Should Parler be eradicated?

  • 132 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Silentchief

Poll Should Parler be eradicated? (52 votes)

Yes! Only Nazi's go there 46%
No! It's a private company and censorship is bad 40%
Depends! ( explain) 13%

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2021/01/parler-ceo-says-service-dropped-by-every-vendor-and-could-end-the-company-1234670607/amp/

For those who don't know what Parler is it's basically Facebook without the censorship

Big tech goes after Parler. With Apple and Google removing the apps and Amazon kicking them off their servers Parler will soon seize to exist. This is due to Parlers refusal to censor conservative opinions.

Apparently some of the Capitol protesters communicate on the app and for that big tech is squasing it.

What are your thoughts on this?

 • 
Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@NathanDrakeSwag said:

Sure, let's just cancel free speech and become China. That's where the left is taking our once free country.

This is not a free speech case.

It's awesome that you support businesses that don't want to make birthday cake for someone being gay. That you support businesses that don't want pro gay rights people in their businesses. You support businesses that don't want to help people who take a knee for the national anthem. That you support businesses that deny someone service because they don't like how they look.

Seems like a great idea!

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss: That's not what he's saying. It's literally not a freedom of speech issue.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:

Liberals say social media is a private company and they can censor how ever they want and if you don't like it move to a platform that fits you better.

So the Republicans do just that and now the platform was deplatformed and liberals say you get what you deserve.

Seriously the liberals only care because it is the right being censored. So what the left is saying Twitter, Facebook, or any social platform could sensor BLM, Amnesty International, and the list goes on and on. Would you be okay with that?

It was de-platformed because it relied on another companies product. Not that hard to figure out.

But answer the bottom question. Would you be okay for any of these social platforms banning organizations like BLM, Amnesty International, people who support gay rights, people who support anything on the left?

What you all are saying is that you would be okay with this.

Private companies set their rules.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: That's not what he's saying. It's literally not a freedom of speech issue.

Then you would be okay with any social platform banning BLM, any humans rights organization, anyone that is pro gay? Would you be okay if they started censoring pro choice people off of their platforms?

You all are saying it is a business and they don't have to follow the rules of the constitution. So that goes for everything. Point is very valid!

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:

Liberals say social media is a private company and they can censor how ever they want and if you don't like it move to a platform that fits you better.

So the Republicans do just that and now the platform was deplatformed and liberals say you get what you deserve.

Seriously the liberals only care because it is the right being censored. So what the left is saying Twitter, Facebook, or any social platform could sensor BLM, Amnesty International, and the list goes on and on. Would you be okay with that?

It was de-platformed because it relied on another companies product. Not that hard to figure out.

But answer the bottom question. Would you be okay for any of these social platforms banning organizations like BLM, Amnesty International, people who support gay rights, people who support anything on the left?

What you all are saying is that you would be okay with this.

Private companies set their rules.

It's awesome that you support this. I will make a note of it.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Private companies set their rules.

It's awesome that you support this. I will make a note of it.

Note it all you want. When it comes to Constitutional issues, I support the Constitution.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss: Are you asking if I'd accept the legality of social media companies banning those organizations for TOU violations? Yes.

We aren't saying companies don't have to follow the Constitution. That's a core misunderstanding. The first amendment rules apply to the government, not private entities. It's why gamespot can ban you for cursing but the government can't fine you for it. It's why I can be fired for publicly supporting Biden, but the government can't throw me in prison for it.

It's literally not a first amendment issue. It's a monopoly power issue.

Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#58  Edited By Silentchief
Member since 2021 • 297 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Private companies set their rules.

It's awesome that you support this. I will make a note of it.

Note it all you want. When it comes to Constitutional issues, I support the Constitution.

So can a private restaurant refuse to serve people because they disagreed with their lifestyle?

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

124722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#59 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 124722 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: Are you asking if I'd accept the legality of social media companies banning those organizations for TOU violations? Yes.

We aren't saying companies don't have to follow the Constitution. That's a core misunderstanding. The first amendment rules apply to the government, not private entities. It's why gamespot can ban you for cursing but the government can't fine you for it. It's why I can be fired for publicly supporting Biden, but the government can't throw me in prison for it.

It's literally not a first amendment issue. It's a monopoly power issue.

Isn't this very much something Republicans advocate for?

Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#60 Silentchief
Member since 2021 • 297 Posts

@yessir said:

@rmpumper: lmao! You conservatives are hilarious! Do you hold Facebook to that? No. Parler treats anybody not conservative like garbage and all their news is right leaning.

So a right wing version of Twitter?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@silentchief said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Note it all you want. When it comes to Constitutional issues, I support the Constitution.

So can a private restaurant refuse to serve people because they disagreed with their lifestyle?

You are aware there are classifications on protected classes? Probably not.

Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#62 Silentchief
Member since 2021 • 297 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@silentchief said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Note it all you want. When it comes to Constitutional issues, I support the Constitution.

So can a private restaurant refuse to serve people because they disagreed with their lifestyle?

You are aware there are classifications on protected classes? Probably not.

Yea and one side may need it sooner then they think.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@horgen: It is indeed.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

36901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#64 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 36901 Posts

if nothing else. keep these site running so these dummies who plan and participate in violence and then post about can be easily rounded up.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@silentchief said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

Note it all you want. When it comes to Constitutional issues, I support the Constitution.

So can a private restaurant refuse to serve people because they disagreed with their lifestyle?

You are aware there are classifications on protected classes? Probably not.

Yes protected class you are right, but you are saying it is okay for me to ban someone from my restaurant or platform because they are pro choice or pro gay and you are okay with that. Being pro something is not a protected class.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts
@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: Are you asking if I'd accept the legality of social media companies banning those organizations for TOU violations? Yes.

We aren't saying companies don't have to follow the Constitution. That's a core misunderstanding. The first amendment rules apply to the government, not private entities. It's why gamespot can ban you for cursing but the government can't fine you for it. It's why I can be fired for publicly supporting Biden, but the government can't throw me in prison for it.

It's literally not a first amendment issue. It's a monopoly power issue.

So someone can put in their EULA that they do not want any pro gay or pro choice things on their platform and you are totally okay for these people to be banned. That is all I am saying.

Why are you explaining the damn constitution to me? I understand it? I just want you all to be clear that you are okay for someone to block someone from their business for what they believe in.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts
@horgen said:
@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: Are you asking if I'd accept the legality of social media companies banning those organizations for TOU violations? Yes.

We aren't saying companies don't have to follow the Constitution. That's a core misunderstanding. The first amendment rules apply to the government, not private entities. It's why gamespot can ban you for cursing but the government can't fine you for it. It's why I can be fired for publicly supporting Biden, but the government can't throw me in prison for it.

It's literally not a first amendment issue. It's a monopoly power issue.

Isn't this very much something Republicans advocate for?

Yes, they do. It is just hilarious that the liberals are the ones that were against it before and now they are for it. See HYPOCRISY!

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

You are aware there are classifications on protected classes? Probably not.

Yes protected class you are right, but you are saying it is okay for me to ban someone from my restaurant or platform because they are pro choice or pro gay and you are okay with that. Being pro something is not a protected class.

And? As long as laws are followed I'm not sure what you expect me to say?

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

You are aware there are classifications on protected classes? Probably not.

Yes protected class you are right, but you are saying it is okay for me to ban someone from my restaurant or platform because they are pro choice or pro gay and you are okay with that. Being pro something is not a protected class.

And? As long as laws are followed I'm not sure what you expect me to say?

Well, not to long ago you all fought businesses from doing this very thing. Now you all are for it. I find it kind of funny.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@Xabiss said:

Well, not to long ago you all fought businesses from doing this very thing. Now you all are for it. I find it kind of funny.

I did? Do I think it's good for business to refuse service? No. But business can have arbitrary rules. IE no shirt, no shoes, no service. We'll be happy to help you when you finish your phone call. Masks must be worn. I'm not for discrimination either.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:

Well, not to long ago you all fought businesses from doing this very thing. Now you all are for it. I find it kind of funny.

I did? Do I think it's good for business to refuse service? No. But business can have arbitrary rules. IE no shirt, no shoes, no service. We'll be happy to help you when you finish your phone call. Masks must be worn. I'm not for discrimination either.

The liberal left sure did.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#72 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss: How so?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: Are you asking if I'd accept the legality of social media companies banning those organizations for TOU violations? Yes.

We aren't saying companies don't have to follow the Constitution. That's a core misunderstanding. The first amendment rules apply to the government, not private entities. It's why gamespot can ban you for cursing but the government can't fine you for it. It's why I can be fired for publicly supporting Biden, but the government can't throw me in prison for it.

It's literally not a first amendment issue. It's a monopoly power issue.

So someone can put in their EULA that they do not want any pro gay or pro choice things on their platform and you are totally okay for these people to be banned. That is all I am saying.

Why are you explaining the damn constitution to me? I understand it? I just want you all to be clear that you are okay for someone to block someone from their business for what they believe in.

You clearly don't as you are conflating two different issues.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@Xabiss said:
@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: Are you asking if I'd accept the legality of social media companies banning those organizations for TOU violations? Yes.

We aren't saying companies don't have to follow the Constitution. That's a core misunderstanding. The first amendment rules apply to the government, not private entities. It's why gamespot can ban you for cursing but the government can't fine you for it. It's why I can be fired for publicly supporting Biden, but the government can't throw me in prison for it.

It's literally not a first amendment issue. It's a monopoly power issue.

So someone can put in their EULA that they do not want any pro gay or pro choice things on their platform and you are totally okay for these people to be banned. That is all I am saying.

Why are you explaining the damn constitution to me? I understand it? I just want you all to be clear that you are okay for someone to block someone from their business for what they believe in.

You clearly don't as you are conflating two different issues.

No I am not. You are saying if someone puts in their EULA that they are a prolife social media platform you are totally okay for them to block and or take down anything attached to the user. You are okay for a media platform to block all pro gay and, pro transgender, and pro BLM on their platform just because they deme it not within their values. If you are that is great, you don't mind businesses not baking cakes for a gay couples wedding then.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#75 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Xabiss said:

Well, not to long ago you all fought businesses from doing this very thing. Now you all are for it. I find it kind of funny.

I did? Do I think it's good for business to refuse service? No. But business can have arbitrary rules. IE no shirt, no shoes, no service. We'll be happy to help you when you finish your phone call. Masks must be worn. I'm not for discrimination either.

The liberal left sure did.

Just saving this for posterity.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss: I'm actually fine with the limitation on content. You are conflating it with service (the cake example).

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

49076

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#77 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 49076 Posts

No, let them corral themselves into an easily-observed space so they can get themselves in trouble.

Makes the FBI, DHS, and NSA's job a lot easier in stopping the #1 threat to Americans. The harder we crack down on them, the more extreme they will get, and harder to find.

Avatar image for Vaasman
Vaasman

14794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#78  Edited By Vaasman
Member since 2008 • 14794 Posts

Maybe if they locked down their posters' plannings of illegal shit they wouldn't get demolished? Even 4chan deletes illegal content and wipes the board after a certain amount of posts, some basic moderation and this wouldn't be a problem.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: I'm actually fine with the limitation on content. You are conflating it with service (the cake example).

Nope same exact thing. If businesses do not have to abide with what is in the constitution then that goes for all of the constitution. Not just what the liberals want to pick and choose.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80  Edited By LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@Xabiss said:

No I am not. You are saying if someone puts in their EULA that they are a prolife social media platform you are totally okay for them to block and or take down anything attached to the user. You are okay for a media platform to block all pro gay and, pro transgender, and pro BLM on their platform just because they deme it not within their values. If you are that is great, you don't mind businesses not baking cakes for a gay couples wedding then.

RE your argument with Matt. You are stating that you can use someone's platform and make your TOU such that x group isn't welcome? Did I read that correctly?

While you may do that, that doesn't mean that the one hosting your site has to agree.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss: It's literally not the same thing. Regulation of content != denial of service.

Avatar image for Xabiss
Xabiss

4353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#82 Xabiss
Member since 2012 • 4353 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: It's literally not the same thing. Regulation of content != denial of service.

It literally is. You are denying those people from accessing your services.

Avatar image for firedrakes
firedrakes

2866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#83 firedrakes
Member since 2004 • 2866 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: It's literally not the same thing. Regulation of content != denial of service.

It literally is. You are denying those people from accessing your services.

well i dont want to do business with gab,storm... so that not denial of service. their other that might want to host.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

19487

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 19487 Posts

@Xabiss said:
@mattbbpl said:

@Xabiss: It's literally not the same thing. Regulation of content != denial of service.

It literally is. You are denying those people from accessing your services.

You truly don't see a difference between:

@Xabiss said:

So someone can put in their EULA that they do not want any pro gay or pro choice things on their platform and you are totally okay for these people to be banned.

And:

@silentchief said:

So can a private restaurant refuse to serve people because they disagreed with their lifestyle?

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By Baconstrip78
Member since 2013 • 1615 Posts

@silentchief: Hosting services are private companies and need to do what is in their best social and economic interest in line with their shareholder and customers’ values.

Companies hosted their own on-prem servers long before the cloud was ever a thing, Parler can do the same.

What I find absurd is that people will be absolutely fine with a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but they raise hell when ahosting service like Amazon refuses to host an app that freely allows literal nazis to post death threats and violent insurrection plans openly.

Avatar image for ghost_of_phobos
Ghost_of_Phobos

1315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#86 Ghost_of_Phobos
Member since 2020 • 1315 Posts

Refusing service to a gay person and demanding moderation over people planing rape, kidnapping and murder is totally the same thing. Liberals are such hypocrites.

Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#87 Silentchief
Member since 2021 • 297 Posts

@Baconstrip78: Do you honestly think Amazon would lose a penny either way? It's virtue signaling and nothing more.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

7900

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#88 blaznwiipspman1  Online
Member since 2007 • 7900 Posts

I feel bad for twitter, facebook and all the social media giants. Originally they held free speech as fundamental to their programs, it was only after that the crazy SJWs and socialist leftist media and democrats started demanding censorship. Well, I have one finger for them.

Hopefully another platform pops up and gives people more free speech than what these other leftist organizations allow. I agree that violence and supporting acts of violence shouldn't be tolerated, but anything else I agree with in regards to free speech. Racism, LGBTQ hate, anti semitism, the list goes on and on, I may not support it personally but i'm strongly against banning it.

Avatar image for ogvampire
ogvampire

9109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89  Edited By ogvampire
Member since 2008 • 9109 Posts

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

I feel bad for twitter, facebook and all the social media giants. Originally they held free speech as fundamental to their programs, it was only after that the crazy SJWs and socialist leftist media and democrats started demanding censorship. Well, I have one finger for them.

Hopefully another platform pops up and gives people more free speech than what these other leftist organizations allow. I agree that violence and supporting acts of violence shouldn't be tolerated, but anything else I agree with in regards to free speech. Racism, LGBTQ hate, anti semitism, the list goes on and on, I may not support it personally but i'm strongly against banning it.

"Racism, LGBTQ hate, anti semitism, the list goes on and on, I may not support it personally but i'm strongly against banning it."

people can post all they want on how much they hate (insert person or group here), but none of those reasons is why they ban people. they ban people or groups because they either directly threaten other people (which is illegal) or attempt to incite violence (also illegal). free speech does not protect you from those things.

so if you don't want to get banned, then don't threaten or try to incite violence. it's quite simple.

by the way, it's also a liability to have hate speech on your platform:

https://www.rt.com/usa/373255-terrorism-victims-families-sue-twitter

it's more than likely that it's in the best interest of the company to avoid having a platform that is used to plan out violent attacks.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#90 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 191 Posts

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

Major corporations sitting back and crying victim that they're not a "publisher" and then accuse their competition of being a "publisher" for doing the same thing they do and work together to get said competition expunged is going to create some very interesting future case law.

^ my thoughts as well

Avatar image for firedrakes
firedrakes

2866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#91 firedrakes
Member since 2004 • 2866 Posts

@sargentd said:
@Stevo_the_gamer said:

Major corporations sitting back and crying victim that they're not a "publisher" and then accuse their competition of being a "publisher" for doing the same thing they do and work together to get said competition expunged is going to create some very interesting future case law.

^ my thoughts as well

end point of capitilsm

here the thing.

human in a whole do agree on censoring some stuff.

like child porn,real video/stream of abuse/violence. etc stuff that god awful.(in general when it reported)

that why tos are on everything.

Avatar image for Skarwolf
Skarwolf

2428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#92 Skarwolf
Member since 2006 • 2428 Posts

More they censor the alt right the more fuel they have for conspiracy. They’ve been saying for the last 4 years theres a big plot to silence the right. Now this.

Sure the big tech are going take advantage of this and wave their holier then thou wand everytime a conservative farts from now on. The countries been fucked forever just people are cluing in now.

Avatar image for ghost_of_phobos
Ghost_of_Phobos

1315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#93 Ghost_of_Phobos
Member since 2020 • 1315 Posts

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94  Edited By Baconstrip78
Member since 2013 • 1615 Posts

@silentchief: Yes, I do think Amazon will either make or prevent the loss of revenue with this decision, otherwise they wouldn’t have done it.

Do you honestly believe companies care more about virtue signaling than they do money?

Nike is a woke company because their customers skew young and urban. MyPillow is an anti-woke company because their customers skew white and very very old. NFL shifted their view on BLM not because they care about the cause, but because they lose either way, so they choose the future of Millenial and Zoomers rather than follow the will of a dying generation of Boomers.

The answer is always “money“.

Avatar image for ogvampire
ogvampire

9109

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95  Edited By ogvampire
Member since 2008 • 9109 Posts

@Skarwolf said:

More they censor the alt right the more fuel they have for conspiracy. They’ve been saying for the last 4 years theres a big plot to silence the right. Now this.

Sure the big tech are going take advantage of this and wave their holier then thou wand everytime a conservative farts from now on. The countries been fucked forever just people are cluing in now.

According to the DHS and FBI, far-right extremists and white supremacists (both of which are part of the Right, coincidentally) are the biggest domestic terrorist threat in America. Twitter was sued for allowing Isis on their platform, which included essentially the same messages as far-right extremists. So considering the fact that the alt right has gone off the deep end and are now openly posting threats of violence, it's in the best interest of these companies to NOT have that on their platform.

it's so simple: don't post threats of violence and you won't be banned/censored. why is that so hard to understand?

Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#96 Silentchief
Member since 2021 • 297 Posts

@Baconstrip78: And Amazon's customers make up pretty much everyone. The percentage of people that boycott Amazon over the fact its web servers host a right wing social media app would be nonexistent. Nobody is going to skip that 30% savings , free shipping or a chance to buy a PS5 because they host Parler. Boycotts always almost always end up being bulllshit especially from the left see ( Goya foods) as an example.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

172163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#97 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 172163 Posts

@ogvampire said:
@Skarwolf said:

More they censor the alt right the more fuel they have for conspiracy. They’ve been saying for the last 4 years theres a big plot to silence the right. Now this.

Sure the big tech are going take advantage of this and wave their holier then thou wand everytime a conservative farts from now on. The countries been fucked forever just people are cluing in now.

According to the DHS and FBI, far-right extremists and white supremacists (both of which are part of the Right, coincidentally) are the biggest domestic terrorist threat in America. Twitter was sued for allowing Isis on their platform, which included essentially the same messages as far-right extremists. So considering the fact that the alt right has gone off the deep end and are now openly posting threats of violence, it's in the best interest of these companies to NOT have that on their platform.

it's so simple: don't post threats of violence and you won't be banned/censored. why is that so hard to understand?

Yes. Far right extremists of any name have been the number one domestic security threat for years. They should have received more bad press before other individuals joined the cause. And they are terrorists. There is no debate on that.

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#98  Edited By Baconstrip78
Member since 2013 • 1615 Posts

@silentchief: AWS is not Amazon.com, they were both originally started by Amazon, but they are not the same company.

AWS is a cloud hosting platform similar to Microsoft Azure. Their customers are mainly startups and Fortune 500 companies who absolutely would choose a replaceable commodity hosting environment based on who else is on the platform.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

36901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#99 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 36901 Posts

amazon respond's to parler's lawsuit about them being taken off of aws.

basically parler violated the agreement they signed when they chose aws for their hosting. giving aws the right to remove parler if they saw fit.

parler should have hosted their content themselves if they didn't want to run afoul of aws's standards. they blew it.

https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20449127-amazon_response

also, amazon was kind enough to provide a few examples of the speech used by parler users. classy stuff.




Avatar image for silentchief
Silentchief

297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#100  Edited By Silentchief
Member since 2021 • 297 Posts

@Baconstrip78: Aww I thought they were owned by Amazon. Which in that case would be pointless. If they rely in small progressive startup companies then I guess I could see the reasoning. Although I heard Parler has already found another host.