Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship
Options
Comments
-
-
Many of the lads attacking the Capital were engaged in costume play. Adult dress up.
It may seem strange but that's largely true. The cable ties handcuffs are bizarre and inexplicable but they are just a prop, rather than being a practical item intended for use.
I don't think people wil be convicted of kidnap or on other serious charges simply because they're carrying zip tie cuffs.
It's dress up. Like doctors and nurses that children play. This is adults playing at being in the military.
It's not a crime to dress up and to engage in fantasy. There were crimes committed, there's no doubt of that. But not everyone is responsible. Lots of people got caught up in the atmosphere and were egged on to do things they wouldn't normally do. It's fairly hysterical to describe the events as a armed insurrection.
If Americans have nothing to do this problem will get worse. What I mean here is that if we offer a Universal Basic Income, and we legalise drugs like Orgeon have, then we could expect that people will hang around all day with nothing to do, and some of them will dress up like the military and parade about the place. There's open carry of weapons too in the States.0 -
Sure, it's all a joke, even their court cases and then they get sent to the greatest holiday camp in the world, where they can engage in prison cosplay for a long time.
I hope they're laughing when they're asked to pick up the soap.
https://seditiontracker.com/
Isn't this just screamingly funny?
Man, I laughed till I puked when I heard five people died.
Or are they just playing dead? Are they in on the joke?0 -
truth and logic wrote: »Many of the lads attacking the Capital were engaged in costume play. Adult dress up.
It may seem strange but that's largely true. The cable ties handcuffs are bizarre and inexplicable but they are just a prop, rather than being a practical item intended for use.
I don't think people wil be convicted of kidnap or on other serious charges simply because they're carrying zip tie cuffs.
It's dress up. Like doctors and nurses that children play. This is adults playing at being in the military.
It's not a crime to dress up and to engage in fantasy. There were crimes committed, there's no doubt of that. But not everyone is responsible. Lots of people got caught up in the atmosphere and were egged on to do things they wouldn't normally do. It's fairly hysterical to describe the events as a armed insurrection.
If Americans have nothing to do this problem will get worse. What I mean here is that if we offer a Universal Basic Income, and we legalise drugs like Orgeon have, then we could expect that people will hang around all day with nothing to do, and some of them will dress up like the military and parade about the place. There's open carry of weapons too in the States.
So it’s decriminalization of marijuana that caused it? Nothing to do with the type of people who make up Alex Jones fan base, the gun paranoia, end times types etc
This nonsense has been festering for years, it just came to the surface now because they think one of them is in the White House. Social media replaced the nonsense viral emails that used to do the rounds.0 -
silliussoddius wrote: »So it’s decriminalization of marijuana that caused it? Nothing to do with the type of people who make up Alex Jones fan base, the gun paranoia, end times types etc
This nonsense has been festering for years, it just came to the surface now because they think one of them is in the White House. Social media replaced the nonsense viral emails that used to do the rounds.
Why can't you stick to the subject of the thread title?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fighting Tao wrote: »You don’t seem to understand basic agreements, or much in reality. Even a child understands if they stick to their agreements they get a reward. Parler didn’t stick to their agreements and so the reward of services was removed. How is this so complicated to you?
Parler were not given sufficient time to remove content that was deemed to have served as breach of contract. They were given 24 hours and when they tried to make contact with Apple they were ignored..
If you are late on your electricity bill you will be sent a letter. You will then be sent a reminder, and another and another. They will not just pull the plug on you and not only that they will not ignore you if you try to reach out to them to rectify the situation.
The situation may have been that you missed a payment and for whatever reason couldn't respond to the letters. You might have been in a coma from a car accident. You might have been stranded overseas with no access to your mail. Whatever. They aren't just going to halt your service with no discussion and no recourse.
You are trying to say that Parler knowingly broke the T&C and ten blatantly refused to comply.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Parler were not given sufficient time to remove content that was deemed to have served as breach of contract. They were given 24 hours and when they tried to make contact with Apple they were ignored..
If you are late on your electricity bill you will be sent a letter. You will then be sent a reminder, and another and another. They will not just pull the plug on you and not only that they will not ignore you if you try to reach out to them to rectify the situation.
The situation may have been that you missed a payment and for whatever reason couldn't respond to the letters. You might have been in a coma from a car accident. You might have been stranded overseas with no access to your mail. Whatever. They aren't just going to halt your service with no discussion and no recourse.
You are trying to say that Parler knowingly broke the T&C and ten blatantly refused to comply.
Yes they did knowingly break their agreement. Along with the one with Amazon and Google. The problem with the people who run apps in the way Parler was run, and their extremist user base is that no matter how wrong they are, and how many agreements they break, they are too stupid to see it.
It is very obvious that you don’t have a conspiracy theory at all, and you just want to moan about Parler being off the air. You seem to take it as a personal slight. So go on...tell us how much money you lost to either Parler, or grifters on it since you lost access to them.0 -
Fighting Tao wrote: »Yes they did knowingly break their agreement. Along with the one with Amazon and Google. The problem with the people who run apps in the way Parler was run, and their extremist user base is that no matter how wrong they are, and how many agreements they break, they are too stupid to see it.
It is very obvious that you don’t have a conspiracy theory at all, and you just want to moan about Parler being off the air. You seem to take it as a personal slight. So go on...tell us how much money you lost to either Parler, or grifters on it since you lost access to them.
Explain why Parler was taken down.
Try to do this without the infantile dig about me losing money. I didn't. No moreso than I didn't lose any money or gain any money discussing anything else.
You state that Parler was crushed because they refused to take down content that was contrary to the TOC of the hosting site/company....is that right?
You say that they knowingly broke their contract (you said so above). Consequently, were Parler given the time to answer their (what you and others claim) flagrant and ongoing abuse of service or were they simply terminated with no recourse?
I will ask once again. What did Parler do to warrant this that they didn't do upon going live in 2018?
In conclusion what has Parler broadcast that has not been broadcast on other fora?0 -
ReginaldSmythV wrote: »Being banned from Twitter isn’t curtailing freedom of speech.
Trump formerly would ban people from his account but a court ruled that such actions are not permissable so I am not so sure that Twitter counts as a normal private place. Many Irish state agenicies will ban people from their social media and its not clear how legal that is.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »Trump formerly would ban people from his account but [b[a court ruled that such actions are not permissable so I am not so sure that Twitter counts as a normal private place. [/b]Many Irish state agenicies will ban people from their social media and its not clear how legal that is.
The ruling was because Trump was tweeting as the POTUS and therefore HE couldn't ban people from his account.0 -
Advertisement
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »Explain why Parler was taken down.
Try to do this without the infantile dig about me losing money. I didn't. No moreso than I didn't lose any money or gain any money discussing anything else.
You state that Parler was crushed because they refused to take down content that was contrary to the TOC of the hosting site/company....is that right?
You say that they knowingly broke their contract (you said so above). Consequently, were Parler given the time to answer their (what you and others claim) flagrant and ongoing abuse of service or were they simply terminated with no recourse?
I will ask once again. What did Parler do to warrant this that they didn't do upon going live in 2018?
In conclusion what has Parler broadcast that has not been broadcast on other fora?
Look at amazons statement on the issue, apples and Google’s too. I am not your search engine, although I’d be more honest than the one you use!
RE Parker’s launch in 2018.....how were their suppliers meant to know what it would develop into? Are Apple, Amazon and Google psychic?0 -
I've just read through the entire thread and I still don't understand what the conspiracy is supposed to be? Your position seems to be based on a lack of understanding of the entire concept of freedom of speech in US law.ShatterAlan wrote: »By your logic a trad band in a bar can be shut down and hauled off for singing
"Come out ye Black & Tans"
"Highland Paddy"
These songs speak of violence and maybe you might find them innocuous but there's always some stuffed shirt stick in the mud who might classify them as inciteful.
Tom Jones' "Delilah" speaks of a tormented man knifing his partner because he couldn't take her abuse.
How many Heavy Metal and rap songs glorify violence.
Anything can be construed as inciteful if you do enough verbal hoop-jumping.
There's a big difference between standing up and urging people to go out and commit acts of violence, and simply telling stories. But therein lies the rub. Most people with half a brain know the difference. If it is deigned and deemed that what you say "could" be inciteful then anything can be painted in such a light if the object is to silence the message.
This is a total misunderstanding of incitement to violence and how it relates to freedom of speech and the first amendment in US law. Incitement to violence is covered under the more broader concept in US law of incitement to imminent lawless action.
'Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.'
Basically in order for the First Amendment to not apply you have to both be inciting the actions to happen imminently, not at some vague time in the future, and there has to be a reasonable expectation that your words could lead people to take those actions. This is the established interpretation in US case law and has been set as precedent for over 50 years. In order for this interpretation to change this precedent would need to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
For example, if I posted on Twitter saying 'I think we should all march on Washington and take the country back!' this would fail on both counts. I haven't given any clear idea of when I want this to happen and no one would listen to me anyway.
However, if Trump addresses a rally of his own supporters not far from the White House, firstly telling them to 'walk down to the Capitol' and that “You will never take back our country with weakness” and when they get there telling them to “take the country back” you could reasonably argue that this meets both tests for incitement to lawless action.
Now, having said all that, none of this has anything to do with social media platforms. The First Amendment only protects your right to freedom of speech from government interference. The government cannot arrest or harass you based purely on what you say (except for some notable exceptional situations like above). Private citizens and companies are not obliged to offer someone a platform to say whatever they want. Regardless of what the message is if someone ask to put up a sign in my front garden I can say no. Likewise a shop owner can refuse to put a flyer up in a window, newspapers can opt not to publish a letter and social media platforms can refuse access to their platform. None of these are a violation of free speech under US law.
If the conspiracy is that the Capitol Hill riots are being used by social media companies as a pretext to censorship this doesn't make sense for 2 major reasons.
The first is the idea that, as I said already, the platforms need a pretext to censor anyone to begin with. They don't, as private platforms they are not submit to the First Amendment and are not obliged to provide a platform to anyone. They are free to ban whoever they want or remove whatever content they deem fit, and indeed they regularly do.
The second is that Trump throughout his presidency has routinely made posts that violate Twitters TOS and had it been anyone other than the POTUS posting the things he did he would have been banned years ago. It took both an end to Trumps presidency and a literal attempted insurrection for Twitter to remove him from their platform. The conspiracy here isn't why are they censoring Trump, it's why have they allowed him a platform for so long to begin with?0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »The ruling was because Trump was tweeting as the POTUS and therefore HE couldn't ban people from his account.
yes and at some level it works both ways. There is definately somekind of defacto monopology at play as well which is very sinister. Also the tweet that supposedly got him banned was extremely mild and there is no clear relationship to the terms of service from what I can see.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »yes and at some level it works both ways. There is definately somekind of defacto monopology at play as well which is very sinister. Also the tweet that supposedly got him banned was extremely mild and there is no clear relationship to the terms of service from what I can see.
It wasn't one tweet that got him banned it was his repeated breaches if the TOS that got him banned.0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »It wasn't one tweet that got him banned it was his repeated breaches if the TOS that got him banned.
I dont believe that. It is really the tyrany of who regulations are ienforced against. Meanwhile you have officials joking about genocides they are orgnising in China who remain unbanned.0 -
How is it a monopoly?Yellow_Fern wrote: »yes and at some level it works both ways. There is definately somekind of defacto monopology at play as well which is very sinister. Also the tweet that supposedly got him banned was extremely mild and there is no clear relationship to the terms of service from what I can see.
Was Trump somehow unable to communicate with people without his social media accounts?0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »I dont believe that. It is really the tyrany of who regulations are ienforced against. Meanwhile you have officials joking about genocides they are orgnising in China who remain unbanned.
You might not believe it but Twitter themselves have openly admitted that Trumps account was afforded special privileges that would cease to apply when he left office.Mr. Trump is currently able to tweet with less risk, compared with private citizens, of having tweets taken down or his account suspended. Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, which has more than 88 million followers, will no longer receive special privileges when he becomes a private citizen, Twitter spokesman Nick Pacilio said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-will-face-different-twitter-rules-when-he-leaves-office-116086421980 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »I've just read through the entire thread and I still don't understand what the conspiracy is supposed to be? Your position seems to be based on a lack of understanding of the entire concept of freedom of speech in US law.
This is a total misunderstanding of incitement to violence and how it relates to freedom of speech and the first amendment in US law. Incitement to violence is covered under the more broader concept in US law of incitement to imminent lawless action.
'Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.'
Basically in order for the First Amendment to not apply you have to both be inciting the actions to happen imminently, not at some vague time in the future, and there has to be a reasonable expectation that your words could lead people to take those actions. This is the established interpretation in US case law and has been set as precedent for over 50 years. In order for this interpretation to change this precedent would need to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
For example, if I posted on Twitter saying 'I think we should all march on Washington and take the country back!' this would fail on both counts. I haven't given any clear idea of when I want this to happen and no one would listen to me anyway.
However, if Trump addresses a rally of his own supporters not far from the White House, firstly telling them to 'walk down to the Capitol' and that “You will never take back our country with weakness” and when they get there telling them to “take the country back” you could reasonably argue that this meets both tests for incitement to lawless action.
Now, having said all that, none of this has anything to do with social media platforms. The First Amendment only protects your right to freedom of speech from government interference. The government cannot arrest or harass you based purely on what you say (except for some notable exceptional situations like above). Private citizens and companies are not obliged to offer someone a platform to say whatever they want. Regardless of what the message is if someone ask to put up a sign in my front garden I can say no. Likewise a shop owner can refuse to put a flyer up in a window, newspapers can opt not to publish a letter and social media platforms can refuse access to their platform. None of these are a violation of free speech under US law.
If the conspiracy is that the Capitol Hill riots are being used by social media companies as a pretext to censorship this doesn't make sense for 2 major reasons.
The first is the idea that, as I said already, the platforms need a pretext to censor anyone to begin with. They don't, as private platforms they are not submit to the First Amendment and are not obliged to provide a platform to anyone. They are free to ban whoever they want or remove whatever content they deem fit, and indeed they regularly do.
The second is that Trump throughout his presidency has routinely made posts that violate Twitters TOS and had it been anyone other than the POTUS posting the things he did he would have been banned years ago. It took both an end to Trumps presidency and a literal attempted insurrection for Twitter to remove him from their platform. The conspiracy here isn't why are they censoring Trump, it's why have they allowed him a platform for so long to begin with?
And this is where you are wrong.
In the case of Claiborne vs NAACP the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, admirably so, because although heated speeches by Black leaders and representatives, railing against injustice, corruption, and police brutality, they never once advocated the use of violence. Boycotts and riots ensued in the aftermath of those speeches but that was tangential to the message.
The NAACP was found to be not liable for the actions taken by others.
The First Amendment ALSO explicitly protects the rights of one despite his/her affiliation to another.
To put it simply. You can speak out against abortion as being murderous. If someone petrolbombs a clinic YOU are not liable as inciteful. Likewise if you espouse a Woman's Right to Choose and somebody machine guns a Catholic Church or a group of pro-life activists, again yopu are not liable. Your words didn't promote this violence.
If I come out and say that I think Bono is a wanker and that I hate his guts and then someone tries to burn his house down after hearing my diatribe, am I inciting violence?
But the new paradigm in the US that has been metastisising and festering of late will now blur the lines of such clear cut boundaries.
Listen carefully, and slowly, to what this FaceBook guy is saying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MT_lydFAmk&feature=youtu.be
And this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-administration-urged-to-take-fresh-look-at-domestic-terrorism-11605279834
Using the same techniques abroad in wars (of choice and aggression) are now being touted and recommended by the many at the top to be delivered at home.
I hate to say I told you so but as the title of my OP clearly states, a new swath of draconian measures to stifle dissent are in the pipeline.
The problem is this .... if something is already criminal then why must it be criminalized? The next problem is that a lot of people don't care because they'd never say anything that would ruffle feathers so they can't see how such measures would affect them. Except they might and they would and they will.
Go ahead...make homosexuality illegal and punishable by incarceration or death. Why should I care? I'm straight and so is everyone I know including my brother who likes disco dancing and hates football or boxing. Then someone says that I'm a f@g and lo and behold I'm hauled off for questioning or worse.
The new concept is now to paint ANYTHNG as inciteful no matter how innocuous. If it needs to be silenced it shall be silenced under the weight of the law. Private companies are determining who can say what and that is not only wrong, it is dangerous.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »I dont believe that. It is really the tyrany of who regulations are ienforced against. Meanwhile you have officials joking about genocides they are orgnising in China who remain unbanned.
You had Hillary cackling "We came, we saw, he died." When Ghadaffi was bent over a car and disemboweled.
She also said "Can't we just drone this guy?" in reference to Julian Assange.
John McCain sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb, Iran" how cutesy and tongue in cheek of the old bastard. It still strikes me as inciteful to violence, if not genocide.
Then you have, what's that dick's name Mattis coming out and saying "it's fun to kill people".
A general saying it's great craic to kill is probably the best line of incitement to violence specifically among those cromagnons who don't need too much personal thought to follow a ghoul and his ways.0 -
Defacto monopology, rather than classical monopology.How is it a monopoly?
Was Trump somehow unable to communicate with people without his social media accounts?
Across the board synchronized banned indicates a defacto monopology to me. I am not saying it was illegal, but I am saying it is unethical.
Indeed conservatives who were mere grunts get banned for far less.IAmTheReign wrote: »You might not believe it but Twitter themselves have openly admitted that Trumps account was afforded special privileges that would cease to apply when he left office.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-will-face-different-twitter-rules-when-he-leaves-office-11608642198
I believe he was given a certain about privileges as a president but at the same he was given certain disadvantages for being Trump too. The two can be true at once. Trump said some crazy and bad stuff on Tweeter but he never Tweeted anything outright racist or outright incitement to violence but you can find ample cases of both by the left or outside of English speaking countries where the left and right terms don’t apply. Strangely people here are saying I am wrong but wont really address this point.
It is like how Obama corruptly had their tax service go after conservatives, it was a case of using a legitimate strong arm (enforcement) for an evil purpose.0 -
Advertisement
-
But Trump still had access to media outlets. He had his own press corps.Yellow_Fern wrote: »Defacto monopology, rather than classical monopology.
Across the board synchronized banned indicates a defacto monopology to me. I am not saying it was illegal, but I am saying it is unethical.
How did this monopoly stop him from using that?0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »And this is where you are wrong.
In the case of Claiborne vs NAACP the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, admirably so, because although heated speeches by Black leaders and representatives, railing against injustice, corruption, and police brutality, they never once advocated the use of violence. Boycotts and riots ensued in the aftermath of those speeches but that was tangential to the message.
The NAACP was found to be not liable for the actions taken by others.
The First Amendment ALSO explicitly protects the rights of one despite his/her affiliation to another.
To put it simply. You can speak out against abortion as being murderous. If someone petrolbombs a clinic YOU are not liable as inciteful. Likewise if you espouse a Woman's Right to Choose and somebody machine guns a Catholic Church or a group of pro-life activists, again yopu are not liable. Your words didn't promote this violence.
If I come out and say that I think Bono is a wanker and that I hate his guts and then someone tries to burn his house down after hearing my diatribe, am I inciting violence?
No? Did you read what I posted?
'Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.'
That is the criteria your words would need to meet in order to be considered as inciting violence. You have not directed anyone to do anything to Bono, and I have no reason to think anyone would listen to you if you did anyway.ShatterAlan wrote: »But the new paradigm in the US that has been metastisising and festering of late will now blur the lines of such clear cut boundaries.
Listen carefully, and slowly, to what this FaceBook guy is saying:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MT_lydFAmk&feature=youtu.be
Facebook are already allowed to censor whoever they want. They are not subject to the first amendment as a private entity.
And this:ShatterAlan wrote: »
And? That article has nothing to do with internet censorship.ShatterAlan wrote: »Using the same techniques abroad in wars (of choice and aggression) are now being touted and recommended by the many at the top to be delivered at home.
I hate to say I told you so but as the title of my OP clearly states, a new swath of draconian measures to stifle dissent are in the pipeline.
But you haven't presented any evidence that that is the case. Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. has always enforced a measure of censorship. They don't need new 'draconian measures' to censor people.ShatterAlan wrote: »The problem is this .... if something is already criminal then why must it be criminalized? The next problem is that a lot of people don't care because they'd never say anything that would ruffle feathers so they can't see how such measures would affect them. Except they might and they would and they will.
Go ahead...make homosexuality illegal and punishable by incarceration or death. Why should I care? I'm straight and so is everyone I know including my brother who likes disco dancing and hates football or boxing. Then someone says that I'm a f@g and lo and behold I'm hauled off for questioning or worse.
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. You do not have to do or say something criminal for a social media platform to remove your post or ban you.ShatterAlan wrote: »The new concept is now to paint ANYTHNG as inciteful no matter how innocuous. If it needs to be silenced it shall be silenced under the weight of the law. Private companies are determining who can say what and that is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. Under US law private companies are already allowed to censor whoever they want. You can argue that it might be wrong but that is the case as it stands currently. It is not a conspiracy.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »I dont believe that. It is really the tyrany of who regulations are ienforced against. Meanwhile you have officials joking about genocides they are orgnising in China who remain unbanned.
A salient point.0 -
IAmTheReign wrote: »No? Did you read what I posted?
'Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.'
That is the criteria your words would need to meet in order to be considered as inciting violence. You have not directed anyone to do anything to Bono, and I have no reason to think anyone would listen to you if you did anyway.
Facebook are already allowed to censor whoever they want. They are not subject to the first amendment as a private entity.
And this:
And? That article has nothing to do with internet censorship.
But you haven't presented any evidence that that is the case. Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. has always enforced a measure of censorship. They don't need new 'draconian measures' to censor people.
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here. You do not have to do or say something criminal for a social media platform to remove your post or ban you.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. Under US law private companies are already allowed to censor whoever they want. You can argue that it might be wrong but that is the case as it stands currently. It is not a conspiracy.
Corporations shut down a competitor [Parler].
They also banned the US President from their platform, This augurs badly for freedom of speech.
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?
Why did European leaders vociforously speak out against the Trump ban? Even though those leaders had no "skin in the game"?
Point to me where and when Trump spoke that advocated and encouraged violence.
I challenge you that.0 -
ShatterAlan wrote: »Corporations shut down a competitor [Parler].
They also banned the US President from their platform, This augurs badly for freedom of speech.
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?
Why did European leaders vociforously speak out against the Trump ban? Even though those leaders had no "skin in the game"?
Point to me where and when Trump spoke that advocated and encouraged violence.
I challenge you that.
Parler was not a competitor of Google, Amazon, or Apple!!
You don’t appear to understand what a business competitor is. Another item added to your “do not understand” list.
Also you have been told a million times why Trump was banned. Even my 2.5 year old understands keeping to agreements. I presume you are a grown adult and you fail at understanding it. Now, he does throw tantrums like yourself and Trump when he has to keep to agreements, but emotions are something children generally learn to handle.0 -
Well they are if you assume that all tech companies and government officials are part of a big giant secret conspiracy.Fighting Tao wrote: »Parler was not a competitor of Google, Amazon, or Apple!!
You don’t appear to understand what a business competitor is. Another item added to your “do not understand” list.0 -
-
It may very well be used to increase censorship but it wasn't necessary0
-
Fighting Tao wrote: »Parler was not a competitor of Google, Amazon, or Apple!!
You don’t appear to understand what a business competitor is. Another item added to your “do not understand” list.
Also you have been told a million times why Trump was banned. Even my 2.5 year old understands keeping to agreements. I presume you are a grown adult and you fail at understanding it. Now, he does throw tantrums like yourself and Trump when he has to keep to agreements, but emotions are something children generally learn to handle.
It was a competitor of Twitter. Apple and Amazon are not competitors per se but they act in each others interests.
The common brainfart for a lot of people is "if you don't like Twitter's restrictions and codes of conduct such as monetizing your personal detail then go off and set up your own platform". That's what the founders of Parler did and they became one of the most downloaded apps in the store. They had their own T&C and banned any content promoting violence. They had a team of paid moderators to sift through content and judge what should be removed and what should be allowed and they certainly had quite a backlog. Apple gave them 24 hours notice to adhere to their T&C without explaining what their breach was. They then refused to take Parler's phone calls and simply pulled them from the App Store.0 -
Advertisement
-
ShatterAlan wrote: »It was a competitor of Twitter. Apple and Amazon are not competitors per se but they act in each others interests.
The common brainfart for a lot of people is "if you don't like Twitter's restrictions and codes of conduct such as monetizing your personal detail then go off and set up your own platform". That's what the founders of Parler did and they became one of the most downloaded apps in the store. They had their own T&C and banned any content promoting violence. They had a team of paid moderators to sift through content and judge what should be removed and what should be allowed and they certainly had quite a backlog. Apple gave them 24 hours notice to adhere to their T&C without explaining what their breach was. They then refused to take Parler's phone calls and simply pulled them from the App Store.
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:0
Advertisement