Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Felya]

I want the right to speech extended... I have no interest in government intervention beyond that. We are not in anyway saying the same thing.

Uhm... that doesn’t make any sense... how are you extending freedom of speech, by demanding government intervention, because the people you support are too stupid to go to Azure or... gasp... host it on your own servers. How the hell have you been convinced, that government intervention, will expand free speech? How the hell have you been convinced of that?

I will ask again... Why was I able to host my own server at 15, in 1995... but, neither billionaire Trump or parlor can do that in 2021? It’s as if they are lying to you...

[gondrin]

I want the right to speech extended... I have no interest in government intervention beyond that. We are not in anyway saying the same thing.

Ok, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite. Extended to what? Outside of a few things, freedom of speech is absolute. What you want removed is freedom of consequence for said speech which won't and shouldn't happen. What you want is for people to be able to say what they want and nobody can do anything about it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way nor will it ever.

[Belize]

I want the right to speech extended... I have no interest in government intervention beyond that. We are not in anyway saying the same thing.

No one's stopping you, or these MAGA terrorists from talking. They're just being told to go talk somewhere else. You're not entitled to a platform, and taking that platform away isn't an infringement on free speech.

[Felya]

Yeah, a lot of Trump supporters are most definitely lost on irony.

This is about money... the reason Trump doesn’t want to go with his own... blog or something of the sort... Is because they want the audience that Twitter and AWS busted ass developing over decades. The issue isn’t speech, but getting a bigger audience to generate revenue. It’s not freedom of speech... it’s about money...

- - - Updated - - -

No one's stopping you, or these MAGA terrorists from talking. They're just being told to go talk somewhere else. You're not entitled to a platform, and taking that platform away isn't an infringement on free speech.

This is spot on: https://twitter.com/Mike_Shapes/stat...60463577608193

‘Conservatives voices are being silenced... I said on my youtube channel... on Joe Roagan... on Jordan Peterson pod cast... said it on Tucker Carlson... twice... said it in my NY Times best seller... I say it all the time, conservative voices are being silenced, it’s a point I have to make over and over and over’...

Edit: Candice Owens video about suing fact checkers for silencing her, has several million views.

[Orange Joe]

Sure let me go into twitter and buy some milk and bread...

You don't really grasp the conversation if you believe a corporation deciding what is and isn't acceptable speech on one of the largest platforms is akin to chain store.

I would argue your so far out to lunch that you are a detriment to the conversation. I would argue there is good cause to go about expanding the right to free speech to better account for what has changed rather then trying to use it as a club to restrict the average person.

Here is the test. If we replace twitter with your house. Do you still think you should have no right to stop me from saying whatever I want in it?

[Krakan]

Uhm... that doesn’t make any sense... how are you extending freedom of speech, by demanding government intervention, because the people you support are too stupid to go to Azure or... gasp... host it on your own servers. How the hell have you been convinced, that government intervention, will expand free speech? How the hell have you been convinced of that?

I will ask again... Why was I able to host my own server at 15, in 1995... but, neither billionaire Trump or parlor can do that in 2021? It’s as if they are lying to you...

If you can't understand how reach works then this is a bizzare argument to make. I understand your argument entirely I just find it so flimsy and pointless that I barely see a need to address it.

It's like telling a person to build their own bank. There comes a point when existing infrastructure is so ingrained that your argument comes off as nothing but disingenuous.

Rather then trying to defend your job argument why not instead try coming up for reasons why the right to free speech shouldn't be extended beyond " wont someone please thing about mega corporations?"

[Orange Joe]

There is more to this world then your narrow view of blue and red... I don't applaud disgusting behavior because I'm obsessed with political point scoring... if your mentality is that I would suggest you reflect on your life. Maybe find a religion to devote yourself to. No politician deserves nor I would argue should have that level of dedication given to them. They are your servants not the other way around.

Says the guy that has been defending a murderer.... lmao

[Krakan]

Ok, I know I shouldn't but I'll bite. Extended to what? Outside of a few things, freedom of speech is absolute. What you want removed is freedom of consequence for said speech which won't and shouldn't happen. What you want is for people to be able to say what they want and nobody can do anything about it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way nor will it ever.

I mean ideally I would want that but I'm willing to start with simply being able to discuss topics then go about attacking the inquisition after.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the test. If we replace twitter with your house. Do you still think you should have no right to stop me from saying whatever I want in it?

Can I live in Twitter then?

Here is the thing.. trying to compare a social platform to something else is a pointless and moronic argument. Yes you established its different to something else.

Do you have an argument beyond that things are different?

[Orange Joe]

Can I live in Twitter then?

Here is the thing.. trying to compare a social platform to something else is a pointless and moronic argument. Yes you established its different to something else.

Do you have an argument beyond that things are different?

Ah. I see it failed the test. Thank you for confirming it.

[gondrin]

I mean ideally I would want that but I'm willing to start with simply being able to discuss topics then go about attacking the inquisition after.

Then make your own platform and server to host it and you can do just that. Just like the olden days where you could get a literal soapbox to stand on and shout whatever you want in the public square. Gab did just that.

[Felya]

No one's stopping you, or these MAGA terrorists from talking. They're just being told to go talk somewhere else. You're not entitled to a platform, and taking that platform away isn't an infringement on free speech.

The fucking minds behind being able to see votes going from states to Venezuela and China, for some reason to be changed there and returned... are now arguing that government needs to give us freedom from social media... and the leftist getting hope that this can be transferred to government giving us freedom from healthcare... lulz... no... this is just about being able to bitch online... healthcare... waste of money... get a commission on monitoring social media... lulz...

[Krakan]

Ah. I see it failed the test. Thank you for confirming it.

Damm my ability to see differences in things!

Honestly at least try to understand your own argument before presenting it.

[Orange Joe]

Damm my ability to see differences in things!

Honestly at least try to understand your own argument before presenting it.

What is the difference?

You want people to be able to go into Twitters house and be able to scream anything they want.

If so I should be allowed to go to your house and scream what I want.

If you don't agree with one of those, but do the other. You might be a hypocrite.

[Krakan]

What is the difference?

You want people to be able to go into Twitters house and be able to scream anything they want.

If so I should be allowed to go to your house and scream what I want.

If you don't agree with one of those, but do the other. You might be a hypocrite.

Are you now trying to tell me that when you use twitter you physically enter it?

Again I have a super power you don't possess. I can see distinct differences between different things and understand they serve different purposes. It's why your parents need to put locks over the bleach fearing you would drink it otherwise because milk is liquid that is white too.

[Endus]

I mean ideally I would want that but I'm willing to start with simply being able to discuss topics then go about attacking the inquisition after.

Freedom of speech is your right to step out into the public street and shout your opinion into the sky, and have the government not punish or silence you doing so.

That's it.

It does not include any entitlement to any platform for broadcast of any kind whatsoever.
It does not include any entitlement to be heard by anyone.
It does not include any protection from consequences by anyone but the government.

What you propose is a naked attack on people's rights and freedoms, in the name of protecting abuse and hate. Nothing more.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you now trying to tell me that when you use twitter you physically enter it?

Again I have a super power you don't possess. I can see distinct differences between different things and understand they serve different purposes. It's why your parents need to put locks over the bleach fearing you would drink it otherwise because milk is liquid that is white too.

And yet, you can't see the difference between a free speech argument, and what you're actually trying to argue, here.

Which is in no way a free speech argument.

[Orange Joe]

Are you now trying to tell me that when you use twitter you physically enter it?

Again I have a super power you don't possess. I can see distinct differences between different things and understand they serve different purposes. It's why your parents need to put locks over the bleach fearing you would drink it otherwise because milk is liquid that is white too.

That part is irrelavent. Point still remains and you know this which is why you are pulling this stupid shit instead of answering.

[Lenonis]

Now before someone goes about screaming about being allowed to distribute child porn no one is arguing these platforms suddenly be made to distribute illegal materials.

Death threats and incitement to riot/insurrection are illegal materials. You are literally advocating for just that.

And I have no doubt if Biden was doing it you'd support the twitter ban.

[Felya]

If you can't understand how reach works then this is a bizzare argument to make. I understand your argument entirely I just find it so flimsy and pointless that I barely see a need to address it.

Yeah, you can’t... all you can do is insult and act with indignation. Wiki basic function of hosting services... go tell the people working on hosting services, that the shit they do every day is flimsy and pointless.

It’s pointless to your argument, because reality doesn’t care about your feelings. The millions of people literally doing it every day, disagree... me at 15, disagrees...

It's like telling a person to build their own bank. There comes a point when existing infrastructure is so ingrained that your argument comes off as nothing but disingenuous.

No, it’s like telling people to host their own server... you know... like millions do every day... like I did at 15... This comparison is due to ignorance of IT... something your pundits don’t tell you... why is that? Why don’t they tell you that even a 15 year old can host their own social media site, for about 35 bucks a month. (Static IP, domain name, in 2021, you don’t even pay for zone file hosting, it’s part of domain hosting)

Rather then trying to defend your job argument why not instead try coming up for reasons why the right to free speech shouldn't be extended beyond " wont someone please thing about mega corporations?"

Because you are demanding government interfere in free speech, as if it’s freedom of speech. Your argument contradicts your are free to start your own social media... which unlike a bank, requires 35$ a month and your existing internet service. As your revenue grows, from popularity, you can then expand by buy a larger ISP plan and maybe buying an actual server. As that grows, you invest money back into it, to grow your own site. That’s pretty much how all social media was born...

You are demanding people lose their free speech and your only argument while arguing against it, is to just scream you want freedom... that doesn’t make any sense... you can scream all you want, your doing the opposite... it’s called demagoguery...

[wunksta]

Are you now trying to tell me that when you use twitter you physically enter it?

Twitter is hosted on servers and in order to access those servers and use their services, you have to agree to their rules. This isn't complicated.

[Lenonis]

I don't agree with the idea that corporations should have a monopoly on speech.

This is a stupid talking point. Nothing - absolutely nothing is stopping Trump for holding a press conference to air whatever vapid thoughts are tumbling around his head. And immediately it would be broadcast on news channels and livestreamed on YouTube, Twitter, etc.

There is no monopoly on speech. The very fact we're having this conversation here, and that places like Parler and Gab exist prove that.