Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

ShatterAlan

So people are being banned from YouTube for content that doesn't incite violence but is seen as somewhat unsavoury.



https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1352406824952193025?s=20


Liberals are also encouraged to form digital armies to spy on perceived enemies:


https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/viral-trumpsnewarmy-video-is-liberals


You might also be interested in reading about anti-protest bills that have been pushed through since the Capitol riots. They also seek to deny demonstrators access to benefits and even seek to provide legal protection to those who shoot or run over demonstrators in their cars:


https://theintercept.com/2021/01/21/anti-protest-riot-state-laws/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=theintercept

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So people are being banned from YouTube for content that doesn't incite violence but is seen as somewhat unsavoury.



https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1352406824952193025?s=20


Liberals are also encouraged to form digital armies to spy on perceived enemies:


https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/viral-trumpsnewarmy-video-is-liberals


You might also be interested in reading about anti-protest bills that have been pushed through since the Capitol riots. They also seek to deny demonstrators access to benefits and even seek to provide legal protection to those who shoot or run over demonstrators in their cars:


https://theintercept.com/2021/01/21/anti-protest-riot-state-laws/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=theintercept

So let me get this right

Antifa are bad, but Twitter is bad when they shut down antifa twitter accounts?

As per the bolded part, have you even read the link you so happily dumped?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So people are being banned from YouTube for content that doesn't incite violence but is seen as somewhat unsavoury.



https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1352406824952193025?s=20


Liberals are also encouraged to form digital armies to spy on perceived enemies:


https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/viral-trumpsnewarmy-video-is-liberals


You might also be interested in reading about anti-protest bills that have been pushed through since the Capitol riots. They also seek to deny demonstrators access to benefits and even seek to provide legal protection to those who shoot or run over demonstrators in their cars:


https://theintercept.com/2021/01/21/anti-protest-riot-state-laws/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=theintercept

I have never heard of this websites, and to be honest, I have no interest in reading them. I try to enjoy life as we do not know when it will end. Life existed before the internet, and hate existed before the internet too. Life existed before your beloved Parler too. Have you ever thought about taking a break from the internet? I’m sure it would do your health a lot of good rather than spending so much time worrying about things that aren’t really a problem.

ShatterAlan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So let me get this right

Antifa are bad, but Twitter is bad when they shut down antifa twitter accounts?

As per the bolded part, have you even read the link you so happily dumped?

What's "antifa" ?

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Hmm...business...another thing you don’t understand. I’m starting to wish they would launch Parler again as it kept a certain foolish cohort off Boards :pac:

I do understand business.


I also have a small handfull of them and do well.


I'm wary of competitors but I don't threaten anyone. I have zero interest in entering into a cartel, a monopoly, duopoly or oligopoly.



Those are economic terms. Do YOU understand them as little as I understand business.


Maybe back to Inter Cert Commerce for you, Give us your take on the supply and demand curve.

ShatterAlan

And as sure as night follows day they are upping the "terror threat"


https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-issues-terror-alert-over-171250871.html


Biden was calling for tougher new laws to smash demonstrations as early as November 18. But again it's all in the realm of keeping people "safe"

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And as sure as night follows day they are upping the "terror threat"


https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-issues-terror-alert-over-171250871.html


Biden was calling for tougher new laws to smash demonstrations as early as November 18. But again it's all in the realm of keeping people "safe"

Well the domestic terrorists that forced their way into the Capitol have set a new date for your messiah Trump to retake power. March 5th it is. So, do you think they should relax and let the lunatics take over the asylum again? Think logically about it.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And as sure as night follows day they are upping the "terror threat"


https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-issues-terror-alert-over-171250871.html


Biden was calling for tougher new laws to smash demonstrations as early as November 18. But again it's all in the realm of keeping people "safe"

Do you think maybe there is a reason behind this terror alert that you haven't been privy to?

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Corporations shut down a competitor [Parler].

No. It was Parlers refusal to follow the rules that they signed up to when they decided to use Amazons web hosting services that got them shut down. Amazon removed them from their web hosting service after repeatedly asking them to moderate their content as they were in breach of their TOS. It was not done without warning.

Also, Amazon are not a competitor to Parler. Amazon offers web hosting services, it is not in their interest to refuse selling their services to anyone.

They also banned the US President from their platform, This augurs badly for freedom of speech.

I'm confused who is the 'they' here? Amazon? I didn't realise Amazon had banned Trump.

I assume you mean Twitter, or Facebook, but when you say they also banned him it implies you think it was the same people who stopped hosting Parler who banned Trump, which obviously isn't the case.

I would direct you to my previous post where I explained multiple times private companies are not subject laws regarding free speech in the US.

Why was Trump banned from the Twitter airwaves? And if, as you say, their platform...their rules, then why do they get to govern the medium? Are private companies now the purveyors and protectors of the Fourth Estate?

They get to govern the platform because that is the law. Just like Fox News are allowed present editorial opinion as fact and are not obliged to present balanced media. I doubt you have a problem with that kind of censorship though?

Why did European leaders vociforously speak out against the Trump ban? Even though those leaders had no "skin in the game"?

Did they? I can't say I saw anything about that. I suppose if they did you would have to ask them why they did it though. I can't read minds.

Point to me where and when Trump spoke that advocated and encouraged violence.

I did in my original post you replied to. but you are missing the point again, intentionally I would imagine at this point. You don't have to incite violence for Twitter to ban you.

I challenge you that.

You realise he has just been impeached again, this time for 'inciting an insurrection'? It's crazy that the House of Representatives think what he said was sufficient to impeach him, but you for some reason think what he said was so insignificant that he shouldn't even have been banned by Twitter. The mind boggles.

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And as sure as night follows day they are upping the "terror threat"


https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-issues-terror-alert-over-171250871.html


Biden was calling for tougher new laws to smash demonstrations as early as November 18. But again it's all in the realm of keeping people "safe"

I thought your conspiracy theory was about internet censorship. What is the link between this news and private companies removing people from their internet platforms?

Do you think Twitter banning Trump is causing domestic terrorism?

Do you think the US government asked Twitter to ban Trump because of domestic terrorism?

Do you think there is no threat of domestic terrorism and it's fabricated as a pretext to ban people from twitter?

Can you please explain how you think they're related in your conspiracy theory?

ShatterAlan

IAmTheReign wrote: »

No. It was Parlers refusal to follow the rules that they signed up to when they decided to use Amazons web hosting services that got them shut down. Amazon removed them from their web hosting service after repeatedly asking them to moderate their content as they were in breach of their TOS. It was not done without warning.

Also, Amazon are not a competitor to Parler. Amazon offers web hosting services, it is not in their interest to refuse selling their services to anyone.




I'm confused who is the 'they' here? Amazon? I didn't realise Amazon had banned Trump.

I assume you mean Twitter, or Facebook, but when you say they also banned him it implies you think it was the same people who stopped hosting Parler who banned Trump, which obviously isn't the case.

I would direct you to my previous post where I explained multiple times private companies are not subject laws regarding free speech in the US.



They get to govern the platform because that is the law. Just like Fox News are allowed present editorial opinion as fact and are not obliged to present balanced media. I doubt you have a problem with that kind of censorship though?




Did they? I can't say I saw anything about that. I suppose if they did you would have to ask them why they did it though. I can't read minds.



I did in my original post you replied to. but you are missing the point again, intentionally I would imagine at this point. You don't have to incite violence for Twitter to ban you.



You realise he has just been impeached again, this time for 'inciting an insurrection'? It's crazy that the House of Representatives think what he said was sufficient to impeach him, but you for some reason think what he said was so insignificant that he shouldn't even have been banned by Twitter. The mind boggles.

What rules did Parler refuse to abide by?

ShatterAlan

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I thought your conspiracy theory was about internet censorship. What is the link between this news and private companies removing people from their internet platforms?

Do you think Twitter banning Trump is causing domestic terrorism? NO

Do you think the US government asked Twitter to ban Trump because of domestic terrorism? NO

Do I think that tech behemoths have enough clout to have decisions set in their favour? YES


Do you think there is no threat of domestic terrorism and it's fabricated as a pretext to ban people from twitter? I'm not sure.....what is domestic terrorism?

Can you please explain how you think they're related in your conspiracy theory?


I can answer, or at least attempt to, if you might tell me what terrorism, and specifically "domestic terrorism" is.


Because, you see, this term, "terrorism" seems to now cover just about everything and everyone. People exercising their rights to FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY as enshrined in that toilet paper thing called the US Constitution, are now called "domestic" terrorists.


Try petition your government, for address of grievances (1st Amendment) and see how long you last.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think Twitter banning Trump is causing domestic terrorism? NO

Do you think the US government asked Twitter to ban Trump because of domestic terrorism? NO

Do I think that tech behemoths have enough clout to have decisions set in their favour? YES


Do you think there is no threat of domestic terrorism and it's fabricated as a pretext to ban people from twitter? I'm not sure.....what is domestic terrorism?

Can you please explain how you think they're related in your conspiracy theory?


I can answer, or at least attempt to, if you might tell me what terrorism, and specifically "domestic terrorism" is.


Because, you see, this term, "terrorism" seems to now cover just about everything and everyone. People exercising their rights to FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY as enshrined in that toilet paper thing called the US Constitution, are now called "domestic" terrorists.


Try petition your government, for address of grievances (1st Amendment) and see how long you last.

Yet the BLM/George Floyd protesters were not afforded this luxury.

Journalists attacked by police, innocent people shot in thenhead by bean bags/rubber bullets while just standing by the side of the road, old men pushed over resulting in terrible head injuries, innocent people gassed so a narcissist could hold a bible upside down outside a church...and the list goes on and on.

And before you say "no one called BLM protesters terrorists"

https://www.officer.com/command-hq/news/12215638/minneapolis-police-union-head-calls-black-lives-matter-terrorist-group

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-terrorist-video-blm-a9657626.html%3famp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.voanews.com/usa/race-america/hundreds-domestic-terrorism-investigations-opened-start-george-floyd-protests%3famp

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2020/09/02/trump-visits-kenosha-wisconsin-calls-violence-domestic-terrorism-

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What rules did Parler refuse to abide by?

Amazon Web Services acceptable use policy staes customers may not use its services “for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use.”

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22223335/parler-amazon-terminates-web-hosting-aws-google-apple-capitol

Both Google and the Apple store require apps with user generated content to be properly moderated. Here's Apples explanation of the specific rules they claim APrler were in breach of.

Guideline 1.1 - Safety - Objectionable Content

We found that your app includes content that some users may find upsetting, offensive, or otherwise objectionable. Specifically, we found direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action.

Guideline 1.2 - Safety - User Generated Content

Your app enables the display of user-generated content but does not have sufficient precautions in place to effectively manage objectionable content present in your app.

Not only that apparently Parler wasn't even complying with their own TOS

Our investigation has found that Parler is not effectively moderating and removing content that encourages illegal activity and poses a serious risk to the health and safety of users in direct violation of your own terms of service, found here: https://legal.parler.com/documents/Elaboration-on-Guidelines.pdf

https://www.inputmag.com/culture/exclusive-email-from-apple-tells-parler-it-has-24-hours-to-clean-house-or-be-removed

The link above also includes links to Twitter screenshots showing examples of these breaches.

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think Twitter banning Trump is causing domestic terrorism? NO

Do you think the US government asked Twitter to ban Trump because of domestic terrorism? NO

Do I think that tech behemoths have enough clout to have decisions set in their favour? YES


Do you think there is no threat of domestic terrorism and it's fabricated as a pretext to ban people from twitter? I'm not sure.....what is domestic terrorism?

Can you please explain how you think they're related in your conspiracy theory?


I can answer, or at least attempt to, if you might tell me what terrorism, and specifically "domestic terrorism" is.

I would think I shouldn't have to define domestic terrorism to you but here you go, here's the FBIs definition.

'The FBI defines domestic terrorism as violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.'

And here's the legal definition under US law according to the Patriot Act

'Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."'

This would clearly include an organised attempt to attack the capital in order to prevent the democratically elected incumbent from taking office as president.

Would also include anti abortion extremists that bomb clinics, the Klan and other extremist white nationalist organistions, ecoterrorists, etc. Basically any organisation intending to use violence or the threat of violence to further their agenda.

So now can you explain how Homeland Security increasing the domestic terrorism threat level is linked in any way with Twitter banning Trump?

Because, you see, this term, "terrorism" seems to now cover just about everything and everyone. People exercising their rights to FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY as enshrined in that toilet paper thing called the US Constitution, are now called "domestic" terrorists.

This is not true. Not one Trump supporter was arrested because they were exercising their right to assemble. They were arrested because they attacked the Capitol Building. Show me a single trump supporter who has been arrested for terrorism charges who didn't break the law.

Try petition your government, for address of grievances (1st Amendment) and see how long you last.

What are you on about? This is an Irish website, most people on here are not American so why would I petition any government about the first amendment?

ShatterAlan

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I would think I shouldn't have to define domestic terrorism to you but here you go, here's the FBIs definition.

'The FBI defines domestic terrorism as violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.'

And here's the legal definition under US law according to the Patriot Act

'Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."'

This would clearly include an organised attempt to attack the capital in order to prevent the democratically elected incumbent from taking office as president.

Would also include anti abortion extremists that bomb clinics, the Klan and other extremist white nationalist organistions, ecoterrorists, etc. Basically any organisation intending to use violence or the threat of violence to further their agenda.

So now can you explain how Homeland Security increasing the domestic terrorism threat level is linked in any way with Twitter banning Trump?



This is not true. Not one Trump supporter was arrested because they were exercising their right to assemble. They were arrested because they attacked the Capitol Building. Show me a single trump supporter who has been arrested for terrorism charges who didn't break the law.



What are you on about? This is an Irish website, most people on here are not American so why would I petition any government about the first amendment?

That pathetic definition could apply to just about anybody and that's why the definition is so dangerous. It gives carte blanche to label practically anybody as a terrorist if you want to.



A bunch of fast food workers go on strike because of dismal workplace conditions and they block the footpath outside Mcdonald's .....bang, they're "terrorists".


A group of students hold a demonstration to bring attention to climate change and some agent provocateur throws an egg at the cops.....bang, they're "ecoterrorists".

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That pathetic definition could apply to just about anybody and that's why the definition is so dangerous. It gives carte blanche to label practically anybody as a terrorist if you want to.



A bunch of fast food workers go on strike because of dismal workplace conditions and they block the footpath outside Mcdonald's .....bang, they're "terrorists".


A group of students hold a demonstration to bring attention to climate change and some agent provocateur throws an egg at the cops.....bang, they're "ecoterrorists".

I wouldn’t have expected you to agree with any definition of domestic terrorism. However, in the states the term is not frequently used, as it is only for extreme cases...like a bombing, or you know...an attempted coup!

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That pathetic definition could apply to just about anybody and that's why the definition is so dangerous. It gives carte blanche to label practically anybody as a terrorist if you want to.



A bunch of fast food workers go on strike because of dismal workplace conditions and they block the footpath outside Mcdonald's .....bang, they're "terrorists".


A group of students hold a demonstration to bring attention to climate change and some agent provocateur throws an egg at the cops.....bang, they're "ecoterrorists".

Nope. Do either of these examples 'involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State'? No they don't, therefore under US law they are not terrorism. The student who egged the cop might get charges with breaching the peace or assaulting an officer though.

Still waiting for you to provide any example of someone being arrested for being a terrorist that you disagree with.

Anyway, this is going totally off topic. Your conspiracy theory is that the Capitol riots are being used as a pretext for internet censorship.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And as sure as night follows day they are upping the "terror threat"


https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-issues-terror-alert-over-171250871.html


Biden was calling for tougher new laws to smash demonstrations as early as November 18. But again it's all in the realm of keeping people "safe"

Please explain what this news article has to do with Trump being banned on Twitter? I have asked 3 times now, and you said you would explain once I explained to you what domestic terrorism was.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I can answer, or at least attempt to, if you might tell me what terrorism, and specifically "domestic terrorism" is.

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I wouldn’t have expected you to agree with any definition of domestic terrorism. However, in the states the term is not frequently used, as it is only for extreme cases...like a bombing, or you know...an attempted coup!

Really?


And how about the octogenarian nuns who were banged up for protesting at a nuclear missile silo.



They were slammed in for being "terrorists"

I'll help you:

https://www.denverpost.com/2008/10/10/nuns-labeled-as-terrorists/

EDIT: they weren't in their 80's.

60's and 70's.

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Really?


And how about the octogenarian nuns who were banged up for protesting at a nuclear missile silo.



They were slammed in for being "terrorists"

I'll help you:

https://www.denverpost.com/2008/10/10/nuns-labeled-as-terrorists/

EDIT: they weren't in their 80's.

60's and 70's.

They were wrongly labeled and they were notified.

to find letters and an e-mail from the Maryland State Police saying they were wrongfully labeled

and showed a “lack of judgment” by labeling peaceful groups and individuals as “terrorists” and “security threat groups.”

And as for being "banged up", do you think they should be above the law?

the two, along with another nun, broke into a nuclear missile site in Colorado and used their own blood to paint crosses on a silo. 

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I wouldn’t have expected you to agree with any definition of domestic terrorism. However, in the states the term is not frequently used, as it is only for extreme cases...like a bombing, or you know...an attempted coup!

Then why were anti-terrorism laws used to charge and convict those who had no leanings towards "terrorism"?

ShatterAlan

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Amazon Web Services acceptable use policy staes customers may not use its services “for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use.”

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22223335/parler-amazon-terminates-web-hosting-aws-google-apple-capitol

Both Google and the Apple store require apps with user generated content to be properly moderated. Here's Apples explanation of the specific rules they claim APrler were in breach of.



Not only that apparently Parler wasn't even complying with their own TOS



https://www.inputmag.com/culture/exclusive-email-from-apple-tells-parler-it-has-24-hours-to-clean-house-or-be-removed

The link above also includes links to Twitter screenshots showing examples of these breaches.

Do you think it's fair to simply notify someone of their alleged breach, giving them 24 hours to comply by your terms but then refuse to engage with them when they attempt to contact you and discuss the matter?

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think it's fair to simply notify someone of their alleged breach, giving them 24 hours to comply by your terms but then refuse to engage with them when they attempt to contact you and discuss the matter?

Parler was operating for how long? They shouldn't have had to "engage" with them, the moderation should have already been in place from day one.

If you got caught driving tomorrow with no licence do you think the guards should "engage" with you and let you continue to drive while you go through the process of obtaining a licence?

ShatterAlan

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Being banned from Twitter isn’t curtailing freedom of speech.

Do you think there ought to be a platform from which one can't be banned no matter what they say?


The reason I ask is that you can say what you like on a soapbox at "Speaker's Corner" in London.



So, what I'm getting at is that "private" companies can throttle was is said on their platforms


What would be you solution to that?

Timberrrrrrrr

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think there ought to be a platform from which one can't be banned no matter what they say?


The reason I ask is that you can say what you like on a soapbox at "Speaker's Corner" in London.



So, what I'm getting at is that "private" companies can throttle was is said on their platforms


What would be you solution to that?

Set up your own "platform" and hosting company that allows your version of "free speech", watch the money come rolling in with no consequences whatsoever.

King Mob

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Set up your own "platform" and hosting company that allows your version of "free speech", watch the money come rolling in with no consequences whatsoever.

Yea but that wouldn't pull as much ad revenue.

Wanderer78

King Mob wrote:

Yea but that wouldn't pull as much ad revenue.

Forget about ads, data mining is where it's at these days

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think it's fair to simply notify someone of their alleged breach, giving them 24 hours to comply by your terms but then refuse to engage with them when they attempt to contact you and discuss the matter?

What is unfair is the people behind Parler thinking it's acceptable to allow people to threaten to murder people on their platform.

I hope the cop gets doxxed and murdered.

That would be the only real justice.

Reply: Federal swine most definitely. Dozens of them need to be eliminated.

Get the firing squad ready.

Pence goes first

Rules are rules and Parler were blatantly breaching the rules they agreed to follow.

Regardless, fair is irrelevant to the discussion. This is a discussion forum for conspiracy theories.

You believing Apple did unfair things to Parler is not a conspiracy.

You refusing to accept the First Amendment does not cover corporate censorship is not a conspiracy.

You believing that the government is going to start locking up innocent US citizens as domestic terrorists despite having no proof of this happening is not a conspiracy.

IAmTheReign

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Do you think there ought to be a platform from which one can't be banned no matter what they say?


The reason I ask is that you can say what you like on a soapbox at "Speaker's Corner" in London.



So, what I'm getting at is that "private" companies can throttle was is said on their platforms


What would be you solution to that?

This is a false premise. You are assuming there is an actual problem to be solved and that other people here agree with your position.

First of all there is absolutely nothing stopping the folks behind Parler setting up their own message board and allowing people to post whatever they want there. Turn it into a 4chan for Twitter exiles.

Secondly, while you may be able to say whatever you want at 'Speakers Corner' you certainly can't if you walk into a pub, they have the right to kick you out.

No private company is obliged to offer a platform for someone to voice whatever crazy thought or opinion pops into their head. This has always been the case, something tells me you didn't have the slightest problem with it until a few weeks ago. Why do you think anybody needs a platform where they can publicly threaten to murder people with impunity? How would you appreciate it if hundreds of people starting posting that ShatterAlan is a traitor to the cause and we're going to go round to his house and murder him and his family? Would you really be fully in support of their right to free speech? I doubt it.

Do you have an issue with the fact that Boards.ie is moderated, far more heavily than a lot of other places on the internet?

Do you have a problem that Fox news presents biased and sometimes factually untrue arguments as fact? Where's your 'Fox News is just right wing propaganda' conspiracy theory?

ShatterAlan

IAmTheReign wrote: »

What is unfair is the people behind Parler thinking it's acceptable to allow people to threaten to murder people on their platform.





Rules are rules and Parler were blatantly breaching the rules they agreed to follow.

Regardless, fair is irrelevant to the discussion. This is a discussion forum for conspiracy theories.

You believing Apple did unfair things to Parler is not a conspiracy.

You refusing to accept the First Amendment does not cover corporate censorship is not a conspiracy.

You believing that the government is going to start locking up innocent US citizens as domestic terrorists despite having no proof of this happening is not a conspiracy.

I'm not condoning either of these two examples of somebody's posts. In fact I find them quite disgusting. However the first is not exactly a "call to arms" or can it be construed as an incitement to violence. It's merely some clown expressing his opinion that he hopes police officers get killed. A person could say that they hope another person dies screaming after being run over by a bus. While disgusting it can in no way be seen as a call for someone to commandeer a bus and go and run that said person over.


The second quote is most certainly more inflammatory. Did it break Parler's Terms & Conditions? I imagine that it probably did. Were Parler given time to have such examples of this kind of rhetoric removed? From what I understand they weren't. They were simply notified that they were in breach of some kind of terms and were then sanctioned forthwith.
If you post a similar comment on YouTube and someone reports it, the post is taken down and that user is probably banned. YouTube itself isn't taken offline.