nobody's forcing them to censor political extremism, and the usual "engagement" metrics that they and their advertisers track would likely reward that content.
In the last few days, they've shut down thousands of groups and hundreds of thousands of accounts for sharing QAnon conspiracies, which strongly suggests to me that they've had the technical ability to do that for quite a while.
They're not "bad at" moderation, they just choose to moderate certain things and not others.
Most people here could hack together some basic keyword searches for questionable content in a day at the outside. I think we can assume that Facebook already has the tools to run those searches at scale and act on the results.
So I don't think there's any good reason to disagree with you.
At best, Facebook has prioritised "engagement" - i.e. ad revenue - over unacceptable extremism. At worst Facebook is knowingly complicit in the politics and in the polarisation that is being generated.
It would be impossible to know which of those is true without access to internal records. But there should at least be an investigation asking these questions.
And not just of Facebook, but of all the social tech and media giants.
In site moderation it's basically a guarantee that you'll wind up with an extreme echo chamber, people self select in or out the site based on the content of that site. Unless your user group is extremely broad based and siloing is good enough that people aren't driven off the site by extremists then the group of moderators you select from is inherently pretty ok with the content of the site. It has a chance to work in the real world where the same self selection effect is moderated by other factors.
How is it different than real life? Look at the county by county map of the past couple presidential elections. You'll see that there is very much a delineation between people with different ideals resulting in echo chambers. We see this in stereotypes of country folks or city folks by the other.
There's a whole trial to present the evidence and how the law is supposed to be interpreted in a court case you can't really replicate in Parler's attempted moderation system. Also the pomp and dressing of state and law do a lot to change how people act. One of the big questions any prosecutor will ask is will you judge solely on the law and they will very quickly strike you if you indicate no or that you know anything about jury nullification.
Everyone should know about jury nullification. I feel it's a violation of a right to a fair trial if the jury doesn't understand all the options, including that one.
The questions don't really mean much. People could honestly answer that they will apply the law, but how can they if their understanding of it is flawed, especially since that question takes place before the judge educates the jury on the law?
Prosecutors would really rather you not because it has the chance to completely screw their case and they already put a lot of effort in maintaining conviction records. Also it's one of those things where it's not officially an option there's just no punishment available to prevent it.
It does mean something you can say yes or no to 'will you rule based on the law and the evidence presented in the case' you don't have to know the law to agree to do that. It's not phrased exactly like that either it's a series. [0] #15 for example is basically a question directly about nullification. 13 and 14 are also around the subject as well.
