Has parler gone dark?

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 10:28am

timmyntc wrote: »

I think the problem that people are only now seeing, is that letting the market regulate itself does not work. Funny, because most republicans would have been fully pro-free market up until now - we're all idealists until your ideals come round to bite you in the ass.

What is/isn't acceptable content is something that needs defined by government really - leaving it up to the market (social media companies in this case) to self-regulate will inevitably lead to selective censorship - whether its censorship of competing platforms, or censorship of views they don't like for whatever reasons.

Even in this country we are all aware of certain Newspapers & Media groups having certain biases, so why would it be any surprise to see that happening in the world of social media also?

It is not censorship. Censorship is not a private company deciding what they are willing to host or allow be posted

Censorship is exactly what you are proposing. A government deciding what is allowed to be said.

timmyntc · 12-01-2021 10:34am

Lucifer wrote: »

It is not censorship. Censorship is not a private company deciding what they are willing to host or allow be posted

Censorship is exactly what you are proposing. A government deciding what is allowed to be said.

A company the size of boards can choose to moderate content however they like - but when you get to the near monopoly scale of Twitter, AWS, Facebook - you can't seriously think it's totally okay for media monopolies to self-regulate content?

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 11:08am

timmyntc wrote: »

A company the size of boards can choose to moderate content however they like - but when you get to the near monopoly scale of Twitter, AWS, Facebook - you can't seriously think it's totally okay for media monopolies to self-regulate content?

At what point do you draw the line?

It is fine for A as a private company. It is not fine for B as a private company.

It may not be ideal, but do you think the situation is better in China where the government gets to decide what is and is not allowed on the Internet?

You are describing the exact concept of censorship. That the government gets to decide what can be published and what must be silenced.

Here is an example. You have fox and cnn. If the current administration in American was allowed they would ban cnn. And likewise, the next would ban fox.

I am not saying that I like fox or cnn, but you can't have the government decide what is allowed.

AWS is not the only hosting company. There are many, including AWS who are happy to take your money for your right wing view media and many including AWS who will take your money for left wing media.

They are drawing the line when you cross into violence and incitement of violence, or the pedalling of complete misinformation.

If one side is breaking the rules or telling lies, it may seem like they are biased.

ohnonotgmail · 12-01-2021 11:13am

timmyntc wrote: »

A company the size of boards can choose to moderate content however they like - but when you get to the near monopoly scale of Twitter, AWS, Facebook - you can't seriously think it's totally okay for media monopolies to self-regulate content?

I dont know why you are including AWS in with Twitter and Facebook. They do completely different things.

timmyntc · 12-01-2021 11:28am

Lucifer wrote: »

At what point do you draw the line?

It is fine for A as a private company. It is not fine for B as a private company.

It may not be ideal, but do you think the situation is better in China where the government gets to decide what is and is not allowed on the Internet?

You are describing the exact concept of censorship. That the government gets to decide what can be published and what must be silenced.

Here is an example. You have fox and cnn. If the current administration in American was allowed they would ban cnn. And likewise, the next would ban fox.

I am not saying that I like fox or cnn, but you can't have the government decide what is allowed.

AWS is not the only hosting company. There are many, including AWS who are happy to take your money for your right wing view media and many including AWS who will take your money for left wing media.

They are drawing the line when you cross into violence and incitement of violence, or the pedalling of complete misinformation.

If one side is breaking the rules or telling lies, it may seem like they are biased.

Would you consider anti-discrimination laws as an attack on individual freedoms? When the government says what grounds you cannot refuse someone entry from a licensed premises, or refuse to hire someone, etc.

That's the same approach that needs taken in online media really - the government needs to legislate for what speech is protected, and that which is not protected can be allowed or not based on the companies own views. The opposite of censorship I would think.

Right now those social media companies (& web hosts) are free to deny service for arbitrary reasons & standards which they set themselves. I don't disagree that some of those standards are reasonable, but the fact that they set them themselves and can pick & choose what is up to standard & what is not, is a worrying trend and needs to be tackled.

The idea of small company A vs big company B having different regs apply doesn't seem fair on the outset, but we discriminate based on size of company or income all the time - look at tax rates, look at other regulations on companies which scale with employee numbers. It's not a totally alien concept to apply more rigorous anti-censorship standards to larger media companies than smaller ones.

ohnonotgmail wrote:

I dont know why you are including AWS in with Twitter and Facebook. They do completely different things.

AWS deplatform sites hosted on their services if they dont meet their standards also, so it is relevant. They are also one of the biggest web hosts and aggressively price competitors out of the market, so very relevant.

ohnonotgmail · 12-01-2021 11:33am

timmyntc wrote: »

AWS deplatform sites hosted on their services if they dont meet their standards also, so it is relevant. They are also one of the biggest web hosts and aggressively price competitors out of the market, so very relevant.

they refuse to do business with certain companies. Are they not entitled to do that? If parler were posting child porn would you be so upset if AWS stopped hosting them?

timmyntc · 12-01-2021 11:38am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they refuse to do business with certain companies. Are they not entitled to do that? If parler were posting child porn would you be so upset if AWS stopped hosting them?

Child porn is illegal and should in no way come under protected speech/content.

Is a business allowed to refuse to hire people based on protected attributes? (race/gender etc)
Why should it be any different when it comes to a service they offer? Why should they be allowed to refuse service to someone based on an arbitrary set of standards they make up themselves?

If your ISP decided they weren't going to keep providing your service because your posts on boards.ie were rude and not up to their community standards, would you be okay with that?

ohnonotgmail · 12-01-2021 11:42am

timmyntc wrote: »

Child porn is illegal and should in no way come under protected speech/content.

Is a business allowed to refuse to hire people based on protected attributes? (race/gender etc)
Why should it be any different when it comes to a service they offer? Why should they be allowed to refuse service to someone based on an arbitrary set of standards they make up themselves?

inciting violence and calling for people to be killed is also illegal.

timmyntc wrote: »

If your ISP decided they weren't going to keep providing your service because your posts on boards.ie were rude and not up to their community standards, would you be okay with that?

AWS are not anything analogous to an ISP.

timmyntc · 12-01-2021 11:50am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

inciting violence and calling for people to be killed is also illegal.

I've never said that inciting violence should be legal or that a business has to provide a service to someone who does use said service to incite violence.

I have no gripe with parler being denied service - my issue is with how social media companies & web hosts can arbitrarily deny service based on a set of "community standards" of their own conception. It is letting the market regulate itself, which almost always ends badly.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

AWS are not anything analogous to an ISP.

I know what AWS does, and that they are not an ISP. But if AWS could deny service to a website based on their standards, why not an ISP deny service to a customer based on the ISPs standards?

If you're okay with AWS dropping customers as they see fit, why wouldnt you be okay with an ISP doing the same thing?

ohnonotgmail · 12-01-2021 11:54am

timmyntc wrote: »

I've never said that inciting violence should be legal or that a business has to provide a service to someone who does use said service to incite violence.

I have no gripe with parler being denied service - my issue is with how social media companies & web hosts can arbitrarily deny service based on a set of "community standards" of their own conception. It is letting the market regulate itself, which almost always ends badly.

so who should set the standards? somebody has to. should it be the government?

timmyntc wrote: »

I know what AWS does, and that they are not an ISP. But if AWS could deny service to a business based on their standards, why not an ISP deny service to a customer based on their standards?

If you're okay with AWS dropping customers as they see fit, why wouldnt you be okay with an ISP doing the same thing?

an ISP and a Host are entirely different things. nobody makes a connection to an ISP if you post something online. they do make a connection to whoever hosts it.

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 12:02pm

timmyntc wrote: »

Would you consider anti-discrimination laws as an attack on individual freedoms? When the government says what grounds you cannot refuse someone entry from a licensed premises, or refuse to hire someone, etc.

That's the same approach that needs taken in online media really - the government needs to legislate for what speech is protected, and that which is not protected can be allowed or not based on the companies own views. The opposite of censorship I would think.

Right now those social media companies (& web hosts) are free to deny service for arbitrary reasons & standards which they set themselves. I don't disagree that some of those standards are reasonable, but the fact that they set them themselves and can pick & choose what is up to standard & what is not, is a worrying trend and needs to be tackled.

The idea of small company A vs big company B having different regs apply doesn't seem fair on the outset, but we discriminate based on size of company or income all the time - look at tax rates, look at other regulations on companies which scale with employee numbers. It's not a totally alien concept to apply more rigorous anti-censorship standards to larger media companies than smaller ones.

AWS deplatform sites hosted on their services if they dont meet their standards also, so it is relevant. They are also one of the biggest web hosts and aggressively price competitors out of the market, so very relevant.

No I don't consider anti discrimination laws an attack on personal freedom. I can be refused entry to a private premises, just not because of a few reasons.

I would think that I may be refused entry to places if I wore a t shirt with racist remarks. Or I think I may not be hired by a company if I had a swastika tattooed on my face. I am fine with this. I should not be refused for the colour of my skin.

Discrimination is against the law. How are Twitter, etc or AWS discriminating? They allow left, they allow right.

They draw the line at certain things such as incitement of violence.

What speech needs to be protected? What can you not post on twitter today that you feel you should be allowed?

Where would you draw the line between boards.ie and twitter? Is it number of users? Number of posts? Number of staff? Revenue?

12-01-2021 12:16pm

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I never used the app just like I never use twitter however I find it disguising what is happening, It is a complete power grab by authoritarians that make up the powers in American big tech, The US and free speech is screwed and all under the guise of the greater good, 'think like us or your gone'. The more I look into it the worse it gets and they keep lying to the public that is is for their own good, whatever happened to freedom and live and let live?

I can see why you mmight think that, but only if you had no idea what the fcuk you were talking about. Even the most basic understanding of the issues would mean that you'd comprehend why they were shut down. But because its full of right wingers everybody on the right is jumping up and down claiming that they are being censored and "Muh freeze peach" is being eroded. That is clearly not the case, but only if you decide to educate yourself about it will you see that.

Deleted User wrote: »

It is a bit odd that people on an Internet forum are getting excited on ever more internet restrictions.

But that's not what's happening, at least not the way you are claiming it is. This isn't "internet restrictions" being put in place. This is a company deciding for valid reasons (see below) that they do not want to be associated with another company because company number two are toxic and unwilling to do anything to change.

fryup wrote: »

i see boards.ie are running an advert at the moment for cotosen clothing, the favourite clothing of the Right Wing Militia hmmmm

You do realise those ads are tergeted at you, individually, based on your 'net activity, yeah?

timmyntc wrote: »

I have no gripe with parler being denied service - my issue is with how social media companies & web hosts can arbitrarily deny service based on a set of "community standards" of their own conception. It is letting the market regulate itself, which almost always ends badly.

Ironically, that's exactly what the right wing / conservatives have been championing for years, the ability to let the market regulate itself, free from outside interference.

timmyntc wrote: »

I know what AWS does, and that they are not an ISP. But if AWS could deny service to a website based on their standards, why not an ISP deny service to a customer based on the ISPs standards?

If you're okay with AWS dropping customers as they see fit, why wouldnt you be okay with an ISP doing the same thing?

That's what they do, though? They drop people and customers all the time based on breaches of the Ts & Cs. It's what every company does and is the backbone of contract law.

Parler is/was hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS) servers
A lot of dodgy crap was being posted, but nothing too alarming
Then it kicked up a notch
There were posts calling for riots, killings, bombings and worse
AWS contacted Parler and said "you guys need to take a more proactive approach in monitoring this sh1t"
Parler said "yeah, no problem" then continued to do SFA
Then, when word got out about AWS looking for more moderation, they started talking about bombing AWS data centres and assassinating Jeff Bezos.
The plug got pulled and others followed suit.

Free speech means you can say what you want. It does not mean that someone else has to provide you with a platform to do that though, and it certainly doesn't mean you are immune to the consequences or repercussions arising out of what you said.

Plus, it's extremely ironic that people are championing them as some sort of bastions of free speech that should be used as a beacon to all others when they are funded by the same family as Cambridge Analytica and was founded by someone with ties to Russian political figures.

They are an extremely shady bunch of people. The bit about drivers' licences earlier hammers that point home. In order to PM other users you had to become 'verified' or whatever their version of the blue tick is. To do that, you had to submit photos of your licence and your Social Security Number (same as your PPSN). Only then could you engage in talking with like minded individuals about stuff that you were too afraid to talk about in public.

So, now they've been booted from any respectable western server, they (and all their data) will be sold off or moved to somewhere that'll host them. Like, say China or maybe Russia. Imagine that.......Russian authorities with the names, addresses, photos and SSNs of all the top right wing extremists in america.....What could possibly go wrong?

BeerWolf · 12-01-2021 12:25pm

How one party is freely going about silencing the other party... oh yeah, nothing wrong with that. :rolleyes:

BeerWolf · 12-01-2021 12:28pm

Adyx wrote: »

There's absolutely nothing preventing free speech here. Why should a private company be forced to provide a platform to anyone regardless of their political beliefs? Besides, have you seen the "free speech" on Parler? Posts about using zip-ties to strangle people, executions and even threats against Mike Pence. None of this was moderated. That's why it was taken down. Not because someone said "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter".

All well and good, exception we're talking about a monopolizing company with a complete grip on the market. Apple on Apple Phones, obviously... and Google on Android.

What's next, block all right-wing content from ISP usage?

There's extreme hypocrisy going about, especially considering many people lost their lives during the BLM Riots... and that was all organized on Twitter and Facebook.

12-01-2021 12:28pm

https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1327253991936454663

Pretty eye opening stuff contained in that twitter thread. Not all of it backed up and sourced, mind, but plenty of it is. At least get another perspective on things. Also, note that he was talking about this in november, this isn't some "anti-Conservative" crusade that's been drummed up.

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 12:29pm

BeerWolf wrote: »

How one party is freely going about silencing the other party... oh yeah, nothing wrong with that. :rolleyes:

But that is not what is happening. Go on twitter now and post right wing views. You won't be banned.

Go on aws and rent a server for a forum for right wing views. You won't be banned.

/r/conservative on reddit... Is on aws.

How are the right being silenced? Is there nobody right wing that provides any tech services?

the purple tin · 12-01-2021 12:31pm

Is it pronounced par-ler or par-lay like the french?

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 12:38pm

BeerWolf wrote: »

All well and good, exception we're talking about a monopolizing company with a complete grip on the market. Apple on Apple Phones, obviously... and Google on Android.

What's next, block all right-wing content from ISP usage?

There's extreme hypocrisy going about, especially considering many people lost their lives during the BLM Riots... and that was all organized on Twitter and Facebook.

Much the way Ford have a monopoly on Ford cars, and Toyota have on toyotas.

Nobody is blocking right wing content unless you are saying all right wing content incites violence etc.

I like most people right or left do not support the violence in blm protests. I see no issues with people from blm being banned for inciting violence. I support the idea, and peaceful protest of the idea. I do not support any violence. Why are you upset by the companies trying to stop this violence or distance themselves from it?

Kaybaykwah · 12-01-2021 12:48pm

the purple tin wrote: »

Is it pronounced par-ler or par-lay like the french?

I doubt it. These guys gobble up freedom fries.

ancapailldorcha · 12-01-2021 12:52pm

Communist liberal. That lad needs deprogramming if that's the sort of drivel he's coming out with.

randd1 · 12-01-2021 1:11pm

Have any laws been changed that limit free speech? No? Then your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

Have you been kicked off a platform for publicly expressing your views? Yes? And have any laws been changed as a result of you being kicked off that platform that limit free speech? No? Then your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

Are you upset that you/groups like you have been removed from platforms that allow you to publicly expressing your views? Yes? Is the reason for this upset that you feel that your right to say what you want and how you want to say has been curtailed? Yes? Have any laws been changed by the platform that limit free speech? No? Then your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

Are you upset that you/groups like you have been removed from platforms that allow you to publicly expressing your views? Yes? Do you also feel that people/groups should also be free to have a contrary view to your viewpoint, and also be free not to repeat it if they wish on their platform? No? Then you are curtailing their right to free speech be demanding they adhere to expressing a viewpoint they don't want to express. And by extension, your ability to speak freely has also been curtailed as a precedent has been set whereby an entity has been forced to express views against their will.

So I repeat, are you upset that you/groups like you have been removed from platforms that allow you to publicly expressing your views? Yes? Do you also feel that people/groups should also be free to have a contrary view to your viewpoint, and also be free not to repeat it if they wish on their platform? Yes? Then your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

If you/groups like you have been removed from platforms, is there anything stopping you from using other platforms or creating other platforms for your to express your opinions publically? No? Then your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

People are confusing actual laws around free speech and companies that provide social media platforms and their internal directions on content on their platform. Social media companies are exactly that, companies, and they use their platform to make money, and go where the market is telling them to go.

They are not, and hopefully never will be, the arbiters of peoples rights. That remains the role of governments and judges.

So as long as the laws don't change, no matter what social media companies do, you're still free to speak as you'd like. And that's ultimately all that matters. And as long as that is the case, then everything else regarding social media bans is a complete straw man argument, your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

rossie1977 · 12-01-2021 1:16pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Communist liberal. That lad needs deprogramming if that's the sort of drivel he's coming out with.

Absolutely insane these people, communist liberal lol

randd1 · 12-01-2021 1:16pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Communist liberal. That lad needs deprogramming if that's the sort of drivel he's coming out with.

You can't de-programme a computer who's computing programming has unravelled, been re-programmed with coding for a basic toaster as computer coding s too advanced for it, has managed fall off the table in pursuit of his human master, has smashed it's logical processors to smithereens and is now throwing out random characters on-screen in the hope some other deranged malfunctioning computer recognizes the deranged coding and he won't be alone.

Infernal Racket · 12-01-2021 1:22pm

the purple tin wrote: »

Is it pronounced par-ler or par-lay like the french?

Or parlour, a small room in 1950s Ireland where condiments and other basic necessities of life are stored?

Kaybaykwah · 12-01-2021 1:54pm

If a stranger walks into a meeting place and rants about overthrowing a government, you would have him thrown out.

People have gotten used to the internet an unfettered space where all commentors are allowed a soapbox.
The same right wing nutjobs want to curtail progressives, calling out a paedophile driven agenda behind all leftist actions.

Speaking of paedophiles, there are rules that outlaw child pornography, and there are others that disavow hate speech and incitement to violence. How is that so hard to understand?

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 7:35pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzh-ppO7oes

12-01-2021 8:32pm

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

If a stranger walks into a meeting place and rants about overthrowing a government, you would have him thrown out.

Not if it was an overthrowing the government meeting.

People have gotten used to the internet an unfettered space where all commentors are allowed a soapbox.
The same right wing nutjobs want to curtail progressives, calling out a paedophile driven agenda behind all leftist actions.

Speaking of paedophiles, there are rules that outlaw child pornography, and there are others that disavow hate speech and incitement to violence. How is that so hard to understand?

Well incitement to violence has always been outlawed. "Hate speech" is a relatively new concept.

The question though is about these internet giants as monopolies. Imagine if in the future they were to start to kick out left-wingers ( they have started on feminists who don't follow the party line on trans).

The term hate speech can be extended to any amount of speech you don't like. Some types of criticism of Israel has started to become re-defined as hate speech, and that kind of thing will increase in future.

First they came for... etc. etc. etc.

12-01-2021 8:40pm

randd1 wrote: »

Have any laws been changed that limit free speech? No? Then your ability to speak freely has not been curtailed.

Yeh it has. Wherever did the idea that only government can censor come from?

It's interesting how much actual belief in old school liberalism has disappeared. There was a time when defending free speech from any source was the standard bearer of liberal ideologies.

And how do we know, by the way, that the corporations were not pushed in this direction by a nudge from the president elect or his office. They all definitely acted in collusion, and on the same day, it would be naive to think that they were not in contact with the new government, or that they were thinking of the consequences of the new government.

Mellor · 12-01-2021 10:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeh it has. Wherever did the idea that only government can censor come from?

Free speech doesn't equal zero censorship.

I have the right to write a book on the virtues of graverobbing for romantic endeavours. I can't however walk in to Harper Collins and demand that they publish it under free expressions. They have the right to only publish what they want.

Websites are no different.
Boards.ie are entitled to moderate posts here.
So are Twitter.

And how do we know, by the way, that the corporations were not pushed in this direction by a nudge from the president elect or his office. They all definitely acted in collusion, and on the same day, it would be naive to think that they were not in contact with the new government, or that they were thinking of the consequences of the new government.

The funny thing is, post 2016. The dems where pushing for government regulation of social media. And it was actually the GOP government who said "no, they can decide for themselves, it's their business". Free speech wasn't an issue then.

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 11:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And how do we know, by the way, that the corporations were not pushed in this direction by a nudge from the president elect or his office. They all definitely acted in collusion, and on the same day, it would be naive to think that they were not in contact with the new government, or that they were thinking of the consequences of the new government.

Do you have anything to back up this? Or is it just plain speculation?

And how do we know, by the way, that the corporations were not pushed in this direction by a nudge from the president elect or his office?

How do you know they definitely acted in collusion?

Of course they acted on the same day. They all reacted in response to an incident that happen on one particular day. They all quickly responded, especially when seeing others doing so. Had one company acted and another did not, it could be damaging to the reputation to the one that did not bother to react. Were you expecting them to react weeks apart?

To say they acted on the president elect's word is just plain conspiracy theory with nothing other than you think so.

More likely they were acting with their shareholders interest at the forefront, and didnt want to be associated with what happened and to show they condem it. The majority of the public viewed it as a disgraceful act, and would likely not favour any company who just turned a blind eye to it and ignored it.

EDIT

Following an open letter signed by hundreds of Twitter employees, last week CEO Jack Dorsey permanently banned Trump from the platform. The company has also taken action to prevent Trump from communicating on Twitter through other accounts.

Facebook had previously put Trump under temporary suspension, and on the evening of Jan. 6, an internal Facebook message board was on fire with employees calling for the company to issue an outright ban, immediately and permanently. The following day, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg affirmed that the suspension would not be lifted until after Trump left office, if ever.

Facebook's ban covers Trump’s access to Instagram. He has also lost access to Pinterest, Amazon-owned Twitch, and Snapchat. In addition, Reddit has banned a popular pro-Trump subreddit, though many others may remain.

So far, YouTube has only taken down individual Trump videos. It has yet to issue a blanket ban, but the newly organized Alphabet Workers Union has already begun to pressure the company, warning that YouTube “will continue to function as a vector for the growth of the fascist movements” if it continues to provide a stage for Trump and others.

Lucifer · 12-01-2021 11:18pm

Here are a list of the companies that have either cut ties with trump or have pulled donations to the GOP that were involved in the attempted block of the certification of the electoral college votes. some have suspended to both parties, but it is pretty obvious that the handling by Trump and the GOP is the cause.

This is just the ones I came across on 2/3 articles. Im sure if I look further more will probably have followed suit since they were published.

Do you honestly think they are all in collusion with each other? or with the president elect?

twitter
facebook
google
apple
amazon
marriott
blue cross
hallmark
stripe
deutsche bank
pga
signature bank
dow chemical
verizon communications
bank of america
goldman sachs
citigroup
jpmorgan chase
ford
3m
american airlines
the american investment council
archer-daniels-midland
boston scientific
blackrock
bp
coca-cola
conocophillips
duke energy
edison international
firstenergy
freeport-mcmorran
hilton
investment company institute
marathon petroleum
smithfield foods
united parcel service
valero energy
vanguard group
visa
shopify
commerce bancshares
airbnb
at&t
comcast
american express
mastercard
microsoft
best buy
intel

EDIT while CVS Health Corp., Exxon Mobil, TMobile, FedEx, Delta and Target said they are reviewing their political giving.

EDIT even parlers legal team have dropped parler and wont represent them any more.

Adyx · 13-01-2021 1:48am

BeerWolf wrote: »

All well and good, exception we're talking about a monopolizing company with a complete grip on the market. Apple on Apple Phones, obviously... and Google on Android.

What's next, block all right-wing content from ISP usage?

There's extreme hypocrisy going about, especially considering many people lost their lives during the BLM Riots... and that was all organized on Twitter and Facebook.

It's incredibly simple to side load apps on Android and even Apple phones if they're jailbroken. And even without an app, there's nothing stopping anyone from accessing the website via a browser once they get hosting. The fact that Parler (and Gab) existed at all and were so popular show that Twitter doesn't have the Monopoly you say it has.

Yes there was a lot of violence and looting during BLM but some of that was from right-aligned agitators and there wasn't calls for murders and kidnapping like there was on Parler. Titter is a cesspool, I'm not defending it, I wouldn't miss it if it was banned, but it's not the same situation.

Adyx · 13-01-2021 1:50am

timmyntc wrote: »

Child porn is illegal and should in no way come under protected speech/content.

Is a business allowed to refuse to hire people based on protected attributes? (race/gender etc)
Why should it be any different when it comes to a service they offer? Why should they be allowed to refuse service to someone based on an arbitrary set of standards they make up themselves?

If your ISP decided they weren't going to keep providing your service because your posts on boards.ie were rude and not up to their community standards, would you be okay with that?

In the US a business can refuse to do business with a customer because of their sexual orientation so I don't see why another business can't refuse a customer who allows threats of violence and insurrection.

cj maxx · 13-01-2021 2:32am

Stupid question. What's Parler?

13-01-2021 3:06am

cj maxx wrote: »

Stupid question. What's Parler?

An alternative social media platform, often used by people who would probably get kicked for saying certain things on twitter/fb.

Its a natural progression of the social media market, more alternatives popping up.
Parler users typically didnt like twitters environment, so up popped this new parler thing to cater to them.

There was Bebo and myspace, then there was fb and twitter.
Followed by tiktok and wechat.

Just like there are/were Bbc1 and Bbc2.
Then came channel 4 etc.

Parler is just another social media channel, there are a growing large number of them out there.

And even twitter, with its present large market share, is just another social media channel too.
Twitters competition will grow, just like happened for bebo and myspace, and channel 4 and all companies.

In the meantime I support twitters right to be as biased as they like, ultimately its just another company, just another bebo in the long run.

People, some of them hysterical, have decided that because they find twitter convenient and enjoyable that this means something has magically changed.
Twitter will lose market share over time, just like early newspapers/tv channels/websites did.

Edit.
The tabloids are shtheads, look at what they got up to with their bias. Eu is down a member after years of them pushing tory bollox. But hey ho, theyre entitled to their bias.
Most likely in cahoots with political interests from banking and cambridge analytica. Theyll have their corner of the market, with their ways of barring entry, their contracted distributors, their friends in printing and paper supply. Thats just business. I/you may not like it, but it doesnt mean theres something wrong.

Same with parler. Oh, did political interests and corporations leverage their industry connections to push you out. Well thats terrible. Welcome to business.

Kaybaykwah · 13-01-2021 3:09am

Lucifer wrote: »

Here are a list of the companies that have either cut ties with trump or have pulled donations to the GOP that were involved in the attempted block of the certification of the electoral college votes. some have suspended to both parties, but it is pretty obvious that the handling by Trump and the GOP is the cause.

This is just the ones I came across on 2/3 articles. Im sure if I look further more will probably have followed suit since they were published.

Do you honestly think they are all in collusion with each other? or with the president elect?

twitter
facebook
google
apple
amazon
marriott
blue cross
hallmark
stripe
deutsche bank
pga
signature bank
dow chemical
verizon communications
bank of america
goldman sachs
citigroup
jpmorgan chase
ford
3m
american airlines
the american investment council
archer-daniels-midland
boston scientific
blackrock
bp
coca-cola
conocophillips
duke energy
edison international
firstenergy
freeport-mcmorran
hilton
investment company institute
marathon petroleum
smithfield foods
united parcel service
valero energy
vanguard group
visa
shopify
commerce bancshares
airbnb
at&t
comcast
american express
mastercard
microsoft
best buy
intel

EDIT while CVS Health Corp., Exxon Mobil, TMobile, FedEx, Delta and Target said they are reviewing their political giving.

EDIT even parlers legal team have dropped parler and wont represent them any more.

Nothing to worry the Repugnant Party. Just a bunch of mom and pops, not.

ancapailldorcha · 13-01-2021 10:30am

cj maxx wrote: »

Stupid question. What's Parler?

Safe space version of Twitter for right wingers.

zom · 13-01-2021 11:23am

"Twitter is private business and they can ban whoever they want"

https://twitter.com/Policy/status/1349059275461685250
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-twitter-uganda-deplatform-conservatives-censorship-trump

RugbyLad11 · 13-01-2021 11:28am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

tell that to the police officer victim of the violence stoked up by posts on parler.

What about BLM using twitter to organize all their riots?

ohnonotgmail · 13-01-2021 11:30am

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

What about BLM using twitter to organize all their riots?

if you have a problem with twitter posts then report them. Parler existed simply to spread hate and violence.

sheesh · 19-01-2021 6:56pm

Mellor wrote: »

They archived whatever was posted to Parler.
They can't magically get Driver licenses and credit cards unless people posted them online.

Never said they did.

the person who got the stuff said that they got any stuff that was in the public part of the site that they did not hack it these people were putting up selfies of themselves inside the capitol Also that there were no licences the first report was bull****

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-01-2021 11:16pm

RugbyLad11 wrote: »

What about BLM using twitter to organize all their riots?

They didn't kill anyone in the Capitol.

Has parler gone dark?

Comments