-->
@3RU7AL
Spot on. The drift from theory to fact, let alone thought to action, is all too easily conceived, but self-control will arrest the transfer.
Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech
Posts
Total:
167
-->
@fauxlaw
But, none of you will articulate why you feel the need to not just censure, but to completely ban?
Because censure doesn't work. What would that even look like? Twitter tried flagging Trump's lies as "disputed". It accomplished nothing. People continued to believe them.
Are you afraid that conservative influencers have a message you cannot combat directly but by censure?
How do you compete with an "evil cabal of pedophiles who secretly control the world"? there is no logic in this. There is no rational argument about why they are right. There is bat shit crazy nonsense that vulnerable, confused people buy into. It is dangerous.
Abandon censure with a better argument. That's what rational, civilized people do
better arguments were and continue to be made. But people don't listen. It's much easier to just buy into a conspiracy theory that explains everything than to try to understand a complicated and messy world. So when the right gives insane but simple explanations, people buy it. IE, it isn't that there are complex problems, it is that a cabal of pedophiles are doing it. It isn't that Trump lost an election because he had terrible policies and failed as a president, no it was a cabal of corporations and dead communists that stole it.
a "better" argument is not what these people are looking for. they are looking for a simpler one that protects their world view from being challenged.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm pretty certain it's NEVER A CRIME to publicly discuss a THEORY, no matter how "insane" it seems.
not entirely true. if you are theorizing about overthrowing the government, that could still cross the line into criminal. But for the most part you would be right. But no one is talking about criminal behavior in this thread. We are talking about parlor being banned which isn't about crimes being committed. It is about parlor breaking the terms of service and the free market.
Each individual criminal is responsible for their own actions.
again, you are confusing crimes with a business decision. Parlor didn't get removed from the app store because they committed a crime. They got removed because their existence on the google/apple play store was bad for google/apple's business.
A THEORY cannot be dragged into a court of law.
no one is talking about a court of law. Why do you think this has something to do with the courts?
They can choose, for any reason not protected by the constitution, to stop doing business with them at any time.Yes. Nobody is disagreeing with you on this particular point.
so you now agree with the topic? That is is totally fine for google/apple etc to stop doing business with parlor? that seems to be the exact opposite of what you are attempting to argue.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Because censure doesn't work. What would that even look like?
It looks like what you have: "Social media" banning members whose opinions do not match the party line. More than Trump are being banned. Hundreds have been and are being banned. I'm no longer on Twitter, either, so I know what shytestorm you've got.
"evil cabal of pedophiles
That's your concern? Sure, pedo is bad, but that's not the spear you fear. It's free market capitalism you fear
better arguments were and continue to be made
Free medical care is a better message?
Free education is a better message?
Free salary just for being alive, but not willing to work is a better message?
A one-way conversation is a better message?
-->
@fauxlaw
It looks like what you have: "Social media" banning members whose opinions do not match the party line. More than Trump are being banned. Hundreds have been and are being banned. I'm no longer on Twitter, either, so I know what shytestorm you've got.
I don't use Twitter. So my expertise is quite limited. But from my understanding, people don't get banned for their opinions not matching party line. They get banned for things like spreading obvious lies. I can see why that would be a blurred line though since the republican party line is lies (about voter fraud, etc).
"evil cabal of pedophilesThat's your concern? Sure, pedo is bad, but that's not the spear you fear.
It's a reference to the Qanan lunatics. They believe there is a cabal of pedophiles secretly running the world, or some such nonsense.
It's free market capitalism you fear
I don't fear free market capitalism. for the most part, it is a great system. However, in specific areas it is a train wreck. The market is good at responding to lots of consumer needs. It drives growth and innovation. But when there is some kind of urgent need, it really, really sucks. The free market isn't looking at what is best for the country or the people, they are looking at what is best for their shareholders. So when you have something that actually needs leadership, the free market fails us.
Free medical care is a better message?Free education is a better message?
yes.
Free salary just for being alive, but not willing to work is a better message?
I'm assuming you mean UBI. That's not a policy that I personally ascribe to, but it could be worth looking into.
A one-way conversation is a better message?
no. when have I ever said it should be a one-way conversation?
-->
@HistoryBuff
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.
In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
Parlor was on the google play store. So they were on google's platform and breaking Google's rules.
This is simply untrue. Tell us what rule of the Google play store was broken by Parler? The Parker app was on offer at the Google play store. They violated no google rules.
Did Twitter ban Parlor? I'm not sure that makes any sense.
The Twitter accounts of Parler, and of it's CEC were banned, though those accounts violated I Twitter rules. Even Twitter did not vote any rule violations when announcing the ban. They cited actions ON PARLER as the reasons for their ban. But why would Parler need to observe Twitter's rules on Parler's own platform? The Ayatollah doesn't, yet his Twitter account is still up.
Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple.
It's very hypocritical. Apple did not sanction others doing the same thing or worse.
I agree.
And we say this is hypocritical political discrimination.
They should have cracked down on this bullshit a long time ago.
They are wrong to "crack down" and try to force other platforms to observe their rules. Since Parler broke no Twitter rules, they should not have been banned.
But they really, really didn't want to have to get involved. They don't want to be stuck in the middle of politics. They try to avoid actually having to crack down on anything. It is only the overwhelming severity of what parlor and the loonies on the right are doing that is forcing them to take action.
Nonsense. Even if we accept for arguments sake your biased view on their actions, it is not Twitter's responsibility to moderate Parler's platform.
She spent years convincing millions of people that trump was an illigetimate president
I have no idea what she did for years.
Of course you don't, because you are fed ONLY on a fact lean diet of leftist news.
So if she was spreading lies that is a problem. But she is a comedian, not the sitting president of the united states. They have very, very different levels of responsibility.
Yet she had to issue a public apology.
Not to mention, trump took an oath to uphold the constitution (which he very much broke). Comedians do not.
Again, this is your TDS talking, not fact.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact.
no, it is very much fact. Dozens of court cases, investigations by multiple law enforcement agencies and by every contested state. Every single time the outcome has been the same, no significant amounts of fraud. Yet the president continues to lie about it.
This is like a racist using the Supreme Court case of Dredd Scott and public opinion in 1890 as proof that blacks were inferior.
And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
i agree that not all the reporting was accurate. But much of it was.
Not about Trump. They lied. They covered up the truth. They broadcasted innuendo as fact.
Trump and his campaign did communicate with the russians and lie about it.
The charge was collusion, not communication. What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia? Only a stupid one.
There was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. These things happened. That is indisputable by anyone fully connected to reality.
Then the US Senate isn't "fully connected to reality" according to you. I doubt you have a grasp of reality the all Republican Senators lack.
Your spin is not what happened. Griffin was on SNL, she was not alone, and she was a constant abuser of Trump, from the day he announced his run for the presidency. 78 million American citizens disagree with your opinion of lies and conspiracy theories.
it's not a crime to make fun of or criticize a politician.
We are talking about inviting to violence, please don't try to be dishonest. Holding the bloodied severed head of a controversial president on a show broadcast to millions of viewers is pure incitement. Yet you see only what Trump said as incitement. That is TDS.
It is a large part of the job of a comedian.
I was unaware that incitement to violence was a large part of the job of a comedian.
It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.
Yes. You only fault is that President Trump didn't do that. It is your TDS making you believe he did. But just as with Kavenaugh, no one is going to be convicted because of your TDS. Your opinions are not reality.
Parler has sued Apple, and the CEO of Parler in a post on Parrer.com has vowed that Parler will be back online by the end of Jan.
-->
@ethang5
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform.In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
It was on apple's platform. they have now been removed from it. That is what we are talking about. Parlor was never on twitter as far as I know, so I don't understand why you are mentioning that.
Tell us what rule of the Google play store was broken by Parler? The Parker app was on offer at the Google play store. They violated no google rules.
both apple and google answered that. Parlor violated their rules about content moderation.
Here is Google's statement:
"In order to protect user safety on Google Play, our longstanding policies require that apps displaying user-generated content have moderation policies and enforcement that removes egregious content like posts that incite violence," "We're aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US. We recognize that there can be reasonable debate about content policies and that it can be difficult for apps to immediately remove all violative content, but for us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content,"
The Twitter accounts of Parler, and of it's CEC were banned, though those accounts violated I Twitter rules. Even Twitter did not vote any rule violations when announcing the ban. They cited actions ON PARLER as the reasons for their ban.
I did a quick look and couldn't find anything about parler being banned from twitter. Could you provide a source please?
They are wrong to "crack down" and try to force other platforms to observe their rules.
why? Google and apple have rules about what other businesses have to do in order to be in their app store. Parlor chose to break those rules. You are arguing that parlor should be allowed to flagrantly breach their contractual obligations.
Not to mention, trump took an oath to uphold the constitution (which he very much broke). Comedians do not.Again, this is your TDS talking, not fact.
The man incited an attack democracy to try to prevent the rightful president from being sworn in. That is definitely a violation of his oath.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.This is your opinion, not fact.
nope. Trump made tons of allegations, had tons of cases go before the courts. They then each got tossed out one by one because there was no evidence the allegations were true.
The charge was collusion, not communication.
the trump campaign gave voter information to a russian agent, it definitely went further than "communication". Also, it was trump that made it about "collusion". IE he kept tweeting he didn't collude with them while he was being investigated. Collusion isn't in any criminal code. It is a buzz word he used.
What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia?
most of them. Why would a president elect have communication with russians? But on top of that, Trump and multiple members of his administration swore they didn't communicate with any russians. They lied. Trump's team communicated with russians or their agents dozens of times (including in Trump tower) when they said it was zero.
It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.Yes. You only fault is that President Trump didn't do that.
your delusions are pretty strong. Even republicans admit that trump incited that attack. But trump cultists will fight to the death to defend the dear leader.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Parlor was never on twitter as far as I know, so I don't understand why you are mentioning that.
Both Parler and it's CEO had accounts on Twitter.
Parlor violated their rules about content moderation.
So Google wants to decide moderation on Parler.
Parlor chose to break those rules.
Parler didn't. Users on Parler did, ON PARLER'S PLATFORM, not Google's.
The man incited an attack democracy to try to prevent the rightful president from being sworn in. That is definitely a violation of his oath.
That is your leftist hysterical spin. Your not being able to see that doesn't make it not true.
Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact.
nope. Trump made tons of allegations, had tons of cases go before the courts. They then each got tossed out one by one because there was no evidence the allegations were true.
Not a single court convicted Trump of "spending months convincing people of delusional conspiracies." Trying to conflate your spin with the courts verdict is dishonest.
the trump campaign gave voter information to a russian agent, it definitely went further than "communication".
2 years of a special prosecuter's investigation found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You seem to cherry-pick which authority's findings you accept.
Also, it was trump that made it about "collusion". IE he kept tweeting he didn't collude with them while he was being investigated. Collusion isn't in any criminal code. It is a buzz word he used.
Lie. "Collision" was first used in the Congress by hysterical Democrats. And that was the charge used to launch the Mueller probe.
What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia?
most of them.
I can't tell if you're that ignorant or if you're just a liar. Every incoming American president talks to the leaders of the other superpowers.
Why would a president elect have communication with russians?
Because he is about to take control of t(and likely change) policy towards that country! Plus the Russians call him to get a feel of his intentions.
It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government.
Yes. Your only fault is that President Trump didn't do that.
Your delusions are pretty strong. Even republicans admit that trump incited that attack.
Republicans who wish to keep licking the boots of the new sharriff. If those same Republicans had disagreed, you'd simply dismiss them. Most Republicans do not admit that trump incited that attack. You are trying to use the few turncoats as proof of your spin's truth.
But trump cultists will fight to the death to defend the dear leader.
I keep posting fact you dismiss, and focus on Trump. Of the two of us, only you are cultish with Trump. My point is that both Google and Twitter are being hypocritical and discriminatory. All you've done is bash Trump. Jim Jones much?
-->
@HistoryBuff
so you now agree with the topic? That is is totally fine for google/apple etc to stop doing business with parlor? that seems to be the exact opposite of what you are attempting to argue.
I already specified the difference between COULD BE BANNED and SHOULD BE BANNED.
YES to, PARLER COULD BE BANNED.
NO to, PARLER SHOULD BE BANNED.
-->
@ethang5
So Google wants to decide moderation on Parler.
they want products that appear in their store to follow basic rules of conduct, yes. Just like any other business would. If parlor doesn't want to follow those basic rules, they can't be on the app store.
Parlor chose to break those rules.Parler didn't. Users on Parler did, ON PARLER'S PLATFORM, not Google's.
no. Google's rules say parlor must moderate the content on their platform. Parlor chose not to do that. Therefore it is parlor that broke the rules.
nope. Trump made tons of allegations, had tons of cases go before the courts. They then each got tossed out one by one because there was no evidence the allegations were true.Not a single court convicted Trump of "spending months convincing people of delusional conspiracies." Trying to conflate your spin with the courts verdict is dishonest.
not a single court was investigating trump. They were investigating claims of fraud. And in every single case they found no evidence of fraud. Therefore all of trump's claims were tested in court and found to be incorrect.
2 years of a special prosecuter's investigation found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You seem to cherry-pick which authority's findings you accept.
this is a common lie people on the right tell. Trump's team gave polling data to the russians. The investigation did not find that there was no collusion. It didn't even say that trump didn't commit any crimes. The report was clear that they could not make that determination because they felt they could not legally charge Trump and it would therefore be unreasonable to accuse him of crimes when he can't defend himself in court.
What president elect of America doesn't communicate with Russia?
umm, most of them? What president elect does communicate with Russia?
I can't tell if you're that ignorant or if you're just a liar. Every incoming American president talks to the leaders of the other superpowers.
please provide a source for that.
My point is that both Google and Twitter are being hypocritical and discriminatory.
they are removing an app that has very seriously breached their terms of service. If that is discrimination in your mind, then there is no way to reason with you. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do when someone breaches a contract.
-->
@3RU7AL
NO to, PARLER SHOULD BE BANNED.
why? the platform is blatantly breaching the rules they agreed to with google, apple etc by allowing violent extremists to spread calls to violence. If that isn't grounds to remove an app from the app store, then what would be?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Horrible people use telephones to communicate horrible things.
Should their phone service be rescinded?
-->
@3RU7AL
Horrible people use telephones to communicate horrible things.
Phones are, by nature, a 2 way communication. IE you are talking to only a private group of people. Things like parlor are, by nature, a public form of communication. You are spreading your message to a large, potentially unlimited, group of people.
There is an important distinction between the two. If people were privately messaging each other on parlor we wouldn't be having this discussion. The core of the issue is the loud, public messages encouraging violence and treason.
Not a single court convicted Trump of "spending months convincing people of delusional conspiracies." Trying to conflate your spin with the courts verdict is dishonest.
not a single court was investigating trump.
Thank you.
They were investigating claims of fraud. And in every single case they found no evidence of fraud. Therefore all of trump's claims were tested in court and found to be incorrect.
Untrue. The courts did not investigate. Here was never any trial. Most of the cases were dismissed with no prejudice to the claims brought. Most were dismissed on technicalities. None of Trump's claims were "tested" in court.
2 years of a special prosecuter's investigation found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You seem to cherry-pick which authority's findings you accept.
this is a common lie people on the right tell.
Did the Meuller investigation find collusion? Please stop lying.
The investigation did not find that there was no collusion.
The investigation found that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Stop lying.
...they are removing an app that has very seriously breached their terms of service. If that is discrimination in your mind, then there is no way to reason with you. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do when someone breaches a contract.
Then why are the doing it only with Parler? Is hypocrisy a business tactic? Nothing in Apples terms says anything about public or private communications. Apple has been ad-hoc, and discriminatory.
Parler is in court now with Amazon about Amazon abruptly taking away cloud access, though the contract stipulates a 30 day warning to termination. We will see how that goes.
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is an important distinction between the two.
But NOT a LEGAL DISTINCTION.
Any speech that could be considered "illegal" is going to be "illegal" whether you say it to one person or one million.
AND.
Government officials want tech companies to put backdoors in encrypted communications apps — and may turn to Congress to make it happen. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
There is an important distinction between the two.But NOT a LEGAL DISTINCTION.
No one is being charged with a crime over this. So the "legal distinction" is irrelevant. The government isn't charging anyone with a crime over their speech. Companies are choosing not to do business with Parlor over their failure to moderate in their app.
Any speech that could be considered "illegal" is going to be "illegal" whether you say it to one person or one million.
we aren't discussing crimes. We are discussing the business relationship between companies. So "illegal" doesn't even enter into this.
Government officials want tech companies to put backdoors in encrypted communications apps — and may turn to Congress to make it happen
this seems to be unrelated to the current topic of parlor being removed from app stores.