Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Shalcker]

Which goes to show how shallow your understanding of politics and history in general is, or you'd know why police generally don't align with the left wing as a rule.

Hint: It's the same reason police unions are not welcome in the IWW or similar groups and have never been, and isn't specific to the American left in the slightest.

Never said it is.

Lol you were literally just claiming systemic racism isn't a thing and now you're saying that there's systemic pressures that act as barriers to meaningful social change. Which is it Pagliacci?

"Systemic racism" not necessarily being a thing doesn't mean "systemic oppression" isn't a thing - it doesn't have to be race-based, and in fact much easier to plenty of people to stomach and support that way.
[Infraction]

[DingDongKing]

Still don’t get why people bother arguing with the Russian troll. He literally knows nothing.

The thing of it is though that the other social networks took at least some action. Whether or not they did enough is worth looking into....but Parler did nothing.

They didn’t want to. And it’s exactly why Amazon, Google and Apple de-partnered them. Also, just for context, where was the right wing furor when Google refused to support Huawei phones? No free speech then? It’s all agenda driven. Nothing else.

[Elegiac]

Never said it is.

modern US leftism

Yeah, you did. Stop lying.

"Systemic racism" not necessarily being a thing doesn't mean "systemic oppression" isn't a thing - it doesn't have to be race-based, and in fact much easier to plenty of people to stomach and support that way.

Except it is factually race-based, and saying otherwise just demonstrates a massive ignorance of American history and its present day social makeup.

Your arguments are as convincing as Ian Miles Cheong telling us how oppressive American cancel culture from his home in Malaysia.

[Shalcker]

Yeah, you did. Stop lying.

One mention doesn't mean exclusivity; one shared trait doesn't mean continuity.

Except it is factually race-based, and saying otherwise just demonstrates a massive ignorance of American history and its present day social makeup.

Is current oppression of conservatives race-based too? Or is it not systemic enough to your liking?

Do you think that you cannot cherry-pick any systemic oppression to show arbitrary group of people as oppressed?

It's divide-and-conquer, tokenism making race into guard dogs of existing system by throwing them a bone now and then.

[Felya]

One mention doesn't mean exclusivity; one shared trait doesn't mean continuity.

This is such blatant gaslighting, I am waiting for you to ask us to send you nail clippings or cuts of our hair.

Conservatives are not being targeted at behest of liberals... The social media regulations you push for, are not even ones you support. Go ahead and start a thread about how terrible Putin is, on ok.ru? There is a reason you use American social media instead, we don’t need that in US, since we can use ok.ru if we wanted more government control.

[Machismo]

Censorship is censorship especially when it comes to censoring political opposition. Surely you can't be this stupid? Then again..you did think you were clever with the triple facepalm nonsense.

So, you are saying I am free to come to your home, on your property, and yell racist shit at your family... with you not being able to tell me to leave/

Or, do you want to censor me?

- - - Updated - - -

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?

The issue is that the right-wing people are the ones who also claim to support liberty and capitalism. The people who claim to hate socialism the most, sure are quick to call for the government takeover of social media... as soon as Nazis start getting banned.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom of speech is really important so no, it's a horrible idea to deplatform Parler. Go after the criminals who were breaking or attacking people in the capitol. Don't take down the social network. Keep in mind they also used other social networks besides Parler.

Amazon choosing to not do business with Parler is an example of them exercising their First Amendment rights. They are not the government, it's not their job to go after criminals.

- - - Updated - - -

Dorsey banned Trump because even though he thinks it's a bad idea and recognizes it he had no real choice at that stage given the immense pressure he was under.

Maybe Trump should not keep breaking the rules.

[Endus]

Is current oppression of conservatives race-based too? Or is it not systemic enough to your liking?

It isn't race-based, but the biggest reason for that is the "current oppression of conservatives" is entirely fictional bullshit. It's like asking what we think of racism against Elves. There is no such oppression against conservatives.

[Kathranis]

Censorship is censorship especially when it comes to censoring political opposition. Surely you can't be this stupid? Then again..you did think you were clever with the triple facepalm nonsense.
[Infraction]

These bans and deplatformings are financially motivated, not politically motivated. Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al. happily hosted and profited from this rhetoric for four years with minimal moderation and only removed it after it became a liability. It's a decision driven almost purely by market forces.

It's no different from all these banks and Fortune 500 companies now refusing to do business with Trump and the GOP.

First Amendment grants these companies the right not to associate with other companies or individuals, anyway. They can't be compelled to host or publish content they don't want to host or publish.

It's no different from Hawley losing his book deal with Simon & Schuster. He isn't entitled to a publisher under the First Amendment.

[Theodarzna]

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.

1) I'm aware of Libertarian claptrap that treats a ToS as some kind of scripture. I am questioning the legitimacy of a monopoly with power.
2) Never let a crisis go to waste?
3) Sorry what?
4) In a world where Liberals have privatized everything, in an Oligarchy all censorship is State Censorship.

[Doctor Amadeus]

1) I'm aware of Libertarian claptrap that treats a ToS as some kind of scripture. I am questioning the legitimacy of a monopoly with power.
2) Never let a crisis go to waste?
3) Sorry what?
4) In a world where Liberals have privatized everything, in an Oligarchy all censorship is State Censorship.

Oh "Wah Wah Wah, I can't threaten to kill people and encourage sedition without everybody getting all bent out of shape" These White supremacist can take their loser asses back to Stormfront or whatever Nazi JerkOff site they enjoyed.

[Darththeo]

It isn't race-based, but the biggest reason for that is the "current oppression of conservatives" is entirely fictional bullshit. It's like asking what we think of racism against Elves. There is no such oppression against conservatives.

Conservatives are oppressed is as true as the War on Christmas. Which is to say, not at all.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

1) I'm aware of Libertarian claptrap that treats a ToS as some kind of scripture. I am questioning the legitimacy of a monopoly with power.
2) Never let a crisis go to waste?
3) Sorry what?
4) In a world where Liberals have privatized everything, in an Oligarchy all censorship is State Censorship.

1. It isn't a monopoly, Twitter doesn't own the internet or all social media. You can figure that out because we're posting stuff here, and this isn't Twitter.

2. Speculation on your part.

3. You are either ignorant or lying. Here are some articles to help provide you information if you're just ignorant.
https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ol-riot-online
https://www.businessinsider.com/parl...capitol-2021-1
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/progr...ainer/13053578

I'll be skipping #4 because I don't have a clue what point you were trying to make with your initial #4, nor do I see any connection between that and the one here.

Although on the note of personal data, Parler did store a lot of it and didn't secure very well. I wouldn't be praising Parler for how it handled personal data when most of the stored data from Parler has been scraped by hackers and is now just floating around on the internet for anyone to use/abuse. I'd take intrusive marketing over having my identity stolen. However since both services aren't something forced upon you, I chose the option of not participating in either platform. Hence why I'm posting here, this forum is the extent of my social media use in which I actually engage people directly.

[Forogil]

Sometimes you have to duck when the goal-posts fly by:

Show me those hundreds inside.

Surely there is site that can count everyone who got in?

So far 100+ have been arrested for their involvement in the riots:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other...er/ar-BB1cLTzQ

So, it will be 100+ mug-shots as they didn't all pose together in one photo.

So upper bound, going by the article, is 200.

That is, 1% of total crowd.

(And, no, 200 isn't an upper bound for how many were inside - it's the number of persons currently identified.)

[Machismo]

1) I'm aware of Libertarian claptrap that treats a ToS as some kind of scripture. I am questioning the legitimacy of a monopoly with power.
2) Never let a crisis go to waste?
3) Sorry what?
4) In a world where Liberals have privatized everything, in an Oligarchy all censorship is State Censorship.

1) You are aware that contract law is a thing? Well, then you should have no fucking problem...

2) This is you pushing more bullshit and lies.

3) Yes, you got caught lying... again.

4) You are mad that capitalism is a thing, and keep wanting to put this on the Democrats.

[gondrin]

Sometimes you have to duck when the goal-posts fly by:



(And, no, 200 isn't an upper bound for how many were inside - it's the number of persons currently identified.)

Comical part is that the idiots that stormed the building and got in were caught on the various wireless signal repeaters that the Capitol building has. Along with other law enforcement tools that are generally hidden from sight.

[DingDongKing]

I would love to live in the world that Trumpsters think we live in. Guns are banned, woke culture reigns supreme. Sounds like utopia.

[Forogil]

I would love to live in the world that Trumpsters think we live in. Guns are banned, woke culture reigns supreme. Sounds like utopia.

You forgot the most important part of their world: Trump was re-elected as president.

/s

[wunksta]

The fact that Parler was created and people flocked to it shows that Twitter doesn't have a monopoly.

[Shalcker]

These bans and deplatformings are financially motivated, not politically motivated.

Why exactly do you make this assumption?

Twitter, Facebook, Google, et al. happily hosted and profited from this rhetoric for four years with minimal moderation and only removed it after it became a liability. It's a decision driven almost purely by market forces.

The decision, based on that, is driven purely by political forces. Market didn't change from that single event in any way; politics did.

Jack makes no mentions of being pressured to drop Trump or losing advertisements ("market") anywhere he explains his decision, and neither does Amazon.

It's no different from all these banks and Fortune 500 companies now refusing to do business with Trump and the GOP.

Except they only dropped small most odious ones and still happily contribute to bigger ones.

[Grapemask]

I can't believe we're this many days into this thing and we still have conservatives lying and pretending to be victims of censorship. Surely some amount of self-awareness or shame would have kicked in by now. I know, spoiler, they have none of either, but come on.

Imagine there's a massive sting of a few hundred pedophiles. Caught redhanded fucking little kids.

First, they ban all your friends from social media who were caught in that sting fucking kids. Then, they ban your other friends who liked to spend all of their time talking about how they'd like to fuck a little kid. Sure, they didn't get caught with their dick in one, but they sure loved talking about how much they would like to and just how they'd do it.

Imagine having the gall to complain that you lost all of your pedo friends and that that's censorship.

But then imagine that there was this popular bar, Joe's Bar. Now, Joe doesn't explicitly say that he loves kid fuckers or fucking kids, but he does let all the kid fuckers hang out in the bar's basement. He does know they're there. He does know they constantly talk about fucking little kids. He does refuse to kick them out. His landlord keeps calling him, telling him he knows Joe's got those kid-fuckers in there, and he's going to have to kick Joe out if he doesn't address the problem. Joe just keeps hanging up and shredding the letters. He sure loves having those kid fuckers in his basement.

Imagine having the audacity to complain when Joe and his bar get evicted and trying to call that censorship.

Or imagine trying to say that removing child rapists will lead to removing Mister Rogers and Sesame Street. Imagine the kind of thought process that claims to be unable to differentiate between fucking a kid and teaching a kid.

So why do conservatives have these ginormous meaty balls? Well, it probably stems from the fact that they don't actually see it as wrong. They're fine with a little domestic terrorism. They surely understand the problem when it's pedophilia, so clearly it's not an issue of it actually being censorship. It's an issue of failing to see the crime.

Fuck them, and lick up all of their delicious little tears as they cry. Laugh in their fascist fuck faces.