Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

truth and logic · 13-01-2021 6:24pm

Amazon Web Services shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on their customers about content.

If content breaks the law it could be taken down and the police could be called. Otherwise, all content is fine and should be left up.

Providers of web services should be like electricity providers, with a universal service mandate.

Web Services shouldn't be allowed impose conditions on content which are more restrictive than the law allows.

There are still problems with my proposed system but far fewer problems. Parler shouldn't have been banned. Referred to the police perhaps, (and perhaps temporarily banned), but not permo banned.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 6:32pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't presented any conspiracy theory. That was another poster who presented a vague conspiracy notion that they walked back with "I'm not actually a conspiracy advocate" in the next post, ergo it was dropped.

Eh I didn't drop anything. You simply read my post and said "that's one way of looking at it" and then gave one line glib remark."well I don't think so.."

Do u care to refute any of the examples I gave. If there's no conspiracy then why are rules selectively enforced?

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 6:34pm

truth and logic wrote: »

Amazon Web Services shouldn't be allowed to impose conditions on their customers about content.

If content breaks the law it could be taken down and the police could be called. Otherwise, all content is fine and should be left up.

Providers of web services should be like electricity providers, with a universal service mandate.

Web Services shouldn't be allowed impose conditions on content which are more restrictive than the law allows.

There are still problems with my proposed system but far fewer problems. Parler shouldn't have been banned. Referred to the police perhaps, (and perhaps temporarily banned), but not permo banned.

Parler was suspended.

Amazon had been contacting Parler for many weeks prior to the event over the violent threats on the site, which Parler refused to remove. Since these were a violation of Amazon's T&C, Parler was suspended.

It's disgusting stuff. Have a read.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 6:39pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Eh I didn't drop anything. You simply read my post and said "that's one way of looking at it" and then gave one line glib remark."well I don't think so.."

Do u care to refute any of the examples I gave. If there's no conspiracy then why are rules selectively enforced?

Right. I read your points which were just your general views related to the issue. You didn't provide any specific detailed conspiracy.

If you believe a conspiracy took place, then what are the details/timeline of that conspiracy?

silliussoddius · 13-01-2021 6:42pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

According to a Parler Executive who informed Glenn Greenwald.

You expect me to trust a big tech CEO?

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 6:45pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Right. I read your points which were just your general views related to the issue. You didn't provide any specific detailed conspiracy.

If you believe a conspiracy took place, then what are the details/timeline of that conspiracy?

What's the actual point? I wrote out a very specific set of examples with which you could engage. You didn't. Now u don't want a theory, you want me to waste my time writing a PhD on a chat board that you're going to hand waive away anyway.

As an aside, do you think the bakery was right or wrong to refuse to bake the cake. Do you think twitter should be pulled from Internet servers when I could easily load up several tweets of hate right now from both sides?

13-01-2021 6:49pm

It's still not "censorship" though, to my mind. It's a bunch of companies walking back their services when it comes to Donald Trump or the Trump Organisation.

It's an open secret that Twitter were going to start treating Trump like any other user once he was no longer the U.S. President. Jack Dorsey has stated this in the past. Then, Jan 6th happened and everything changed.

Since then a bunch of other companies / organisations have also distanced themselves from Trump;
Shopify
Stripe
Paypal
GoFundMe
Deutsche Bank
New York City
The U.S. P.G.A

That list is going to get longer and longer. I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm not aware of.

Re the publisher / platform issue, I don't know enough about it to argue one way or another but my limited understanding is that Trump issued an executive order to enforce his interpretation that Twitter and FB could now be considered publishers, not platforms. You could argue this was more to suit himself, than others. A conspiracy theory in itself, perhaps.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 6:57pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's still not "censorship" though, to my mind. It's a bunch of companies walking back their services when it comes to Donald Trump or the Trump Organisation.

It's an open secret that Twitter were going to start treating Trump like any other user once he was no longer the U.S. President. Jack Dorsey has stated this in the past. Then, Jan 6th happened and everything changed.

Re the publisher / platform issue, I don't know enough about it to argue one way or another but my limited understanding is that Trump issued an executive order to enforce his interpretation that Twitter and FB could now be considered publishers, not platforms. You could argue this was more to suit himself, than others. A conspiracy theory in itself, perhaps.

Just to muddy the water again, and I don't even know who this helps, but I remember last year that the supreme Court made it illegal for Trump to block other users or to limit those who can reply to him as he was carrying out govt business. This is clearly more than a "private company, our rules" scenario.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 7:07pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

What's the actual point? I wrote out a very specific set of examples with which you could engage. You didn't.

Appears to be a case of crossed wires so. I read your points but they seem related to a normal current affairs/politics discussion of the topic at hand.

However I was asking for details of a specific conspiracy.

truth and logic · 13-01-2021 7:08pm

Twitter deleted Trump's previous tweets. Why was that necessary?

Historicans need access to that stuff. Apparently it's gone.

In many ways it's surprising that Trump didn't move from Twitter years ago. He never owned his tweets, and he never had a list of his 80 million followers. Twitter owns those things.

Trump is famous for using legal agreements to screw people over. Now, Twitter have done the same to him.

Trump could have moved to a nascent social media network two years ago or so, and demanded part ownership, and he'd have brought 50 million people with him immediately.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 7:15pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't presented any conspiracy theory. That was another poster who presented a vague conspiracy notion that they walked back with "I'm not actually a conspiracy advocate" in the next post, ergo it was dropped.

I have.
so has smacruari and the mod has even tried to explain it to you.

If what we are discussing here doesn't fall within the parameters of what you personally would classify as a conspiracy then you are perfectly free to not waste your time by engaging in the discussion.

If it doesn't satisfy your criteria or that you just don't understand then why are you even participating?

You've already tried to derail the thread by deflecting to irrelevant issues. The crux of the debate has been laid out for you in very simple terms. You don't want to take it on board so now you are just being obtuse.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 7:18pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

However I was asking for details of a specific conspiracy.

Why? The theory is that social media giants are using the riots of last week as a way to silence ideologies they disagree with to strengthen their hold over the internet to monitor social discourse which in turn influences politics. The basis for this theory is the multiude of examples and logical hypocrisies that have been observed with regards to these companies. Other than that, not much more is known. That's why people are offering opinions and nuggets here as they try to divine the truth, or to confirm their reality.

If you want this thread to be lads in tinfoil hats howling at the moon im sure you can find other threads for your amusement.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 7:28pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It was also orchestrated on Parler.

One of the reasons Amazon stopped hosting Parler is because of extreme content that threatened public safety "such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens,"
https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/13/956362434/amazon-says-parler-systematically-unwilling-to-remove-violent-content

And within your link:

"During one of the calls, according to Amazon's filing, Parler's CEO reported a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violated its community standards but remained posted."

Parler has Terms Of Service that ban incitement to violence.

If their moderators are working around the clock to remove content that breaches these terms and that's not good enough for Amazon/Google/Apple then it's hardly Parler's fault.

Amazon explicity stated that Parler was unwilling to remove such content. Parler says otherwise.

But leaving aside the entire Parler imbroglio, I originally posited that the Capitol events will be used to crack down on speech whether it is inciteful or otherwise.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 7:30pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They didn't delete a lot of the stuff. Far-right nuts flocked to it for that reason.

Are you trying to say that Parler allowed content which violated their Terms Of Service to remain online?

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 7:35pm

silliussoddius wrote: »

You expect me to trust a big tech CEO?

Well I suppose that's up to you.

You asked me a question and I answered it.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 7:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's still not "censorship" though, to my mind. It's a bunch of companies walking back their services when it comes to Donald Trump or the Trump Organisation.

It's an open secret that Twitter were going to start treating Trump like any other user once he was no longer the U.S. President. Jack Dorsey has stated this in the past. Then, Jan 6th happened and everything changed.

Since then a bunch of other companies / organisations have also distanced themselves from Trump;
Shopify
Stripe
Paypal
GoFundMe
Deutsche Bank
New York City
The U.S. P.G.A

That list is going to get longer and longer. I'm sure there are plenty more that I'm not aware of.

Re the publisher / platform issue, I don't know enough about it to argue one way or another but my limited understanding is that Trump issued an executive order to enforce his interpretation that Twitter and FB could now be considered publishers, not platforms. You could argue this was more to suit himself, than others. A conspiracy theory in itself, perhaps.

And since then, World politicians, including Angel Merkel, French legislators, Obrador of Mexico and a plethora of others have voiced their dismay and shock at such a flagrant display of media authoritarianism.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 7:56pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why? The theory is that social media giants are using the riots of last week as a way to silence ideologies they disagree with to strengthen their hold over the internet to monitor social discourse which in turn influences politics. The basis for this theory is the multiude of examples and logical hypocrisies that have been observed with regards to these companies. Other than that, not much more is known. That's why people are offering opinions and nuggets here as they try to divine the truth, or to confirm their reality.

If you want this thread to be lads in tinfoil hats howling at the moon im sure you can find other threads for your amusement.

Another theory is that after years of disinformation, Trump overstepped his mark by inciting an attack on a sitting Congress, which subsequently caused social media platforms, companies, banks and organisations (e.g. the PGA) to disassociate or block him.

However, as mentioned, I am asking about an actual conspiracy theory, and nothing coherent has been provided in this thread, only vague "appeal to motive" notions.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 7:57pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Are you trying to say that Parler allowed content which violated their Terms Of Service to remain online?

Violated Amazon's ToS

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 8:24pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

However, as mentioned, I am asking about an actual conspiracy theory, and nothing coherent has been provided in this thread, only vague "appeal to motive" notions.

You know what a conspiracy theory is, right? You know what those words mean?

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[6]

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 8:35pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

You know what a conspiracy theory is, right? You know what those words mean?

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4][5] The term has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[6]

Right, so this theory..

Is it an idea based on concrete evidence, if yes, what's that evidence?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 8:37pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Why? The theory is that social media giants are using the riots of last week as a way to silence ideologies they disagree with to strengthen their hold over the internet to monitor social discourse which in turn influences politics. The basis for this theory is the multiude of examples and logical hypocrisies that have been observed with regards to these companies. Other than that, not much more is known. That's why people are offering opinions and nuggets here as they try to divine the truth, or to confirm their reality.

If you want this thread to be lads in tinfoil hats howling at the moon im sure you can find other threads for your amusement.

I’d say that social media companies do not wish to be associated with an insurrection that attempted to overthrow a bastion of democracy, and so removed the orchestrator. They may even be complicit as enabling him, and so removed themselves from the equation. That is a fair enough reason to get rid of him and his supporters.

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 8:38pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

That's not what happened. The knives were being sharpened for Parler some time ago. Parler afforded its users much higher degrees of privacy and freedom of speech than the SV tech giants. It also prevented monetization of user details to third parties. It was an upstart competitor and was subsequently crushed. Apple gave Parler 24 hours to change its policies and then effectively took the phone off the hook when Parler tried to reply.

Whatever happened at Capitol Hill was for the most part orchestrated via Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. None of those arrested were Parler account holders.

Why were the knives sharpened for Parker? Maybe because they kept breaking the rules they agreed to adhere to?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 8:40pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So you're effectively saying that the internet is the property of Google/Apple/Amazon.

I have no idea of how many companies provide hosting services, infrastructure etc., but It’s probably in the tens of thousands. Everyone knows this.

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 8:41pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

No it ISN'T and this has been pointed out time and time again. You just can't seem to get it into your head or you refuse to because your ego won't let you.

Your pub analogy is weak. A better analogy would be that you open your own pub on the street but the handful of owners of the other pubs burn your premises to the ground and run you out of town because they don't look kindly on the fact that their punters are migrating to your establishment and they don't like the competition.

Eh, no.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 8:45pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I’d say that social media companies do not wish to be associated with an insurrection that attempted to overthrow a bastion of democracy, and so removed the orchestrator. They may even be complicit as enabling him, and so removed themselves from the equation. That is a fair enough reason to get rid of him and his supporters.

If you agree with all that, then why have they not gotten rid of the Chinese govt on twitter, which spread disinformation about their practices at ethnic cleansing. Why was Pelosi not sanctioned for declaring the election in 2016 was rigged. Hillary has said the election was stolen from her, again no sanction.

Youd swear I'm a supporter of trump the way I'm being painted into a corner here! I'm saying for a company that want to be a platform not liable for the content they host, porn, violence, snuff etc, they seemed to take a very direct approach to one particular ideology.

I only glanced at trumps tweets, I didn't dissect them. I'm happy to be shown the light here and will do so, but can you point me to where it can be legally demonstrated that he was the "orchestrator of an insurrection". Did he direct a mob to violently attack the Capitol, and did he refuse to try to calm the situation?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 8:53pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

If you agree with all that, then why have they not gotten rid of the Chinese govt on twitter, which spread disinformation about their practices at ethnic cleansing. Why was Pelosi not sanctioned for declaring the election in 2016 was rigged. Hillary has said the election was stolen from her, again no sanction.

Youd swear I'm a supporter of trump the way I'm being painted into a corner here! I'm saying for a company that want to be a platform not liable for the content they host, porn, violence, snuff etc, they seemed to take a very direct approach to one particular ideology.

I only glanced at trumps tweets, I didn't dissect them. I'm happy to be shown the light here and will do so, but can you point me to where it can be legally demonstrated that he was the "orchestrator of an insurrection". Did he direct a mob to violently attack the Capitol, and did he refuse to try to calm the situation?

Have the Chinese government instigated a coup in the US?

He held a rally beforehand to rile up his followers, and here are just two nuggets. You should watch the speech online if you can.

“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”, and, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

Now in typical Trump fashion, he lied and did not go to the Capitol with them.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 8:59pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Have the Chinese government instigated a coup in the US?

He held a rally beforehand to rile up his followers, and here are just two nuggets. You should watch the speech online if you can.

“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”, and, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

Now in typical Trump fashion, he lied and did not go to the Capitol with them.

The Chinese have broken the tos of twitter is my point.

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there,it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 9:03pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Another theory is that after years of disinformation, Trump overstepped his mark by inciting an attack on a sitting Congress, which subsequently caused social media platforms, companies, banks and organisations (e.g. the PGA) to disassociate or block him.

However, as mentioned, I am asking about an actual conspiracy theory, and nothing coherent has been provided in this thread, only vague "appeal to motive" notions.

We are discussing censorship here and monopoly control of media.

You keep bringing up Trump's incitement of the Capitol incident. Why? Why do you insist on not getting the message of the thread or are you just revelling in being a fly in the ointment?

And AGAIN you ask for a conspiracy, one that has been shown to you and then on top of that you insist on a "timeline".

I'll try, one last time, to get it into your head.

Nobody here is excusing speech that calls for violence, rape, torture, murder. Do you have that so far? Are we on the same page so far?

People are also chiming in that Parler is sh1t and deserved to be destroyed. Funnily they are free to say such things. Are will still on the same page?

My original post was that the events of January 6th will be used as a pretext to shutdown free speech under the guise of it being inciteful. Are you still on board? Have I lost you?

A handful of your fellow travellers seem to have sloped off after their pub analogies and claims of completely irrelevant activity have been exposed as just that..irrelevant.

Nobody except YOU and a few minions are talking about Trump being banned for inflammatory talk. that is not what this discussion is about but you are still playing your game perhaps to exasperate others beyond endurance.

Trump was broadcast on many news outlets such as Fox News, CNN and others AS WELL as online platforms saying things like "I'd like to punch him in the face" or encouraging security guards to rough up protesters at his rallies and that he would pay the legal fees for their defences. Did Fox, CNN, YouTube get pulled of the air for this?

NO.

So the big players are not in the slightest bit interested in the noble belief that inflammatory content must be throttled.

Saudi Arabia has a nice presence on Facebook and Twitter and they are paragons of virtue in your eyes?

I'll endeavour to conclude by explaining that this thread is about a monopoly cracking down on freedom of speech and expression under the guise that it can be construed as troublesome to their interests.

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 9:04pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

The Chinese have broken the tos of twitter is my point.

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there,it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

So according to you, Trump has been completely misunderstood and is the victim here?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 9:07pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

The Chinese have broken the tos of twitter is my point.

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there,it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

Yes, when you tell armed gangs to stand down and stand by, it shows support. Then during his rally and March on Capitol Hill he was talking to a crowd, of which many were carrying weapons. They were mad enough to travel from all corners of the US to protest valid election results based on Trumps lies, then they are probably quite an unstable crowd. Trump knew what he was saying and who he was saying it to.

jimmycrackcorm · 13-01-2021 9:09pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

If only there was an official channel for the use president to express himself through such as Whitehouse press conferences. I might patent the process on how they would word.

Instead Trump didn’t want to be held accountable for his words and so used private platforms.

I wonder how many interviews Trump gave to Fox vs how many to CNN where he might have to provide real answers.

More so, isn't the real conspiracy to censor, the act of calling mainstream media "Fake news"?

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:10pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So according to you, Trump has been completely misunderstood and is the victim here?

No, not what I said at all. You have totally misrepresented what I discussed. This is actually ridiculous now.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:11pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes, when you tell armed gangs to stand down and stand by, it shows support. Then during his rally and March on Capitol Hill he was talking to a crowd, of which many were carrying weapons. They were mad enough to travel from all corners of the US to protest valid election results based on Trumps lies, then they are probably quite an unstable crowd. Trump knew what he was saying and who he was saying it to.

Well the quote I gave to you there was not from trump, he never said it.
It was said by Hillary after she lost her election against him.

So is it still incitement now for you?

Trump had a tweet saying "go home in peace", doesn't sound like incitement to me on that one.

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 9:12pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Well the quote I gave to you there was not from trump, he never said it.
It was said by Hillary after she lost her election against him. So is it still incitement?

Was she talking to an armed angry mob that traveled from all corners of the US to try and stop the certification process?

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 9:13pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

We are discussing censorship here and monopoly control of media.

You keep bringing up Trump's incitement of the Capitol incident. Why?

It's in the title.

And AGAIN you ask for a conspiracy, one that has been shown to you and then on top of that you insist on a "timeline".

I'll try, one last time, to get it into your head.

Nobody here is excusing speech that calls for violence, rape, torture, murder. Do you have that so far? Are we on the same page so far?

People are also chiming in that Parler is sh1t and deserved to be destroyed. Funnily they are free to say such things. Are will still on the same page?

My original post was that the events of January 6th will be used as a pretext to shutdown free speech under the guise of it being inciteful. Are you still on board? Have I lost you?

A handful of your fellow travellers seem to have sloped off after their pub analogies and claims of completely irrelevant activity have been exposed as just that..irrelevant.

Nobody except YOU and a few minions are talking about Trump being banned for inflammatory talk. that is not what this discussion is about but you are still playing your game perhaps to exasperate others beyond endurance.

Trump was broadcast on many news outlets such as Fox News, CNN and others AS WELL as online platforms saying things like "I'd like to punch him in the face" or encouraging security guards to rough up protesters at his rallies and that he would pay the legal fees for their defences. Did Fox, CNN, YouTube get pulled of the air for this?

NO.

So the big players are not in the slightest bit interested in the noble belief that inflammatory content must be throttled.

Saudi Arabia has a nice presence on Facebook and Twitter and they are paragons of virtue in your eyes?

I'll endeavour to conclude by explaining that this thread is about a monopoly cracking down on freedom of speech and expression under the guise that it can be construed as troublesome to their interests.

You are presenting this (very vague) notion that some companies are "working together" to shut down free speech because it's somehow not in their best interests.

So why is Twitter taking part in this? they are losing users

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:14pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Was she talking to an armed angry mob that traveled from all corners of the US to try and stop the certification process?

Ah so you moved the goalposts, grand. So hillary incites violence, grand, not banned, Trump, banned.

That's fine, just be happy with your hypocrisy. "go home in peace".

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 9:18pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

No, not what I said at all. You have totally misrepresented what I discussed. This is actually ridiculous now.

Here it is:

Your first quote, fight like hell, I don't see a call to arms there, it can clearly be metaphoric.

Second quote, we will cheer some people and we won't cheer others,really, you think that is inciting violence? That is nonsense.

I'm sorry I don't see A a call for violence there nor B any allusion at all to an insurrection.

Do you think this quote is a call to arms - " please never stop believing that fighting for what’s right is worth it."

It seems that you are stating that Trump didn't incite the riot. Correct?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 9:19pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Ah so you moved the goalposts, grand. So hillary incites violence, grand, not banned, Trump, banned.

That's fine, just be happy with your hypocrisy. "go home in peace".

No goalposts moved. I mentioned the angry armed mob rally in the post that you quoted.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:21pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Here it is:

It seems that you are stating that Trump didn't incite the riot. Correct?

I asked for the tweets that incited an insurrection. I've neither said he did nor didn't incite them.

Your whole point was that he used the platform to incite violence. I'm asking for the evidence of that so I can judge that for myself. I have yet to be produced anything here.

But knowing you you'll look for a definition of a tweet, or some other way to obfuscate.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:23pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

No goalposts moved. I mentioned the angry armed mob rally in the post that you quoted.

You also said that hillarys tweet incited violence, particularly on the eve on Trumps inauguration which was heavily protested and required massive security.

I disagree with you however and don't think her tweet incites violence.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 9:23pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I have no idea of how many companies provide hosting services, infrastructure etc., but It’s probably in the tens of thousands. Everyone knows this.

Everyone DOESN'T know this.

There are a handful of physical hosting services and the top of the pyramid is perhaps AWS, Azure and one or two others. Your data sits on these machines and they determine whether or not you get to operate.

arccosh · 13-01-2021 9:23pm

but, but, but.... that would mean Trump is in on it??? the victim has become the conspirator

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 9:27pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

You also said that hillarys tweet incited violence, particularly on the eve on Trumps inauguration which was heavily protested and required massive security.

I disagree with you however and don't think her tweet incites violence.

Context is everything, so stop trying to say what I think about a particular situation. Maybe if you weren’t trying to sneaky you wouldn’t be trying to put words in my mouth.

Did she say it to an angry mob, of which many were armed and tell them to match on the Capitol to vent their anger? Remember...context!

Dohnjoe · 13-01-2021 9:29pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

I asked for the tweets that incited an insurrection. I've neither said he did nor didn't incite them.

That's fine.

To repeat my earlier question I asked about this conspiracy theory you mentioned

Do you have any concrete evidence of it? and is it your own personal theory or is it a general one from the internet?

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 9:30pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Everyone DOESN'T know this.

There are a handful of physical hosting services and the top of the pyramid is perhaps AWS, Azure and one or two others. Your data sits on these machines and they determine whether or not you get to operate.

Hmm....not very intelligent of Parlers creators then. Surely it wouldn’t take much intelligence to look around for hosts that you don’t have to agree to a set of rules that you have no intention of sticking to.

ShatterAlan · 13-01-2021 9:31pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Have the Chinese government instigated a coup in the US?

He held a rally beforehand to rile up his followers, and here are just two nuggets. You should watch the speech online if you can.

“If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”, and, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

Now in typical Trump fashion, he lied and did not go to the Capitol with them.

It's like talking to a brick.

We are talking about censorship here and precedents.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:32pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's fine.

To repeat my earlier question I asked about this conspiracy theory you mentioned

Do you have any concrete evidence of it? and is it your own personal theory or is it a general one from the internet?

I've written enough for you to decipher my thoughts. You won't engage on any level with anything I write so I'm leaving it there talking to you. Enjoy the thread.

Fighting Tao · 13-01-2021 9:32pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's like talking to a brick.

We are talking about censorship here and precedents.

Sorry if I am having a discussion with another poster. If you have a problem with it then please report both their and my posts.

13-01-2021 9:35pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

I asked for the tweets that incited an insurrection. I've neither said he did nor didn't incite them.

Your whole point was that he used the platform to incite violence. I'm asking for the evidence of that so I can judge that for myself. I have yet to be produced anything here.

But knowing you you'll look for a definition of a tweet, or some other way to obfuscate.

You'd need to go check out the speech for yourself, but this is from just a few mins ago - one of the few Republican's to vote to impeach Trump today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsfFORhpFkU

The sound quality isn't great, but you'll get the idea.

Smacruairi · 13-01-2021 9:37pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Context is everything, so stop trying to say what I think about a particular situation. Maybe if you weren’t trying to sneaky you wouldn’t be trying to put words in my mouth.

Did she say it to an angry mob, of which many were armed and tell them to match on the Capitol to vent their anger? Remember...context!

Context is everything, I agree. Hillary lost the election, many many people were upset, and she delivered that. You think it incited violence as you declared. 150 people were arrested on that day for rioting by the way.

I'm not being sneaky, I asked you a question and you answered it. I didn't say "wouldn't you agree with me" or "I think you're trying to say this". If you want to change your opinion now that you know the author of the words, I think that shows the inherent bias you have however.

Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

Comments