It shouldn't be.
1) Parler didn't do anything wrong. This is literally "We don't like the political valiance of a lot of this things users so its banned".
2) It's monopolistic since it basically is using overwhelming power and market consolidation to protect Jack Dorsey.
3) All the organizing for the Capitol Hill riot were done on facebook and instagram so why is Parler being attacked?
4) Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.
So over all the only case for going after Parler is a belief that "Yes, these state sanctioned monopolies that are arms of our domestic spy agencies should also have unchecked power over discourse."
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
1) This is more of your lies. They broke the rules set forth by the companies they wanted to work with, so those companies chose to cut ties. If your plumber doesn't fix your leak, did he do his job?
2) It's not a fucking monopoly, stop with that lie. Parler can literally host their own shit on their own servers.
3) That is also a fucking lie, even the FBI is saying you are lying.
4) You are trying to tout something that you never even used. Well, if they are that great, why didn't you use them?
It's amazing how often you get caught lying for Nazis.
Lie.
They broke terms of service, and had weeks to resolve it, and refused to.
How does any of this protect Dorsey? He isn't involved at all. And Parler posed no competitive threat to Twitter.2) It's monopolistic since it basically is using overwhelming power and market consolidation to protect Jack Dorsey.
The idea you're presenting is nonsense.
Terms of service violations involving threats of violence. Amazon was clear about this. It's almost like you made zero effort to find out what happened, and just made up a story in your head instead.3) All the organizing for the Capitol Hill riot were done on facebook and instagram so why is Parler being attacked?
"They should get a pass on their rule-breaking because they did some things some people like" isn't an argument in any way whatsoever.4) Parler, for its many faults, did remarkably have some nice features I've heard. Mainly that it doesn't sell user data or use algorithms to curate content for individual users.
None of your 4 points has any basis in reality.
State sanctioned? The president of the US and his whole party have convinced their supporters that government control of social media is freedom... but, you think that means sanctioned?
- - - Updated - - -
Complaining that they are state sanctioned, when the demand is control by the state, doesn’t make any fucking sense. It’s like saying you can get aids from donating blood... oh wait... this poster started an entire thread on that dumb assery.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
1) They did. I know you think of ToS as an annoying step you have to pretend you actually read before clicking "accept". But there are actual Terms of Service in there.
2) If AWS banned Parler in order to protect Jack...why did they enter in contract with Parler in the first place?
3) Lie.
4) Parler can continue to have those nice features once they find someone willing to host them.
I’ve heard that parlor encouraged their most prolific posters to go to other forums and pretend they never use parlor, but hear they are great. People say it... It’s what I heard... some people say...
FYI: Parlor catalogued all their data... including the things you deleted. We know that, because their info got stolen. Tell the people you heard this from, to keep an eye on their social security number being used illegally.
Last edited by Felya; 2021-01-15 at 03:02 AM.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Back just before they got taken down, I went to just make an account to demonstrate that you still could, and it wouldn't let me even create an account without both an e-mail (not a problem, I have burner e-mails for such purposes) and my cell phone number (fat goddamned chance am I giving that to any company I don't trust; they'll just sell it on to partners.)
That was just Step 1 to make an account, not even to get verified.
Imagine Sina Corporation banning Xi Jinping from Weibo.
These arguments comparing this to China or 1984 are so hilariously off-base that it's hard to fathom you're trying to be serious.
We're talking about a fucking publicly traded company telling the President to fuck off. That's like the most American shit ever.
Last edited by Kathranis; 2021-01-15 at 05:39 AM.
In my defense, when I read the story two days ago, the Uganda situation was only banning social media like twitter and facebook. In the ensuing time Musaveni extended it to a general internet shutdown. Here are the stories two days ago, clearly referencing social media:
https://qz.com/africa/1956188/uganda...ut-in-streets/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...-for-elections
So while I'm wrong now, I wasn't wrong when I first came across the story.
That being said, what twitter and facebook did is worrying other countries as well:
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...blocking-trump
https://apnews.com/article/merkel-tr...7e03159f0dc1c9
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberth...h=4616a3c813b5
Even Jack Dorsey admits it could set a dangerous precedent:
https://apnews.com/article/jack-dors...c1fd1132a525d8
Dorsey acknowledged that shows of strength like the Trump ban could set dangerous precedents...
and
Dorsey declined to criticize his Big Tech counterparts directly, even noting that “this moment in time might call for this dynamic.” Over the long term, however, he suggested that aggressive and domineering behavior could threaten the “noble purpose and ideals” of the open internet by entrenching the power of a few organizations over a commons that should be accessible to everyone.
So it's not just right wing folks you can easily pigeonhole who have issues with how Big Tech's been acting. But hey, fuck the sources and actual leaders having issues with it, as long as it pisses off anyone to your right, eh?
I feel like this topic lends itself to a little more nuanced a discussion than a weird and sometimes antagonistic online forum can provide. There are multiple things being discussed here, and I don't think an opinion on one of those areas necessarily contradicts or disqualifies any opinion on the others.
1. Is banning Trump and his ilk from Social Media a good thing?
2. Is banning/deplatforming/discouragement from using Parler a good thing?
3. Do large corporations have too much control over general discourse and/or have too much influence over our daily lives?
While there is certainly overlap between those topics, you can have several different opinions on each of them (or just click 'Yes to All' like I do) without necessarily being hypocritical.
Personally, I also feel like it's weird how we mainly talk about point #3 whenever a right-wing radio host or a right-wing personality gets banned for breaking ToS. And it doesn't seem to be brought up in popular political circles outside of those cases. Just an interesting observation.
There's definitely something about the American right-wing that tends to conflict with almost every ToS on the planet. And then a lot of crying ensues.
I wish I could figure out why that is. What is it about the Republican voters that makes it so difficult to not break ToS?
Hmmmmmmmm...
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
I would argue that the important question not if it's good that they were banned, it's about whether their actions deserve that kind of ban.
And in both cases, that answer's a pretty clear "yes".
I mean, I'd answer a clear "yes" to the latter, with a caveat. That caveat would be that I'm not interested in "corporations", as corporations are just tools. I care about the people wielding those tools.3. Do large corporations have too much control over general discourse and/or have too much influence over our daily lives?
While there is certainly overlap between those topics, you can have several different opinions on each of them (or just click 'Yes to All' like I do) without necessarily being hypocritical.
Personally, I also feel like it's weird how we mainly talk about point #3 whenever a right-wing radio host or a right-wing personality gets banned for breaking ToS. And it doesn't seem to be brought up in popular political circles outside of those cases. Just an interesting observation.
So, with the caveat in mind, the question is really "do capitalists have too much control over general discourse/influence over daily lives?"
And that's where my "yes" comes in.
But then, I'm a socialist, so that kind of point of view isn't a contradiction. Most of these right-wingers, though, are such strong capitalists that many are outright anarcho-capitalists, and that kind of view is a direct contradiction of the idea that these capitalists have too much power; they want those capitalists to have all that power. Arguing otherwise is either hypocrisy, or a demonstration that they don't actually believe in/understand what capitalism really is. Either explanation is pretty damning.
And I'll note that in my ideal world, with a socialist economy, we'd end up with a Twitter that's run by a worker collective. And they would, I imagine, be just as likely to ban Trump. Probably more likely. I don't have a single issue with that. My entire issue is with capitalist ownership, not that companies can control who is and is not a client for their services, within reason.
I agree with all of these points, and I think this post is a good example of my argument.
The attempt by the right to conflate these very broad topics seems almost intentional, since it is to their benefit to paint anyone who disagrees with them in an antagonistic light and to imply hypocrisy. It's not so much about Parler and Trump being hives of scum and villainy - that point is inarguable - but about pointing out perceived dishonesty.
"You claim to be a pro-worker socialist, but here you are defending the rights of large corporations! How hypocritical!"
"You claim to be tolerant, but you won't be tolerant of nazis and racists! How hypocritical!"
"You claim to be for unity and compromise, and yet you won't let us make the world objectively worse by every conceivable metric! How hypocritical!"
This kind of reductionism is actively harmful to discourse and public debates on these issues. Almost as if that's the point.
(I understand that my paraphrasing is also a little hypocritical given my argument, but give me a break, I'm running on fumes here and English is my second language.)
I think this actually makes the case for Twitter banning Trump even stronger. It wasn't some shoot from the hip decision. Jack saw the situation, saw the potential problems that could arise from Banning Trump, and Banned him anyway because the rhetoric is actually getting people killed now.
Also, keep in mind it was only Trump's personal account that got banned. The POTUS account is still active. So the connection between POTUS and The American People is intact.
Last edited by Egomaniac; 2021-01-15 at 06:52 AM.