As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
from the that-did-not-take-long-at-all dept
Well, that did not take long at all. On Friday we predicted that just like every other social media platform out there, the new favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives, would start taking down content and shutting down accounts just like everyone else. Because, if you run any sort of platform that allows 3rd party speech, sooner or later you discover you have to do that. In Friday's post, we highlighted Parler's terms of service, which certainly allows for it to take down any content for any reason (we also mocked their "quick read on Wikipedia" style understanding of the 1st Amendment).
What we did not expect was that Parler would prove us right so damn quickly. Over the weekend, Parler was apparently busy taking down accounts.
Well I got banned from Parler
— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) June 27, 2020
And he was not the only one.
Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks, and every last one of them was banned in less than 24 hours because conservatives truly love free speech.
— Respectable Lawyer (@RespectableLaw) June 26, 2020
I was banned from Parler because I called them out on their sketchy legal tactics: shoving legal fees onto users, requiring driver's license, and abusing pornography laws.
Truth is coming for you, Parler. And she's got a big stick named Karma. pic.twitter.com/M4tjbWGg2S
— Belet-Seri (@belet_seri) June 27, 2020
i’ve been banned from parler 🙄🙄 what happened to freedom of speech pic.twitter.com/FXabyMyqqZ
— jaxsen🧍♂️🐕 (@tittyinmymouth) June 27, 2020
There's a lot more as well. Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what's not great is the site continues to pretend that it's some "free speech alternative" to Twitter when it's facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.
What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he's joining Parler because it doesn't have "censorship," he's wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about "free speech." It's got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it's pretty silly for Parler's CEO to refer to Twitter as a "techno-fascist" company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that "If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York." (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.
As I've said before: I think competition is good. And, personally, I'd prefer there to be many more competitors (though, I wish they were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but...). So, I have nothing against Parler existing. In fact, I think it's an excellent demonstration of why the concerns about "dominance" by Twitter or other platforms is silly. It's possible to create alternatives, and Parler has shown that it's able to attract a bunch of users. At least for now.
But what no one should do, is think that Parler is somehow any more "pro-free speech" than Twitter is, or that it doesn't pull down content and accounts. Because it does.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bans, content moderation, free speech
Companies: parler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The part you're missing is that it's only censorship if it silences speech you like. When speech you don't like is censored that's just common sense, silly. What are you, some sort of commie mutant traitor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calm down, Senator Kelly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All these commies bitching are Hillary strikers and Bite-Me lickers; can't you tell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moron
Take that computer and shove the whole thing, including speakers, up your azz, moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Semicolon to that brother.
Semicolon.
FYI: 'Semicolon' is 'Amen' to members of 'The First Church of Christ, Computer Programmer'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...to members of 'The First Church of Christ, Computer Programmer'"
Keeping our laser handy, are we, troubleshooter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you meant the final closing brace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I totally miss that game!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it's just that libs and leftists are such dicks--like that "Respectable (oxy-moron) Lawyer" retard lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"libs and leftists are such dicks"
And with that single line of text I can see exactly how you came to such a conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What are libs and leftists?
Who are they, how do you tell?
Does everyone use the same definitions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you need to ask, chances are you are it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People on the ‘left’ usually are pro-choice, for bigger govt, gun control, amnesty, open borders, and they are the one’s that call people racist, or homophobic. They watch MSNBC and CNN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
General stereotypes are fun and usually full of assumptions.
Many who voted for Biden did so not because they like neocons, but because they realize Donald is a dictator wannabe and is running a slow motion coup - or at least trying very poorly.
Now, if one were to ask a liberal lefty whatever your derogatory term of choice my be, I doubt that any one particular person would hold all of those stated opinions.
Not all weapons are owned by right wing conservative types.
Amnesty for what?
I like the bigger government thing - that is a laugh and a half. Conservative are for small government when they are not in control, otherwise it is open flood gates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We also know they're leftist when they call Trump a dictator but can't think of dictator policy signed by Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hazardous to presume that a person's behavior or position defines who they are.
As for Trump's dictatorial policy, his declaration of a national emergency due to alleged invaders from the southern border (id est, immigrants and refugees) was pretty dictatorial, as was the re-appropriation of funds from schools for military children and for maintaining harbors in order to build his wall. But then the whole wall program was typical of an tyrant who governs based on whimsy rather than research into state affairs.
Then there's the whole thing of selling access to himself to foreign powers through his hotels and clubs. Profiteering off of one's position as head of state is pretty dictatorial.
Then there's the nepotism within the White House, going as far as giving his kids security clearances for which they did not qualify (and are and remain a national security risk.) That's classic dictatorial material right there.
Oh yes, and leaving Puerto Rico without relief after Hurricane Dorian was a dick move, the kind for which usually one has to be a banana-republic dictator to pull. But that may more be an indictment of how low the US has fallen in letting Trump get elected in the first place.
Whether you can't think of Trump's dictatorial maneuvers, Bobbybrownbb or you choose to ignore them, it's terrifying either way. That you don't bother to look that crap up demonstrates your own indifference to your civic responsibility, but that's not unique to you, and again is an indictment of our nation.
But that's not the only thing not unique to you. More than seventy million other Americans appear voted for Trump even after he botched the COVID-19 response (and continues to do so). Moreover our Republican Senators can't seem to scrape together an ounce of personal integrity, but that's a natural outcome of allowing an elected President serve as a dictator.
It's the crimes against humanity that break my heart, not that Trump did them and is not (yet) held accountable, but that such a mass of American population are perfectly okay with the kids left orphaned and the Kurds left to be massacred and the Muslim ban.
I don't know why people like you can't recognize the intrinsic hazards that come with tolerating our fascist police state and our captured federal government, as we're all on the purge list (unless you're buddies with a billionaire).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clear and concise, thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
fag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"fag"
That's Mr. Fag, Sir to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You regurgitated all that is msm. Wow. Not a single original thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mainstream media
Not a single original thought
Of course not. I'm not here for the art. The facts color President Trump as a dictator-wannabe. I'm not making shit up or coming to conclusions that were not come to by countless others, both in the mainstream media sector and out.
Also, just because someone you don't respect says a thing doesn't make it false or true. It just means you don't respect it as a data source.
I get my data from multiple sources, which means if you give a fuck, you can confirm it yourself with a couple of websearches.
Or not, because you're comfortable in your data bubble and you're too afraid to see things that might stress your worldview.
That is cowardice, incidentally, and makes you exactly the kind of chump that Trump likes to exploit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mainstream media
add your research links but wait we all know CNN website what a joke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mainstream media
You do realize he said multiple sources, right. So “just CNN’s website” is clearly not the correct answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly what has Trump done that would make you call him a dictator? Or is it just policy that you don’t agree with? Nothing he has done would reflect a dictator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whelp, you can add instigating a coup d'etat to the list of dictatory actions by President Trump. Elizabeth from Knoxville Tennessee, believed she was participating in a coup and got a facefull of pepper spray for her involvement.
Feel free to actually look up what Trump has done, starting with the Muslim Ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see idiocy on both sides in this comment section, but how the hell was this a coup? Thousands were there that had nothing to do with it (the same rational separated BLM protesters from rioters all year who did much worse, now it doesn't apply I guess). Trump told everyone early to go home and they banned him. And now this article looks real dated since everyone has banned Parler (Twitter is a competitor to a Parler while Google and Amazon are a provider, all 3 of whom operated in unison just now).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"How the hell was this a coup?"
Keep on the news. More evidence is uncovered every day.
Though the whole stop the process that will remove our guy from office thing totally makes it antagonistic to the current transfer of power. Ergo, a coup d'etat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "How the hell was this a coup?"
Evidence of what? And that definition doesn't fit for a coup, otherwise you could say that of anyone who challenges the vote of an election (which is absolutely allowed by the constitution, and it would be typical of those wanting power to label those challenges as a coup). But if you want to remove all context and discretion and go by the dictionary, well then there have been dozens of coup attempts this year that went unchecked. And as far as "evidence", while it was certainly NEARLY ALL Trump supporters who broke in, there were some notable exceptions, and were finding out that the capital police were oddly unprepared for potential escalations when compared to many other (and much smaller) protest gatherings. It was a travesty and absolutely should be called out as a riot, but not some organized insurrection, not even close. It's fine to not like Trump, I get it, but NO ONE should be in support of these opportunistic, Orwellian actions being taken in response (be they legal or not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "How the hell was this a coup?"
anyone who challenges the vote of an election (which is absolutely allowed by the constitution) [would be a coup d'etat]
The Constitution doesn't allow for military or violent challenges to the election. Litigation, yes. Strong-arm assault, no. The Wednesday assault was violent. New revelations are showing it was significantly violent. Discussions on Parler have revealed that there were directions to use force. Materials brought by the raiding crowd indicate an intent to use deadly force.
Not just the pipe bombs.
Complain here all you like, but judges and juries will decide if the attack should be described as a coup d'etat, and what an appropriate punishment should be.
It's a good thing there are tons of photos and video footage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "How the hell was this a coup?"
My line about the constitution was in response to your secondary definition of a coup. Yes, OF COURSE a violent takeover would count, but if the sheer amount of people involved and the level of organization is not taken into account at all, then SEVERAL local coup attempts have happened the past (yes I said local, clearly for the whole country, the scale would need to go up). It's funny you say "military or violent" as that sounds like we both know what a coup ACTUALLY looks like. The soviet coup in '91 involved tanks, for god's sake, with military and political leaders, not people getting high or being half-naked with horns (and again, a couple were either antifa or BLM, weird company for this organized assault by Trump supporters). But fine, there were some who were armed and some explosives found, and individuals organization what TO THEM was coup, for sure. But again, if that's the standard then all those who used Twitter and Facebook to organize attacks over the past year should either be charged or have their existing charges elevated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patience is paying off
Yesterday's word of the day was premeditation. Also the Parler videos with GPS tags in or near the raid (time and place) are now accessible to the public.
It's looking less and less like a protest and more like a coup d'etat with every hour.
📺🍿
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to the lefftards not all the Muslim are bad but all the Trumpers are Terorrist ! Who,s side is burning and looting , wreck the national flag all this years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one is saying that all Trump supporters are terrorists. Just that an alarmingly large number of them appear to at least want to be terrorists and that the people who stormed inside the capital last week were Trump-supporting terrorists.
The alt-right and some dissatisfied blacks, generally after being assaulted in the latter case. Well, actually, I don’t know of anyone wrecking the national flag, not that it matters as that is protected speech so I don’t care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2020 ELECTION WAS RIGGED ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THEIR RALLYIES TO SEE A TRUMP RALLY IS LIKE GOING TO WOODSTOCK, A biden rally is like going to a funeral
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rally sizes are not a reliable indicator of election results, especially during a time when many voters, especially on one side, are fearful of catching a highly infectious disease and both they and the people organizing the rallies for that side are taking precautions (like social distancing) to reduce the spread of said disease. And that’s not getting into the fact that a lot of people who voted to elect Biden were doing so not because they like Biden or were Democrats (the type of people who’d attend Biden’s rallies) but because they dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, according to Politico and FiveThirtyEight Trump voters really like the racist dog whistles (more accurately, the racist dog tubas). So while I went to great lengths to give Trump voters the benefit of doubt, yeah, it turns out I was wrong and they just mostly (over 90%) want to purge the brown people.
They still do in 2020.
Incidentally, now that the FBI's arresting Boogaloo Bois for burning and looting during BLM demonstrations, Trump's own people have contributed to the ambiguity regarding violence during demonstrations. BLM demonstrations are still unlikely to be violent, even when the police go in, guns and grenade-launchers blazing.
Just like the civil rights, the left doesn't have to do anything before law enforcement opens hostilities. Only now, smartphones with cameras are ubiquitous. And they're streaming to the internet, and being watched. We don't have news agencies as a gateway anymore (and boy are they pissed off over it).
So maybe look at the videos and face the truth, if you dare. The FBI has already determined white supremacists and far right nationalists are the greatest terror threat in the US.
I bet they're looking for recruits, if you're interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you are a fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking morons
That's what US Secretary of State Tillerson called Trump in a moment of candor. We can't be sure that was the last straw that motivated Tillerson's ouster. Rumor has it Tillerson had written his resignation already and Pence convinced him to hold out a bit longer.
I suspect fucking moron is a prerequisite to work for Trump, To be a MAGA or a Q... or a Proud Boy. FBI plants must me losing their goddamn minds saturated in and forced to mimic the banality.
But I get the implication and appreciate it. As a youngster, I too yearned for a cause in which the bad guys wore black hats and the good guys wore white. I, too yearned for a cause greater than myself. But then I had to face the horrifying revelation that sides are what we take in hours of desperation and scarcity. And the ones painted to be the culprits is not the ones on the propaganda posters.
Besides which, everything Trump stands for, everything his MAGAs and Qs and goon squads stand for is contrary to the promise of the United States. And contrary to societal fundamentals I would argue are essential in a modern nation. So no thank you. I'm glad you didn't ask outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He’s tried to discredit the media, fired anyone who doesn’t do exactly what he says, favors loyalty to him over loyalty to the country or the law, has tried to shut down investigations into him or his cronies, claimed to have absolute power, calls for law and order while holding himself to be above the law, claimed that the election was rigged if he wasn’t elected, and instigated an attempted coup to keep him in power. He may not actually be a dictator, but it’s not for a lack of trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you know biden well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, Biden has never done even one of those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even ONE of those things
Mr. Anonymous Coward doesn't care. He figures if he repeats it enough times to himself and friends, they'll get used to pretending it's true.
And then, to quote English Bob, why not shoot a president?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where do fucktards like you come from? Same lame talking points which prove you have zero clue what you`re even babbling on about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a F-ing coward! Meet me in the street bitch! You must be a transgender. All homos, trannies, lesbians, illegal aliens, libtards, abortionists, will be thrown into the lake of fire on judgement day. Now that is a movie I can't wait to see. Watching your carcass being dropped into the fire. Trump is God's messenger for this wicked generation. To even speak evil of Trump is blasphemy against Jesus Christ who is God almighty manifested in flesh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Break the skin of civilization and you find the ape, roaring and red-handed. -- Robert E. Howard
When you chose not to participate in a society that respects the underclasses, you can't really complain when you learn too late you are far outmatched by the ravenous tiger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sounds like you elevator wasn't even installed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elevator
As sharp as a bowling ball
Several crayons short of a box
Not the brightest bulb on the string
Calling me dumb isn't an argument. Trying to discredit me by any means isn't an argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is this sarcasm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarcasm
Smacks to me of angry drunk posting.
Friends don't let friends...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are obviously educated beyond your intelligence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please go to the cdc website and see the latest video on how hospitals have lied about covid deaths to the tune of 130k. Why, because the receive money for every reported death and case. All this does is give tyrannical politicians ammunition to exert their power under the excuse that they are saving humanity. BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would address this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article, so I’ll just assume it’s spam.
In case you were wondering, this is about Parler’s claimed and actual moderation policies. I’m more than willing to go beyond that and go for closely related topics like social media, moderation, Twitter, Reddit, §230, allegations of conservative bias, etc. However, the pandemic, while an important issue to discuss, has no relevance to the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
@Uriel-238 Trump selling access through his clubs?? You are more of a conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones. Pop Pop Biden has been selling influence for decades. Now we know how his son got rich. Hunter's so arrogant he won't even pay the taxes because he thinks Daddy will save him. Wake up fool. You don't need to wear the black Nikes and track suit. What flavor is the Kool aid that they gave you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White House access via the DC Trump Hotel
Start here. I'm sure this rabbit hole goes further than you want to dig.
Your turn. Show me the goods regarding Joe and Hunter Biden.
PS: Biden's not my guy. I know he's old establishment. But like Clinton his corruption is less by orders of magnitude than Trump ever was, and we knew this in 2016.
You were played. We've all been played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have intelligently been programmed (brain washed) in your whole way of defining and recognizing right from wrong and good vs evil.
I can most likely be assured that you do not believe in one God and the Bible or your thought process would not be so skewed and deranged.
May God’s Holy Spirit touch your soul and awaken you.
Love you brother
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Be assured that you do not believe in God"
Oh I can assure you that I do not believe in God. And doubly so for the Abrahamic mythology. Heck the notion that the universe is but Azathoth's dream is more credible than the overworked, mistranslated mess that is 21st century Christianity (and its ~40,000 schisms).
I am not Christian nor claim to be. But having a solid grasp on truth based on evidence is way more important to me than adhering to comforting fables based on credulity and faith.
As I've noted regarding the allegiance to Trump of Christian voters in contrast to the national average, Christians are eager to see sin and waggle their fingers at other people. They give themselves and each other a mulligan.
Not all Christians are this way, but enough of them are that the Supreme Court of the United States is now skewed to exalt institutions over people, and to confine women and LGBT+ to an underclass.
So I am entirely unimpressed with Christianity as a source of moral compass. I'll keep my own council as what is right and wrong, and self awareness enough to know I'm still just an ape acting more on instinct than rationality. We all are.
Don't be a sucker, and don't rely on the wrath of some angry all-father to drive you to social propriety. Do right for right's sake, because doing so has material benefit for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"
"Do right for right's sake"
So playing devil's advocate for a minute. Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it. For example is sex outside of marriage right and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it's not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on. Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"
Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it.
Are you honestly suggesting that without "God" telling you what's right you are unable to determine for yourself the difference between right and wrong? That's ridiculous.
Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.
Going to definitely need a citation on that one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Divine Command Theory
Without God [telling us how to behave in society] how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it?
It's a pedantic nit (from a philosopher's perspective) that the role of guiding humankind is not necessarily integrated with the role of creating the universe. Not a big deal, but in most faiths, the two roles are separate.
For one thing, we've worked out (multiple times) divine command theory hasn't been all that great for us serfs. Divine right of kings has invariably resulted in a John of England, a Caligula or a Trump† who sets progress back generations. When we're lucky, it results in social movements away from religious decree and toward anthropocentric forms of leadership-selection.
So what do we do when God isn't telling us what to do (or we highly suspect scripture is really some ancient-era version of Dienetics)? We figure out better ways. This is where we delve into notions like utilitarianism or contractrarianism (see also, the Social Contract). Having been screwed over by God-ordained creedalism (deontological ethics when ethicists talk about them) we work out better ways. Trial and error. When oligarchs aren't trying to force us back into feudalism, they can work pretty well.
But another thing: We don't care. Even when we are devoutly religious. Even when we are ethicists, the human ape tends more to do what he (she) feels like doing, rather than what he believes he is morally obligated to do. Black churchgoers voted (mostly) for Clinton in 2016. White churchgoers voted (mostly) for Trump. They all felt justified. And even the wackos that raided the Capitol on January 6th felt they were entirely vindicated and justified in their assault. The religious leaders and political leaders of the US routinely engage in peculation despite their (alleged) upstanding moral qualities, and our religious gladly engage in partisanship when choosing who to forgive and who to condemn.
So without God telling us what to do we'd be... doing what we do now, most likely.
† Yes, Trump was elected, not appointed, but only though non-democratic means, and the religious blocs defied their own morality (trump's less-than-pure character and history, for which other politicians have been routinely condemned) as if it were a mandate from God. It was at least a mandate from their respective religious institutions, and blind obedience contributed to Trump's electoral victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Extra-marital sex
Is sex outside of marriage right?
Firstly, the institution of marriage has its own problems. We've long established that marriage is not merely a license to procreate, and yet the resistance to give LGBT+ folk the right to marry (and access the extensive library of state benefits for married couples) was a long, hard fought battle with opposition largely among the gatekeepers, so marriage itself is less a device of social function and more of a device of social control. This is affirmed by the fact that children are still being married in the United States, often to older partners (and are then expected to perform their marital duties). Nine-year-olds were being (legally!) married as recently as the 1990s, and I know of a thirteen-year-old married in 2018, so marriage doesn't serve to assure functional matches or to protect children.
Then, modern medical science regards premarital sex as healthy and functional despite the social expectation that brides will be virgins. a robust sexual routine has a number of health benefits, and premarital sex promotes sexual self-awareness, so a person knows what she (he) wants, what turns her on and gets her off, which makes for more communicative, longer lasting relationships.
Extra-marital sex can serve when two partners have mismatched libidos, have to spend a lot of time apart or just have mutual appetites to play the field. Emotions like jealousy can be a matter (often more an issue of inclusion than possession), but also can be navigated with communication.
So, despite the common believe that open marriages are fragile, It's deception and imbalanced negotiations that cause those relationships to break down, not the sex. Plural relationships have to be win-win(-win-win-win) and not like our click-through telecommunications term-of-service contracts.
(Speaking of which, it's difficult to create a society that respects consent when most of our other interactions are about one side trying to graft the other side. But that's a criticism of late-stage capitalism, not of sexuality.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"
Now, I’m a Christian, but I cannot abide by such faulty arguments.
First off, as a social species, humans have evolved to have empathy, giving them an intuitive sense of right and wrong, at least in broad strokes. This empathy is often strongest for those who are most like the subject. We also evolved to have a sense of fairness for similar reasons, which similarly provides guidance to our individual sense of morality.
Second, we can basically come up with a society-wide set of morals by agreeing on certain goals to work towards, like maximizing well-being and happiness for as many people as possible while minimizing harm to as many as possible, and some sort of priority system. Actions that help us approach those goals are “good”, while actions that push us further from those goals are “bad”. Obviously, some of the details are not agreed upon, which leads to gray areas.
Really, that’s basically what morality is: things that progress us towards some goal we like are “good”, while things that push us away from that goal are “bad”. And it can get pretty subjective and relative. Even if we just look at Christian philosophers, there is a lot of disagreement among them because they can’t agree on some things like goals and which things are more important. And there are a lot of gray area and many exceptions to generally accepted rules.
On a side note, playing a different sort of Devil’s advocate, let’s say that there is a real God who created humanity and provided a code of conduct. 1) That’s not an absolute morality as there are still exceptions to some of the rules. 2) It’s also not an objective morality because it’s based on the views of a personal being (God). 3) If it’s so perfect, why has it changed over time? I go into more detail later with some examples, but the morality most American Christians follow today, even the most devout Evangelical ones, is not the same as the one in Biblical times or even in early American history or just a few decades ago. 4) Again, if it’s so perfect and an absolute truth, why is it that so many Christians cannot agree on what that truth is? And what about the other religions with their own rules? What puts Christianity above them?
Since there is no way to definitively prove or disprove the existence of any God, gods, or goddesses in general, which God, gods, or goddesses exist (if any), which of the many holy texts is/are an accurate description of the “true” morality, or which interpretation of the “true” holy text(s) is the right one, if any, until after death, and there is no provable way for the dead to come back and tell us (and the stories of those that claim to have done so or that they witnessed someone else do so) are contradictory or unhelpful in these matters, as a practical matter if nothing else, it’s best to treat morality in general as relative and largely subjective.
In my opinion, it depends on the particulars. Is the sex consensual by all involved parties? If so, was that consent informed and not coerced? Is either party dating or married to someone else? If so, is the married/dating party’s significant other aware of and consenting to the act? Is this an exclusive relationship (that is, limited to a subset of a relatively small, known group of persons that are also only sexually involved with a subset of that same group) that is just not formally recognized by some sort of authority? If not, or if any sexually involved party(s) may or do(es) have some STD(s), are they taking precautions to prevent the transmission of STDs? Are they taking actions to prevent pregnancy? If not, have they adequately planned for the possibility of a pregnancy, and if so, what is that plan and how well prepared are they for it? What are the ages of the parties? Is there a command relationship between the parties outside of the bedroom? Does this relationship lead to a conflict of interest or favoritism in their professional/political capacity? Has either party vocally condemned sex outside of marriage during or prior to the affair? Did they lie about the affair, and to whom?
I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong or dangerous about sex outside of marriage, so it depends on the particulars. That actually applies to a lot of statements as broad as this one. The answer to such broad questions is often, “It depends.”
(Note: I personally have no intentions of actually having sex outside of marriage, but I don’t judge the morality of others’ behaviors based solely on mine.)
That’s where psychological and sociological studies come in, though it’s also worth noting that it also depends on how one defines “damage to society” and “broken adults”.
We can determine some measurable indicators of “damage to society” and “broken adults” and measure those against the questioned behavior (in this case, sex outside of marriage). If there’s a statistically significant correlation, more studies can be done to determine the likelihood of a causal connection between them and what direction that causality goes as well as the possible existence of confounding factor(s). If so, then we can determine what and how much, if any, “damage to society” is done by sex outside of marriage and, if there is any, how much of it is preventable without disallowing sex outside of marriage altogether. Of course, these studies would have to be compared to sex within marriage and a mixed group of both.
Again, though, this depends on how we define “damage to society” and “broken adults”, which are in turn based upon some predetermined goal(s) upon which to base our morality. It also depends on our threshold for “damage to society” before we determine something is “bad”.
And then there’s what you said about envy, gluttony, pride, etc. Again, those would have to be tested for “damage to society” before we could even determine those to be “bad for society”.
[citation needed]
First, you presuppose that there are long-established written religious rules of conduct that were followed more often before than they are now. Given the fact that there have been numerous disagreements throughout history on what those written rules actually are even within a given faith and the diversity of faiths throughout history, each with their own written rules of conduct, and the fact that many of those pushing these rules are often guilty of breaking them, this is a questionable assertion.
Second, you also presuppose that there has been an increase in “society’s ills”. Again, I don’t see any evidence of that. There has actually been a decrease over the past several decades in crimes committed in general and in violent crimes in particular. I suppose it depends on how one defines “iils” in this context, but then people can’t seem to agree on that.
Third, you presuppose that there has been a relaxation of the aforementioned rules that is because of people asserting that “God doesn’t exist”. 1) Many religious people have a more relaxed interpretation of the rules than their ancestors did that has nothing to do with other people saying that God doesn’t exist. 2) You assume that religious people are more likely to follow these rules than atheists, and I haven’t seen evidence that this is the case. 3) You forget that sometimes the rules have gotten stricter; for example, slavery used to be condoned, but no longer is; polygamy was once allowed and is actually explicitly allowed in the Bible, but now it’s condemned; racism and sexism were previously commonplace but are now strongly discouraged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's advocate
My response to the first question (How do we sort out what's right without Divine Command Theory?) got delayed for moderation, probably because I linked to too many Wikipedia pages.
And it's Friday, so it'll probably surface on Monday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Blah blah im a commie... We get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Eat a bag of dicks...Leftist! Projection is what leftist Communist do best!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Projection
Every accusation, a confession
Dude, your team is having a bad week. Maybe lay off the internet and the FOX News for a while? Maybe take some time and rethink what you're going to do?
We had to go through similar reckonings in 2001 when George W. Bush got sworn in after a minority victory. He made a lame speech, rolled back environmental protections ten years and then veered hard right, and then again in 2016 when Trump warned of American carnage.
It's not a good feel. I get it. Take a break. Regroup. We're not going to collect your guns this week. We're not going to start singing Гимн па́ртии большевико́в at least until March.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baby liberal
I'm not the one squealing like a caffeinated toddler who just had his puppy taken away.
You folks are having a bad week. Maybe take a break from the old internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
well his series of tweets about winning the election when he clearly did not, calling the very fabric of our democracy into question? that's dictator 101
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"they're leftist when they call Trump a dictator"
Funny that you did not mention me calling Biden a neocon, must be ok with it then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you think General Stereotype is fun...Check out the real General...If we can’t believe a retired 3 Star General McInerney …who can we believe ???
https://fastly.cloudinary.com/wvw/video/upload/v1591934042/kgtefrv3nicl6i0hxbgu.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1 kSGd-ud08GyzCc4I4wx1x51Vqr3GOJ3V5k4IE9TRZ_-Q0DvzfYXRuYuo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How do you use an app to change votes when the machines aren't even connected to the internet?! Do all the machines have this "app" installed? Wouldn't it be easier to just change the machines to read the votes differently instead of leaving obvious evidence on the devices storage? At least making the machines read differently would be harder to find and if it was found, it could just be blamed on an error. Why hasn't this app been found during the investigations?
Sometimes you gotta use a little logic to see that something doesn't add up. Logic won't make you right, but it will tell you when something is wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing wrong with Hugo's machines? Then why not let us look?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sure you're right. anyone can see a demented racist criminal commie owned by china can be trusted with our nuclear codes. good job libtards. The rest of us need to research all the great things that can be acco
mplished with DRONES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every accusation a confession
Wait, are you talking about Trump and his undisputed Russian connections that he lied about during his 2016 campaign?
We're not out of the woods yet with that. He's still President until January.
Care to reassure the rest of us Trump is not going to scorch the earth on the way out? I'm not so sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean Trump? He’s pretty demented, clearly racist (see for example the Muslim ban, the Wall, and his promise to keep suburbs white), plausibly a criminal, and is “great friends” with the heads of communist China and North Korea.
Oh, then I guess you mean Biden, who seems quite intelligent, not at all racist, not a criminal, not communist, and not connected to China… You sure you don’t mean Trump?
Did Trump actually stop the drones? I’m asking honestly. I also don’t recall him criticizing Obama for drone use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's use of drones
Candidate Trump very much endorsed drone strikes and the introduction of drone strike programs into other theaters. He also endorsed increased use of drones by law enforcement (though he never said law-enforcment drones should be armed.)
Other than the attack (Assassination? I'd call it a targeted killing) on Qasem Soleimani, we don't have reports of strike programs outside Pakistan and Afghanistan, but this is not to say they don't exist, just they haven't been leaked.
I do know that drone pilot teams burn out hard, with a battery of symptoms akin to the PTSD seen in front-line combatants. It is one of the arguments that people can tell the difference between video games and real life, and are profoundly affected by the latter. So the current programs are having trouble finding new crews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Biden clearly has a low level of demitia that will most likely get worse, he has voted and supported rasict legislation, he has very real ties to China and was highly favored by them over Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like trump? I don't know how America ended up with such shitty options lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Conservatives are ALWAYS for smaller government. Republicans, however, vary widely. Far too many Big Government Republicans (Conservatives used to call then RINO's).
The Donald has no desire to be a "dictator." That is a stupid smear or the result of strong hallucinogens. Dictators never, ever reduce regulations or lower taxes. Dictators never, ever try to keep immigrants OUT of their countries. It is true, however, that The Donald has narcissistic tendencies.
Leftists in government, however, almost always have a totalitarian streak.
Centralized power = Leftists and Fascists
Decentralized power = Conservatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Smaller Government"
Except that smaller government has always been about gutting welfare programs and social safety nets. When it comes to the military, even the Fiscal Responsibility crowd like the Tea Party were glad to put more money into laser planes and active camouflage. This disdain for the serfs continues into the shit-tier care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has been a major counter-recruitment selling point since the Reagan Years: if you get half-way blown up, the US military or USMC is happy to leave you homeless and begging on the sidewalk.
So no, I call bullshit.
But then, you're arguing conservatives want to decentralize power, which runs contrary to the DeLay era K-Street Project policy of keeping Republican officials in lockstep by nothing short of extortion, which lead to the total divisiveness and lockdown of federal legislature today. Also, George W. Bush's notorious use of signing statements (all saying in boilerplate legal screed I will enforce this only if I feel like it ) both of them demonstrate a consolidation of power to the executive and the heads of the congressional bodies.
Feel free to argue that the GOP from the Reagan Years forward are not true conservatives. It'll be amusing, at least. But since you're trying to condone Trump, whose authoritarianism ran thick through his whole administration, I have to assume you're willfully divorcing your comments from facts, which is on-brand for current self-identified conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Conservatives are ALWAYS for smaller government. Republicans, however, vary widely. "
You should have quit right there.
The rest of your comment is full of mistruths and outright lies. If you are interested, perhaps The Dictators Handbook would be helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s a lot wrong with what you said, but this part is ridiculous:
Yes, yes they do. Russia is very strict about who comes or goes, as does Turkey.
Then there’s this:
Nope. Look at Canada and France, both run by leftists, yet neither are totalitarian. There are two different extreme radical left-wings: communism and anarchy. Only one of those ever goes totalitarian. Furthermore, fascism is well established as the extreme right-wing of politics. Look at the nation during WWII: of the major totalitarian nations, only one (the Soviet Union) was leftist; Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan were ultra-right-wing. (China, Vietnam, and North Korea didn’t become communist until after WWII). Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France were democracies, the former run by a relative liberal, the other two with some socialist policies. And then there was Switzerland, a primarily socialist government that was and still is not totalitarian.
I think you’re confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Conservativism (in the US) favors order; libertarianism favors freedom; liberalism favors equality, then freedom.
Ultimately, the modern Republican Party combines small-government conservative, libertarian, evangelical, racist, sexist, pro-corporation/anti-Union, and fascist people in one party. This is why you have contradictory goals.
Finally, to briefly address this:
He has openly admired dictators like Putin, the head of China, and Kim Jong Un for their power; he has openly defied Congress; he has tried to pressure the media and state officials into doing his bidding; he calls anything he doesn’t like “fake news”; he has tried to make the part of the government spreading free information across the world into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet; he has turned the AG into his personal lawyer; he has fired everyone who doesn’t immediately do what he wants when he wants; he is right now trying to overturn the results of an election because he lost. And remember the positions he’s taken over how powerful the president is. And yet you don’t think he wants to be a dictator? Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and lets not forget he thought that he would get more than two terms in office. Oh, and the nepotism - dictators never do that, lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have Liberal friends, and they have everyone of the beliefs, that you just mentioned ! I cannot even have an intelligent conversation with them about Politics, because they think they are RIGHT, and I am wrong ! Of course we KNOW that THEY are wrong, but you can't convince them of that !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"we know they are wrong"
This raises the question of exactly how you know your liberal friends are wrong? I assume there's more thought to it than well, I know I'm right or _because what they argue just feels wrong.
Most of my liberal aligned opinions are informed by fundamental principles: we are all Americans and human beings.We are all deserving of equal rights, equal liberties and equal treatment by the legal system. We all should have food security, housing security, security of family, job security and so on, since not having these things makes the population crazy and want to purge each other (into mass graves, ultimately). It should be okay to be nonwhite, non-christian, LGBT+, goth, punk or identify as part of any counterculture imagineable.
Do you disagree with any of these notions? That might be why liberal friends disagree with you.
What do you think should be different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "we know they are wrong"
Is it ok to learn how to work and serve others for a profit? Maybe pick up the garbage downtown and keep your yard in order?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "we know they are wrong"
I don’t know any liberals who are against those things fundamentally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have Liberal friends, and they have everyone of the beliefs, that you just mentioned ! "
Which ones do you agree with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
after talking to these kind of people for 30 seconds you can tell their elevator has NEVER WORKED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Facial Recognition Software Finally Gets Around To Getting An Innocent Person ArrestedNorth Carolina Cops Fired After Their In-Car Camera Catches Them Talking About Wiping Black People 'Off The (Expletive) Map'
As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't LikeOverhypefrom the that-did-not-take-long-at-all deptMon, Jun 29th 2020 12:08pm — Mike MasnickWell, that did not take long at all. On Friday we predicted that just like every other social media platform out there, the new favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives, would start taking down content and shutting down accounts just like everyone else. Because, if you run any sort of platform that allows 3rd party speech, sooner or later you discover you have to do that. In Friday's post, we highlighted Parler's terms of service, which certainly allows for it to take down any content for any reason (we also mocked their "quick read on Wikipedia" style understanding of the 1st Amendment).What we did not expect was that Parler would prove us right so damn quickly. Over the weekend, Parler was apparently busy taking down accounts.And he was not the only one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Commie Mutant Traitors, sounds like a great saturday morning cartoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commie Mutant Traitors
Does someone still play Paranoia?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Commie Mutant Traitors
"Does someone still play Paranoia?"
Used to be a fun game...but with first GWB and now Trump that game suddenly took on a very much darker shade of Poe. A mission briefing in that game held by an unimaginative self-serving bureaucrat with a severe case of dunning-kruger and the attention span of a small child is now nothing more than switching on a newscast and catching ten seconds of a bona fide real life white house press briefing or a speech by an attorney general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Forgot 'teenage'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, think I just had an epiphany. Are all these replies to original posts marked with re: and then RE: RE: RE: etc, the basis of the leftists saying REEEEEE meme?
Eureka!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its not free speech when i can't go and threaten to murder people for their views!
Communists are the stupidest people on the planet. An entire group of envious losers who are either incapable of, or don't want to earn anything themselves.
But sharing is caring right?
Capitalism separates those who are smart and those who are poor. I hope you try your revolution, i want to be able to slaughter righteously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can say it on the street on NYC, someone will probably kill you for saying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They never said they would allow people to do anything they wanted. The only people that get banned are people who use a huge amount of profanity, to who post pornographic images. they never ever ban anyone because they post liberal comments. aid someone wants to prove to me that they have done so, then show a screenshot of it happening. Just like it is a lie that they charge any fees, or ask for a driver's license. They do neither of those things. All You need to be on Parler is an email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh huh.
I was going to link you to the article As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like which provides counterexamples. Then I realized I hadn't had my morning coffee yet.
I will anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you think anyone will believe you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fuck you leftist nazi pig!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leftist Nazi Pig
That would be leftist commie pig.
And now it's Mr. Leftist Commie Pig, Sir, to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can spot a liberal fairly easy..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And here I thought that freedom of speech wasn't freedom from consequences.
Silly me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Freedom is not Free just like Healthcare, Food, Clothing, And everything else you feel you deserve for being a lazy slug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[what] you deserve for being a lazy slug
a) If you have to withhold basic necessities to get your people to work, you're doing it wrong (and they will piss in your soup and knife you in the dark). And...
b) A well fed, warmly dressed, safely sheltered people will gladly work and pay their taxes (Roman senators mocked the plebes and slaves for needing only bread and circuses and not having the sophisticated delicate tastes of aristocrats.) Your feudal lords could have totally kept their position if they just could remember the serfs are human beings too, and need care.
Your shadowy plutocratic masters have had capitalists telling them all this time (for decades) they should take better care of the peons, and if they only would, they'd continue to serve with little complaint. But no. Your upper management decided greed is good, that short-term profits and golden parachutes were more important than a sustainable labor force. So your puppetmasters totally fucked up their own paradise.
And anyone who does laze about like a slug, even when they're adequately sorted probably suffers from depression And the US has entirely shit the bed when it comes to managing mental health. Now the whole nation is a madhouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point of free speech
Enough hypocrisy to go around?
Our Marxist friends who are more than happy to tout Twitter's ability to ban and shadow ban speech the left labels as "fascist" are now upset about Parler?
The left has Facebook and Twitter running plenty of interference. In a competitive market, leftists who state "all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks" are essentially stating their purpose was to dilute the platform - not participate. There is a good faith element here, and I saw multiple Parler accounts which were only established to toss out hatred for those who think differently than them.
The point of free speech is that you can speak, and the Marxists have basically the entire public square. That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
Please provide an example of your position that you can't discuss on Facebook and Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19. And Reddit removes posts that criticize "Black Lives Matter." That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates. Now you are censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Interestingly, because people on the left say that Zuck is biased towards conservatives. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kj3n3/facebook-apparently-thinks-left-wing-bias-is-as-bad-a-prob lem-as-hate-speech
> Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates. Now you are censors.
So you're saying a shop that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Mask, No Service" is a censor, because you're describing private actors and not the US government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Nice try at deflection and smugness. There's an Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive,' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They already think they know everything."
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Nice job on not answering any of my points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Comparing it to a shop sign is dilatory and non-serious on your part, which is oh so typical of today's "progressives" who are demanding censorship of anything you don't like. Liberals used to be the strongest advocates of free speech, and now you are censors. That worm can turn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ve played yourself if you think the censors only exist on the liberal “side”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice dodge. Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through their teeth, and now the major social media platforms are censoring the right wing. And you are all for it, not stopping to think that once your wish comes true, that worm can turn overnight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That you think the Washington Post is "far-left" shows how far to the right you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That you don't think they're far left shows that you're an out and out communist. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Washington Post is far-left like Donald Trump is a centrist — which is to say, it isn’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you're referring to the Washington Times lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counterpoint: Fox News.
Counterpoint: Gab, Parler, Voat, and every website for conservative/right wing political news and opinions that have yet to be taken down on orders from “the major social media platforms”.
If Twitter, YouTube, etc. want to ban hateful speech from their platforms, and conservatives are more likely than liberals to be dinged under those service’s TOS agreements, the issue isn’t with the TOS agreements.
At which point I’ll be more than happy to find a service that will host my speech. (I left Tumblr without issue once the porn ban went into effect, after all.) Twitter, YouTube, etc. aren’t the alpha and omega of Internet services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unlike Faux News and the yello Cheeto. Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who is the "Yellow Cheeto"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Comparing getting kicked off of private property to going to jail for printing something the government doesn't like is "dilatory and unserious" if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. When the banning of supposed hate speech includes widely heard opinions and ideas, there is a problem. When social media is shitting people down for saying they think there is a biological difference between men and women, or that surgery can’t change ones sex, or all lives matter is considered racist, or freedom of speech is somehow an alt-right idea, you’ve lost the argument. Parler does have terms of service and community standards and a point system. When you violate the terms, you accrue a point. They do tell you what your violation is. When you reach 20 points, you’re banned. The idea that the are only banning liberals, or they are banning liberals for their ideas - as opposed to violating the community standards, is nonsense.
Twitter censored a post from the president stating he would enforce the law. That’s literally his job. He is the head of the US military, and Twitter pretended he was threatening random act of violence. And there has been rampant vote by mail fraud - see the news stories just this week. That’s one they deemed false, but it’s not. Twitter created community standards in which the closely held religious beliefs of every major religion is a violation of standards.
The difference for me is that Parler gives anyone a chance to speak their ideas while Twitter keeps looking for ways to silence ideas they don’t agree with. Twitter has community standards that are ideology based. Parler doesn’t. This entire screed of yours is full of lies and innuendos. I still believe you have a right to say what you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You don't have to be sorry. You have to be a proud American to post like you post. You're a great writer, and we're happy to see you here. I hope you will come more often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Boyfriends
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replace “liberals” with “conservatives” and you can say the same thing about Twitter. That it has community standards aimed at greater inclusiveness — standards meant to encourage the speech of marginalized groups such as trans people — doesn’t mean it has a political bias. And if you want to claim anti-trans speech as the domain of conservatives by saying “banning anti-trans speech is banning conservative speech”? That isn’t a Twitter problem.
I didn’t know that “adding speech to a tweet” is “censorship” nowadays. Mind explaining the logic behind that thought process, champ?
“Rampant” implies a far higher amount of instances of mail fraud than the news has reported. Fraud concerning mail-in ballots is still proportionately rare, and it doesn’t happen at levels that would sway (or have swayed) an election — especially the national presidential election.
That says more about the beliefs of those religions than it does about the standards set up by Twitter.
Twitter admins keep looking for ways to keep the most people on the service. That’s it. If that means setting rules that might shut up a few homophobes and transphobes but let queer people speak without fear of harassment (in large amounts)…well, it is what it is. Don’t like it? Go to Parler; I’m sure its standards don’t have a problem with someone referring to queer people with anti-queer slurs.
Twitter users have every right to say what they want. And Twitter admins have every right to boot people from the platform if such speech breaks the TOS. Don’t like it? Find a site with a TOS you do like and stay there. You’re not owed, entitled to, or guaranteed a spot on Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Transphobia" means the belief in scientific facts and reality. You are saying people should be banned merely for stating common-sense facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common sense and facts
I've yet to find common sense that is actually common, unless you are talking about those specific things that can be demonstrated with readily available scientific observation. (id east things fall. birds can fly.)
As regarding matters of science of sex and sexual identity, I do recommend familiarizing yourself with intersex as well as what gender is before you start asserting scientific facts and reality associated with transphobia.
This is your one chance to do some fucking research before you reveal yourself to be a fool and a jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you unfamiliar with the following scientific facts?
Some people with XX chromosomes have male primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
Some people with XY chromosomes have female primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have neither XX nor XY chromosomes but instead XO, XXX, XXY, or XXX chromosomes.
Some people with male primary sex characteristics develop female secondary sex characteristics.
Some people with female primary sex characteristics develop male secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have a mix of male and female primary sex characteristics.
Some people have a mix of male and female secondary sex characteristics.
Some people lack some primary and/or secondary sex characteristics for either gender.
Transgender people (even before any sex-changing or hormone-replacement procedures are performed) have been found to have brains far closer to that of the gender they identify with than the sex they were assigned at birth.
How about these bits of reality?
Transgender people have high rates of suicide and depression based either on bullying/harassment for being transgender or on not being allowed to transition.
In most cases, a transwoman presenting as a woman is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a ciswoman while they’re dressed.
In most cases, a transman presenting as a man is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a cisman while they’re dressed.
Due to the previous two facts, unless you’re their doctor or having sex with them, you should never know whether or not someone presenting as a woman was born male or female.
A number of transgender people today were actually born with partial and/or complete sex organs for both sexes or were of nonexistent or indeterminate sex at birth and were simply assigned a sex at birth arbitrarily by doctors, often with surgery and frequently without the parents’ knowledge or consent. Basically, doctors would make (sometimes educated) guess as to the infant’s sex and would often be wrong.
These are all facts. They may not all be “common-sense facts,” but common sense isn’t all that common, anyways, and science and reality don’t really conform very well with common sense to begin with; many absolutely true facts are counterintuitive.
As for your definition of “transphobic”, you forgot that one of the comments at issue equated transition treatments with conversion therapy, which is far from being a scientific fact, reality, or a common-sense fact. It’s also not exactly borderline.
But let’s set that all aside for a moment. You ask whether or not we’re saying people should be banned from a privately-owned platform like Twitter by the owners of said platform for making such comments. That’s not necessarily what is being said. We’re saying that corporations like Twitter should absolutely have the right to ban people for making such comments regardless of whether we personally would do so, and that those people are not entitled to be able to say whatever they want on a privately-owned platform like Twitter, certainly not without consequence. There’s also the fact that it’s hardly surprising that people would be banned for making such comments, and I’m not all that sympathetic to them, but that’s separate. The point is that if you don’t like it, show your lack of support by using a different platform or by simply not using Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some...
You keep mentioning "Some"
Some like a mean, or an average or a mode? What is this "some" you speak of.
Firstly let's talk intersex. By definition intersex people are approximately 1.7% of the population.
That's not enough for a classical study to rule this out as anything more than genetic aberration. It certainly doesent classify to be "some" but rather an extreme few.
Since we classify creatures by similar traits and not by genetic defects from a taxonomy perspective the aberration of a population of 1.7% would be nothing more than genetic lottery. And would not classify a species to have a new gender. Any more than a 7 legged spider to be a new species.
How you "present" yourself to the world does not and cannot change this fact of nature.
You are picking a tiny subset of a species and saying "ah ha I have found a new gender because this monkey was born without a penis."
When all you have done is point out gene expression.
Unless you want to argue that genetics is completly wrong.
When you average out 2% of the population as a margin of error you have 2 distinct genders. With 2 unique gene expression, and organ sets. Along with bone density, muscle mass, and cognitive abilities even before the child is introduced to society.
Maybe you should learn about how genes work before you claim there are 70+ genders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never claimed anything about the number of genders at all, only that which gender a given individual is isn’t always clear cut. I certainly never claimed 70+ genders. (I’m not saying there aren’t, either; the exact number is immaterial to my argument.)
“Some” means “there exists” in logic and statistics. That they exist among humans necessarily means that, biologically speaking, not every human fits neatly into exactly one of two sexes, let alone genders (there’s a difference). I was disproving an absolute statement; any number of counterexamples would suffice.
We’re not talking about classifications of species, though I should point out that there is no strict definition for what makes two organisms the same species or not. There are organisms in the same species unable to reproduce with each other but able to reproduce with some others, while others where they are different species but are able to produce fertile offspring together. Besides, we don’t classify humans the same way we do other organisms; no other species has an equivalent to race or religion that we can tell from which we can distinguish individual groups of the same species.
My point was that determining the gender of a given individual, especially at birth, isn’t always easy. It’s not black and white. You may consider it a “rounding error”, but given the sheer size of the population, 1.6% is actually quite a few people.
At any rate, my main point wasn’t even all that. Whether or not Twitter made the right call here in our opinions is immaterial to the point I and others were focusing on: Twitter has the legal right to make whatever decision they want when it comes to moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sexual perverts need to stay in their closets rather than inflict themselves on the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Define “perverts”. I don’t see how transgender and intersex people are necessarily “sexual perverts”. Nor is homo-/bisexuality.
Also, my (lesser) point is that, for the most part, you can’t even tell a transgender person from a cisgender person. Most don’t broadcast their sex-assigned-at-birth. They aren’t forcing anything on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perverts
People in the BDSM community often refer to themselves as perverts.
Also 4Chan restricts furry porn to /b during nighttime hours (7pm to 8am PST, I think).
Some people are afraid of others who like their sexual fantasies and porn too spicy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perverts
I never really understood why people have a problem with what people do indoors with consenting adults. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to look at it or do it yourself.
At any rate, if that’s what they meant by “sexual perverts”, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion up to that point. We were talking about gender, genetics, and biological sex on the internet. Furries and BDSM are a separate issue, as well as sexual activities, though it’s still the platform holder’s prerogative on what to do with them.
P.S. Odd to have a time-based restriction on a website like that. Isn’t /b where all the controversial stuff goes, anyways? Kids and the easily offended shouldn’t really be there at any time of day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Perverts
From the Rules of the Internet
8. There are no real rules about posting
9. There are no real rules about moderation -- enjoy your ban
I'm pretty sure the 4Chan policies were made ad-hoc with no attention to consistency in format, hence MLP posts are highly restricted and Furry porn is restricted by time. The channels generally are a casual place that don't take too seriously the moderation process.
It's one of those seedy dives that has a sign:
No spitting!
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason!
No anal sex in the common area until after 10pm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The chromosomes argument is flawed, as most people have no clue what it actually is, and probably never find out.
Transwomen presenting as a women externally is indistinguishable wearing clothes...so what you're saying is the wide range of makeup and clothing can actually disguise what someone really looks like? That's some ground breaking information right there...who would have thought?
Again, stating very rare situations/genetic flaws does not equate to their being more genders....it just means the baby was born "incomplete" or with a "mutation". Like are we going to teach kids in school that 4 fingers and 1 thumb is not normal either because 2% of the world was born with an extra finger? Like where does it stop? This is the problem with your mindset...you just take everything logical and throw it out the window for the sake of 2%. It's mindblowing. We're not saying to burn them at the stake, we are simply saying we can be nice to everyone...but don't force/teach this crap to our kids and to also use completely different language. Freedom of speech means I can call you whatever I want, and I don't need you, or Twitter, or Facebook telling me it's correct or not. That is what CENSORSHIP is...and were not living in fucking China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Don't force/teach this crap to our kids"
And yet my grandson's father was pressuring him to man-up(not cry, stuff his emotions) when he was four. We have a society in which men are super protective of their roles, and women don't want to share their spaces.
Abolish gender entirely and the whole transgender conversation becomes nearly moot. It's what we should have done in the 1970s. Instead, we have religious fanatics claiming it's a communist plot. And child abuse because toddlers aren't tough.
LGBT+ Is over 10% of the population and outnumbers us left-handed folk (and I am more than annoyed at the limited left-handed or ambidextrous offerings that free-market capitalism gives us). Transgendered persons (if 2% is correct) is more than the first-nation peoples in the United States, who are also terribly underserved.
And considering that power and recognition is only getting worse and floating to the wealthiest, the US is sucking more every day then you too will find yourself an underperson (or even an unperson) as time moves forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. The point is that there are more than two options.
What it means is that there is no good reason to discriminate against transgender women. Additionally, there are a number of men who naturally look like women without makeup and vice versa. So, again, whether or not they identify as the gender corresponding to their sex-assigned at birth is none of your business. That’s the point.
I never said anything about the number of sexes. I was talking about whether biological sex is strictly two possibilities without intersection or exceptions. While the majority fit neatly into one of two categories, not everyone does.
As John Oliver said, “Somewhere.” Also, I don’t see why it matters what we teach about what is normal about hands. I’m not discussing normality at all. That seems to be the problem here. You’re thinking I’m trying to change “normality”. I simply don’t care about some random person’s definition of “normal” and don’t believe that we should exclude anything outside of “normal”.
No, we’re recognizing that some things aren’t black-and-white as shown by the existence of 2% (which is significant, BTW, given the size of the population). Why should we exclude the 2%? How does it hurt you?
What you call “logical” appears anything but to me. It’s not “logical”; it’s simple and traditional. Unfortunately, life and reality aren’t always simple, and I’ve never been a fan of traditions for tradition’s sake, especially if they exclude people.
What “completely different language”? I’m not talking about going overboard; I’m talking about basic decency. You don’t want to use the made-up pronouns like “xe”? Fine. If they prefer “he” over “she” or vice versa, use what they prefer. Otherwise, or if you can’t abide by that, use singular “they”. Nothing I’m suggesting involves saying anything complex or outside the English language. I’m not even asking you to use complicated rules for your speech. These are very simple rules that are very easy to abide by.
No one is asking you to “force” anything on your kids. A lot of transgender people knew they were transgender without even knowing that it was a thing, anyways. As for teaching, if it doesn’t come up, then I don’t have a problem. However, when I was a kid, we were taught about genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia and extra or missing fingers. What’s wrong with teaching about transgender and homosexuality stuff or sex-related genetic disorders later in life? Why is it so offensive to you to know or teach that not everyone fits in the category of “normal”, and that’s okay?
Freedom of speech does mean you can call me or anyone else what you want without fear of violence or government intervention (for the most part, at least), but it does not give you the right to say it without me, Twitter, or Facebook telling you whether it’s correct or not. In fact, freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to tell you whether you’re right or not. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of your speech or freedom from social consequences for your speech.
You don’t have to like it, but the very essence of free speech involves one person saying something and another person disputing it. That back-and-forth is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
How the hell is saying, “You’re wrong,” censorship by any meaning of the term?
And while we’re on the subject, let’s get back to the original point under discussion: Facebook and Twitter’s treatment of what they feel to be transphobic speech on their platforms. That’s not censorship, either, though it’s a hell of a lot closer than the criticism of your speech. Censorship means you can’t say it at all without government interference. A platform holder telling you to take speech they dislike somewhere else is not censorship; it’s moderation of their privately owned platform, something they have every right to do. If you don’t like their rules, take your ball somewhere else. You don’t have the right to force Facebook and Twitter to host your speech if they don’t want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
thanks for being cogent and at length.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Explain how I was banned from Parler WITHOUT posting a damn thing, because I sure didn't receive a reason from Parler!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Please provide links to the 'rampant vote by mail fraud' new stories you mention, because my head is in the sand and I have not seen them.
Unlike most people, I can read and judge for myself based on the merits of the news stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
This is really funny.
You are saying censorship based on ideology is a myth - I try to read this thread and for a while see ONLY your comments - condemning an invisible person.
Eventually I see your debate opponent is hidden. I expand his comments - partisan, maybe, but no profanity much less random epithets.
It literally got flagged because someone (you? Author?) disagreed.
So you want to revise your position or are you a professional liar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Did it really not occur to you that gaslighting and lying about the very thread you're posting in, where all it takes to debunk your false narrative is reading anything that surrounds your disingenuous post, is a massively stupid and obvious bad-faith tactic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
It took you that long to realize you could actually see the hidden comments? And how is that censorship? If you can still see the content, and no one has been punished by the government for it, it hasn’t been censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Facebook stopping people from posting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 on Twitter or Mastodon or anywhere else? If not, it ain’t censorship. Facebook has an absolute right to moderate speech — and that includes speech such as, oh I’unno, conspiracy theories about COVID-19 that could lead to further erosion of public health.
You’re free to say whatever you want. But you can’t make others listen. And you sure as shit can’t (and shouldn’t be able to) make others host your speech. Don’t like it? Start your own Gab or Voat or Parler or 8chan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disregarding the fact they're using the fucking WHO guidelines - an organization that was lead by a communist terrorist until recently, both FB, Twitter and others have made coordinated deplatforming in several instances. Also, they actually can't moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act. Sigh, i remember the left was staunch free speech proponents. Now it's corporate bootlicker like you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That you think WHO is "lead by a communist terrorist" shows much about how seriously we should take you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Terrorist may be a stretch but he certainly is, or at least was, a communist. The man was from the Tigray province, which was the support base for the communist party up until I believe 1995. He was in government as early as 1991, so to say he was not a communist is simply not accurate.
That communist party saw major financing from the Chinese communist party. That's not necessarily damning, nations help like-minded nations all the time.
I'm only replying to point out that the man was in fact a communist, and a member of a communist party with financial ties to China, and then as head of the WHO certainly seemingly, and I stress seemingly, softened any pandemic related press releases with China in mind.
We could also get into WHO treatment of places like Hong Kong and Taiwan. So, I think having a rational discussion about the mans motives is not out of the question. It's natural.
For my part I'm against Tedros. Not because of his politics, but because of the office he holds. States rights is where I stand in all things, and I do not believe that organizations like the UN and WHO can coexist with national identity. It has to be one or the other, and I choose national identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It has to be one or the other, and I choose national identity."
You were doing so well up until then. Fact of the matter is that when your options are a bunch of turds spray-painted in different colors the answer should never be "Always turd A because red, white and blue is my color".
You should be looking - at worst - for the source which after a modicum of critical thinking provides the least bad advice. That may still be a less malodorous turd, granted, but every little bit counts when the time comes where you have to eat your selected offer.
I also don't trust the WHO much when it comes to China or Taiwan but they are - unfortunately - still a better source of information than anything coming out of the white house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
communist = terrorist?
It's bad enough that terrorist has become common nomenclature for designated acceptable targets for neutralization, like zombie.
And yes, there is the old Cold War presumption that the only good Red is a dead Red. We're past the Cold War now. The Soviet Union disbanded. They're not very big on Communism now.
But at what point is the ideology of Communism worth shooting someone over? At what point does communism equate to terrorism?
(I should point out terrorism traditionally includes military violence against civilians, such as the WWI rail-gun attacks on Paris, or the German V2 attacks on London, or US targeted killings throughout the late 20th century and the drone strikes continuing to this day. I'm not sure why our drone strikes are not regarded as terrorism, except that the US is doing it and we want that to be okay. It's totally not okay.)
Getting back to the specifics, did Tedros Adhanom engage in ideological violence against civilians, say when he was Minister of Health of Ethiopia? What terrorism did he do that qualifies him as a terrorist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You contradicted yourself by calling States' Rights absolute, then going on about national identity. A Federal, national identity is inconsistent with absolute state rights.
Which also seem to be inconsistent with any local area that disgrees with the state (Fracking bans, anyone?). Or any state that doesn't follow Fascism and gets the Federal Government called down on it. (Sanctuary cities, anyone?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the record, I don’t think that organizations like the UN and WHO are incompatible with either states’ rights or a national identity.
The UN allows most nations a place where they can all engage in diplomacy together and discuss their issues to a global audience. Most if not all UN resolutions are nonbinding on member nations, so no rights are given up. It’s just a place to discuss issues and possibly work together to resolve them.
As for the WHO, again, it’s decisions aren’t really binding. It's basically a way for all the nations to get together to discuss global health issues like a pandemic and work out what the proper response would be. What is or isn’t healthy is or shouldn’t be political and applies everywhere; it’s all just facts and scientific inquiry. As such, broad determinations on the facts of large-scale health issues and recommendations for tackling them shouldn’t be dependent on any individual nation. That’s actually where the WHO went wrong here by being too dependent on China at the beginning and by ignoring Taiwan entirely. That doesn’t mean that the idea behind the WHO is intrinsically wrong, though.
If you believe in both states’ rights and a national identity, then you probably already recognize that some issues should be tackled by the larger-scale federal government rather than state or local governments. Things like international trade, interstate issues, basic human rights, diplomacy, currency, and war should be handled by a centralized federal government. Similarly, some issues are best handled or at least discussed by a global organization. The difference is that most global organizations are ultimately less powerful than individual national governments.
Also, out of curiosity, do you feel the same about NAFTA and the WTO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude, a pandemic pays no mind to nations borders state lines or political leanings. When the big ones come along you need organizations that can work as well as can be expected in a political world to monitor and administer and advise regarding situations that need complex and massive networks. It’s been proven now that without those organizations and funding and planning, we end up in crisis situations as we are now in 2021 and COVID where they had months to figure out the strategies of distributing vaccines. And as we applaud the rapid development of this new bio technology, we also have to acknowledge what a disaster it is now that the next legs of this process werent even half baked. When there’s a pandemic, nations and states and communities tend to act like individuals rather than teams because there’s little precedent. Except there is precedent and that’s WHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
It’s the “Communications Decency Act”, and with the sole exception of 47 U.S.C. § 230, the entire CDA was rendered unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, they actually can't moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act.
Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm afraid you are wrong, see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre- wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/author-section-230-chris-cox-says-all-critics -are-wrong-about-history-intent-230.shtml
Also, here you have another link of interest regarding moderation bias: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/17/17582152/facebook-channel-4-undercover-investigation-content-mode ration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And your point is?
Alex Jones has been kicked off every major platform, but he still has his own platform from which to spew his crazy ideas, and nobody is stopping him from doing that. And anybody who wants to "follow" him can do so on his own site!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, except for Lenny Pozner and his lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Likelihood this is sincere (not parody): 0.9997/1
Poe factor: 4
Are you really arguing against public accommodations? Or comparing public accommodations to accommodation of speech on a given forum.
I was recently reminded our conservative colleagues are also glad to have black kids jailed for posting threatening Rap lyrics on their Facebook page, or punishing Arab boys who bring their self-made electric clock to school, because it might be a bomb.
Hate speech is AOK but boobs, digital timers and violent rap lyrics are not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, it’s almost as if corporations don’t want to do business with people those corporations consider toxic. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully you'll become "toxic" and de-platformed, permanently disemployed and de-banked by the monopolies.
Banks and payment processors, who've been given a monopoly on the issuance of unbacked credit, should be required to serve any lawful customer.
The same goes for Internet infrastructure companies who provide DNS, anti-DDoS, cloud hosting and the like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hopefully, you'll seek help for your hard drug habits so you can free yourself from deranged hallucinations like those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Patriot's comment seemed reasonable to me. Any particular reason for your abuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
I don’t think there’s any serious debate on COVID-19 beyond when, where, and how to reopen. Any “divergent views” outside of that are almost certainly wild conspiracy theories, made out of ignorance, quack science, or wishful thinking.
I also don’t think Facebook “blocks” users; it bans them.
As for “free speech”, there’s a difference between supporting FA free speech and free speech on privately-owned public platforms. It’s also not censoring to kick you off my lawn when you’re saying something I don’t like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Ah yes, there's "no serious debate," because "progressives" define anything that they don't agree with as "not serious." Nice trick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
So, please present us with examples of divergent views on COVID-19 that has been removed by Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks. Your kind loves censorship, even of carefully documented, scientific studies. It's pathetic.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what? Facebook has that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It not only has that right it was right to do so because that 'study' does not say what they think it does, and as such it could have resulted in people making dangerously stupid/ill-informed decisions that could get them and/or those around them infected or killed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for proving the Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything." LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Jeez Louise, can you say anything than your idiotic "law" which is basically you saying "ME SMART! PROGRESSIVE R DUM DUM!"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The truth hurts, doesn't it, poor thing? Did you save your pussy hat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You apparently aren't aware of how transparently stupid and dishonest you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…as opposed to conservatives, who — if you take Donald Trump as the ur-example — are proud to say they know nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to the Socratic sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socrates, Paradees, it’s all Greek to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't get your chlamys in a twist now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that's about what I expected from you at this point.
Rather than address the actual point, you instead throw out the same rubbish 'law' about people too arrogant to learn anything. If you were projecting any harder you'd be causing glare on the ISS' windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
From your link: "Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. "
A study comparing cloth masks to medical masks determines that medical masks are more effective. Imagine that.
You said "Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks."
Lie much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
https://twitter.com/richdavisphd/status/1276629360212979712
No study but it should be obvious that any droplet stopped will help the cause (as will not having to see some people's ugly mug).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
As others have pointed out the study shows that medical masks are better than cloth masks in protecting health workers from getting infected.
Another thing that infection specialists, doctors and health-care workers in general have pointed out, its that the primary reason for using a mask is not to protected the wearer - it's to protect the people around them.
If your buddy (and you considering the language you used) made a post on Facebook saying that masks are ineffective based on this study your posts deserve to be removed without question.
So your "divergent view of COVID-19" turns out to be uninformed hogwash that promulgates an idea that will put people in danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
I don't think you or your friend read that study. It talks about the effectiveness of cloth masks, not all masks. And it even has an updated link regarding COVID-19 related shortages of PPE and says that cloth masks aren't as good as surgical masks or respirators but still better than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
No, I mean that no health experts have any honest disagreements about it that are being censored. Also, that study doesn’t say what you claim it does. That was the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
There’s no “serious debate” by experts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Translation: Pseudo/antiscientific bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Got it. Anything "progressives" don't agree with is "pseudo/antiscientific bullshit." Neat trick there. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give us an example of a “divergent” view on COVID-19 that isn’t rooted in pseudoscience/anti-science ideology, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okey doke, then. Speaking of science, how about a peer-reviewed, double-blind study of 1,600 health care workers in high-risk units in 14 hospitals, showing that the common cloth masks block only 3% of particles, and that surgical masks only block 44%?
Sorry, "progressive," but your mandatory masks do NOTHING to stop the spread of the virus. You couldn't care less about science. This is entirely about your politics and your insatiable need to engage in self-righteous virtue signaling.
Now, I'm sure you will dump on the study. Why? The Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive,' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything."
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Masks don't work"
But what about <looks at a websearch> this?
Do you judge all identity groups as uniform monoliths the way you do progressives? That's pretty pathetic for an iron law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like they do 3% more to stop the spread than not wearing a mask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too diligent to actually read the study, I see. It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all. Reading is fundamental, lazy "progressive." LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all.
Speaking of not reading the study... no, it didn't, because there was no no-mask control group, something you would have known had you bothered to even read the abstract.
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, yes there was a control arm. Apparently, as a "progressive," your ADD gets in the way. Oh ye of a limited attention span. No wonder you don't actually know anything. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the control arm go maskless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless they had a second control group not mentioned in the abstract no, no they did not, as the abstract makes explicitly clear that the control group wore masks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it didn't, but you are a "progressive," so why not lie? It's what you people do. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I get by now that you're a hypocritical ass who thinks that schoolyard level insults are making other people look bad, but just a tip for the future, if you're going to lie it helps if the refutation to that lie isn't literally a few comments above.
Once more from the abstract of the study in question:
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Digging into the study a little more...
In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period. The remaining 1% either reported using a N95 respirator (n=3) or did not use any masks (n=2).
...
It is also unknown whether the rates of infection observed in the cloth mask arm are the same or higher than in HCWs who do not wear a mask, as almost all participants in the control arm used a mask.
...
Another limitation of this study is the lack of a no-mask control group and the high use of masks in the controls, which makes interpretation of the results more difficult.
And in a more recent response to questions regarding how the study might apply to COVID concerns:
Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected. We recommend that health workers should not work during the COVID-19 pandemic without respiratory protection as a matter of work health and safety.
I'd say I look forward to your admission that you were wrong and an apology for calling me a liar, but as your past responses have indicated that that's almost certainly beyond you I suppose I'll take the entertainment provided from yet more of the childish name-calling that seems to be your default response instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Keep LOLing, it only shows you're far too stupid to be that smug. Nothing new for a "conservative", though, I grant you that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I sense great projection in this one…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"yes there was a control arm"
As he said, you stupid maggot. You can't even read the comments you're responding to, let alone the study you cited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The writers of the study itself noted in a response to people asking if/how it applied to COVID "Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all. "
Wrong, you lying moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, that's in hospital settings, not in quotidian outdoor settings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right. They don't work in high-risk hospital settings, but they work in grocery stores. LOL. "Progressive" "logic" on display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The study was done in 2015, way before the COVID-19 pandemic. Maybe you should read the update before you say–as you are wont to do–"ME SMART! PROGRESSIVES R DUM-DUMS!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you are a typical "progressive" who is too scattered and too lazy to have read the update this spring. Please tell us that you don't have an occupation where anyone ever has to depend on you. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently, you can’t be bothered to read the comment you’re responding to, which links to the update.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a profoundly stupid maggot. Please do the world a favor and get hit by a truck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please do everyone a favor and don’t tell people to die/kill themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Less effective than alternatives' does not mean 'not effective at all', and as the study itself noted there was no 'no mask' control group to compare with. In addition as the writers of the study itself noted in a response to people asking if/how it applied to COVID 'Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected.', which rather conflicts with the idea that masks don't do any good if you're going to point to them as a source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Got it ... you're a dishonest imbecile, a maggot, and a s**tstain on humanity. Please do not ever wear a mask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You forget that that would hurt others as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Right. Just look your post and the one before it. They were flagged and I see nothing derogatory, fake, racist, hatefilled, etc. in it. Just someone f'ing with ya or butt hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
"Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19."
So wait, proven lies which if believed and acted upon constitute lethal danger to anyone reading it is now comparable to a measured discourse on family values and economics in your book?
"And Reddit removes posts that criticize "Black Lives Matter.""
Calling black people "N_ggers", implying that they're all somehow "less" than white people, or discussing George Floyd as a "criminal" who deserved death when in fact, he was not, **is not "criticizing" Black Lives Matter.
I realize the difference may be lost to you.
"Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates."
Time was when a self-styled "conservative" was something other than a repetitively spamming shit-posting racist or bigot. You are still completely free to start your own platform where you can discuss just how much <insert ethnic or transgender minority> sucks. But not even way back when did "progressives" ever let you do that in their own living rooms.
Facebook has catered to conservative values to the point where it's now harder for liberals to debate seriously than it is for the "alt-right" to sneak in a few implications about the inferiority of <minority scapegoat>...but that's just not good enough for the guys who are still miffed that they can't use someone else's platform to organize their next cross-burning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
Also, Facebook immediately deletes any link to the Unz Review. Doesn't matter what the link discusses. Lefties cannot handle divergence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Facebook also blocks BOFA. Absolutely shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hear it has a real problem with LIGMA, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
LOL that you think Facebook is "Leftie": https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kj3n3/facebook-apparently-thinks-left-wing-bias-is-as-bad-a-prob lem-as-hate-speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
a 2 year old article from Vice, a regressive left propaganda site that has been caught peddling fake news on multiple occasions? Seems legit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
says a guy who thinks the leader of the WHO is a "communist terrorist". You're a whackjob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Ok sure, facts makes you a wackjob? You're just plain ignorant. He was a member of an oppressive regime for a party which is on the etheopian terrorist list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Donald Trump makes terroristic threats on twitter all the time. And?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Example: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Any convictions? No? Then what use is that? Just some journalists making unsubstantiated claims. The fact that the very same people have no issue fuelling racial tension by lying about police brutality towards black people, something that has literally gotten people killed, makes it all the more ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The video of George Floyd didn’t lie, unless you think he deserved to die over using a fake $20 bill that he may not have even known was fake and therefore the lethal use of force was wholly justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forget it Stephen. The Anonymous Coward doesn't see black people as people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Floyd was a COVID-infected, sickle-cell anemic, heart disease ridden heroin addict, drunk, high, and on meth. Not that "progressives" ever noticed. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please provide proof that at the time of his death, George Floyd was infected with COVID-19 and under the influence of drugs. Please also provide a reasoned opinion as to why any of what you said, regardless of whether it’s true, justifies his being murdered by a police officer for nothing more than using a fake $20 bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The one time I handed over a fake note to pay for something, the store refunded me for confiscating it, and gave me an apology, after they checked their CCTV and saw me getting it out of the machine on their own premises.
Almost like there's some kind of notable difference between me and Floyd...
notes the lack of melanin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[citation needed], and how would that change anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, he should have better worn a mask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're an evil racist sack of pus who really doesn't deserve to live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You sure project a lot for someone that isn't very bright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoops, for a moment your post looked like a different asshole's responding to Stephen's comment.
I take back the "projection" half.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
What terroristic threats got your panties in a twist, poor "progressive" scaredy cat? LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Thanks much, China! LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You've been caught lying with every breath, you stupid right wing maggot. Nothing legitimate about you scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Decent people don't like antisemitism, holocaust denial and white supremacy - which Unz Review and Ron Unz stands for. All those topics are against Facebook's TOS, so why would they allow links to such material on their platform?
It's not about divergent viewpoints, it's about assholes thinking they are entitled to use others platform to spread their message of hate - and they have a complete meltdown when they discover that they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Some stuff on Unz is contemptible, but it shouldn't be banned. The vast majority of their material is not. You "progressives" have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re free to tell Facebook that. They’re free to ignore you. Facebook admins get to decide what is and isn’t acceptable on Facebook; if that includes sites you enjoy, well, tough titties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I get it. You're a fragile "progressive" who cannot stand opposing views, and supports censorship. You'd be best off being careful what you wish for, because once censorship becomes accepted, that worm can turn very quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I supported censorship, I’d call for whoever hosts Unz Review to obliterate the site from the Internet. I’m not.
Facebook admins have every right to moderate what speech can and cannot appear on Facebook. You can disagree with those decisions; lots of people will at some point. But neither you nor the federal government can force Facebook to host speech its owners/operators don’t want to host. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Always good to see Another Scared, Pathethic "Progressive" For Censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can believe you’re entitled to a spot on Facebook, but believing it doesn’t make it true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Extreme and distasteful content causes users to leave, and Facebook and Twitter do not want to become the next 8chan, so they remove content that would likely cause people to leave their service. Their moderation is driven by how to they keep the largest user base rather than politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you’re missing the point. Facebook is free to remove or leave up whatever 3rd-party content it wants (outside of the DMCA, FOSTA, and federal criminal laws). That means I support Facebook’s right to remove content it finds objectionable whether I like it or not along with its right to not remove content it doesn’t mind as much regardless of whether I like it or not. Left, right, or neither, it doesn’t matter.
Now, that’s not to say that I don’t have my own opinions on individual cases of Facebook moderation decisions, but I support their legal right to do so regardless and recognize that them making a lot of mistakes is inevitable when operating on such a scale and dealing with highly subjective decisions that need to be made.
So tell me, how is that being “fragile”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Why? Facebook's platform, their rules. Is this difficult to grasp somehow?
So why is it that you are having a meltdown about how unfair it is that Facebook doesn't want to link to a site containing antisemitism and white supremacy propaganda? Do you think those viewpoints deserve equal treatment with other more main-steam topics?
And who is it really that "have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred"? It's usually those who scream how oppressed they are because they aren't allowed to use someones private property to carry their message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
"You "progressives" have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred."
Please explain to me how you differ from your image of "progressives" in this regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You conservative cunts started it. Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
"Also, Facebook immediately deletes any link to the Unz Review. Doesn't matter what the link discusses. Lefties cannot handle divergence."
I have a hard time imagining any moderately sane person, left or right wing who'd allow people to use his personal property as a platform to post directions to a direct white supremacy site.
But hey, do go on and keep demonstrating how we "lefties" apparently understand the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY better than you "self-styled conservatives".
It's not our fault the alt-right alternatives to Facebook and Twitter turned into sewers only the most hardened neo-nazis still bother visiting. If you've shat down your own living room to the point where no one wants to visit no one else owes you right of hospitality just because you want a fresh floor to take a dump on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
I'll give you a great example - if you post on twitter saying that there are only 2 sexes and gender identity disorder is a mental illness, you're against their rules and bannable. Now you may not agree with that position, but this is an example of a political/ideological issue that is codified within twitter rules.
If you post that children should not be taught about gender identity and asked if they would prefer to get hormones without the parent's consent, that can be against their TOS as well. This is always going to be a problem and it 100% comes down to the views of the moderator on whether that is hate speech or science based discourse on best policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You're lying, as all right wingers do incessantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
the article does not provide any examples of the censored speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
A few examples of facts that social(ist) media bans:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Wow, drink the kool-aid much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You promised us facts.
Do you intend to deliver on that any time soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You're a stupid lying maggot, as all right wingers are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
You can't discuss any alternative treatment for Covid. Every Post I've made on FB is censured. You can't discuss anything about Biden's Mental health, It too is scrubbed by them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Considering all the misinformation spreading around about COVID-19, that’s hardly surprising. Even if some posts that are relatively benign are removed in the process, that’s hardly surprising given the scale at which FB operates.
Unless I see the posts in question, I can’t really say much on this one. That said, I don’t see any reason why Biden’s mental health is bad to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
Try this: Faggots and liars are reprobates that are going to hell. Human life starts at conception and abortion is murder.
Let's see these truths go viral on FascistBook and Twittles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Those aren’t truths. At best, they’re opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinions.
The first statement is religious hate speech. That's like any other hate speech, except that since it's based on Christianity, and within the doctrine of the church that has capture the Republican party (and the doctrine of the Federalist Society), our current federal government is trying to carve out exceptions for it.
The second statement is a misstatement. Spermatozoa and ova are human life before conception. But appointing personhood at conception raises a tuckfun of moral and philosophical issues that our religious friends don't want to think about.
I won't get into them here because a comprehensive explanation would take books, let alone pages.
But I will get to what is on-brand for our conservative colleagues: 30% of abortions in the US are provided to Americans who do not believe in abortion access. And these patients feel their own abortion is justified, even when it's voluntary, but cannot use that to extend empathy to other Americans.
Regardless, Mark's examples are banal and despite great effort do not go viral on Facebook or Twitter. A lot of people express these notions and a whole lot of fellow social media users fail to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
Our Marxist friends who are more than happy to tout Twitter's ability to ban and shadow ban speech the left labels as "fascist" are now upset about Parler?
No one's upset about Parler banning people. Everyone finds it hilarious, because it shows how bullshit their claims were.
There is a good faith element here
Oh, so you're admitting that it's okay to ban bad faith actors from any platform? Good to know.
and the Marxists have basically the entire public square
What the fuck are you on about? I don't know of any "marxists" and certainly none that control "the entire public square" (or even part of it).
That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.
"Open wish"? Can you point to where these so-called Marxists have said that they want to deny "moderates" a place to "openly discuss" positions? Because it's never happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
Now, now, Mike, everyone knows that anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Trump Almighty is a commie pinko Marxist traitor to America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
Obviously they don't openly say it, but using terms like"hate" you can basically ban everyone you don't like. Ironically today this just happened with Trump's major subreddit and twitch channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
Left leaning reddits such as chaotraphouse were also removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
All of reddit is left leaning. They couldn't handle one pro-Trump sub that was pretty significant in getting him elected, which is the real reason everything is being removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
Then explain why the subreddit for Chapo Trap House, a left-leaning podcast, was banned — y’know, for reasons other than supporting violence against elected officials and doxxing people (among other such things). And I’ll remind you that users of T_D made similar posts during that subreddit’s lifetime, which explains why the subreddit was quarantined well before its deletion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they needed to have one leftwing example to say 'see guys, totally no bias here'. Meanwhile, there are numerous left leaning subs that breaks the rules daily with no repercussions. This is just to trick the low IQ people and it looks like it worked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Name 5 of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
r/politics, any antifascist subreddit. If you're trying to deny this you're either woefully ignorant or lying. This has been well documented by the likes of Tim Poole in many videos. Do your own research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Tim Poole"? Do you mean this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Good job, you can type a name in Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi smugass, he linked to it so people can see what an asshat he is - and you by citing him as a credible source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
/r/politics is definitely left-leaning, but the mods are right-wing and you have zero examples of anyone on that sub "breaking the rules daily with no repercussions.
"Do your own research" is what people with dumb arguments they can't support say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mods are right wing? LMAO
https://banks.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1573
Lots of links in that one. Oh and what truly dumb people do is to demand sources for well documented facts only so they can dismiss those sources using ad hominem in order to derail the discussion. That's the problem when you're on the side that's against reality. We have numerous Project Veritas videos documenting the extreme leftwing bias in social media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL at you thinking Project Veritas tells the truth and doesn't doctor their own videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there is the ad hominem against the sources, as predicted. We're talking about undercover videos of people working at these companies stating how they're actively suppressing right wing articles, people etc. What do you want? A Washington Post article stating it? Don't you just love circular logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwin g-group-beloved-by-trump
It's not their ideology, it's that they lie and defame people. It's like me citing Michael Moore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since we're rejecting sources, The Guardian is the very definition of an unreliable source. It's like linking Breitbart. Judge the clips on their own merit, not on the who is presenting them. That's what intelligent people do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the people presenting those clips have a documented habit of editing the clips to mislead viewers, we will judge both. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you're not. You're simply dismissing them. Tell me, what kind of evidence would suffice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Project Veritas has a documented history of lying and editing videos in misleading ways. I dismiss them because they have lost any assumption of credibility.
To claim “anti-conservative bias” in social media as a fact, you must prove true the following statement:
When conservatives and liberals break the same rule(s) in equal amounts, a service shows bias when it punishes conservatives in far greater numbers than it punishes liberals.
I wish you the best of luck in proving that. You will need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [tautology]
Easily proven. Given the above definition of showing bias, which I doubt you will dispute, the above definition is true. QED.
I might have framed it differently, e.g., using above definition, I might have asked for evidence of social media platforms punishing one viewpoint significantly more frequently. For instance, it may be that this ``Parler'' is acting against one particular viewpoint more often than against its opposing viewpoint. However, I do not have data.
Fortunately we do not need data to meet your requirements. Given our axioms, it is pretty easy to prove our axioms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [tautology]
Only with the absence of grade-school math, required to make 75/90 greater than than 9/10 as you're arguing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [tautology]
You don’t prove axioms. Axioms are things you assume to be true to build a framework.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We were asked to prove the axiom. Because it is also a given, the proof was easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/11/facebook-rules-project-veritas/
Yet you believe them.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_Veritas
Yet you believe them.
https://www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas-sting-fails-2017-11
Yet you believe them.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/googler-caught-in-james-okeefe-sting-project-veritas-selectively -edited-my-words
Yet you believe them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shit man, you have the worst sources. You're only linking extreme leftwing sites. Do you have ANY non-biased, reputable sources for anything at all?
Also, i'm talking about video clips with full sentences such as 'we have to do everything we can to prevent Trump being reelected'. How can that be taken out of context?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t see you refuting the evidence in those sources, all of which have more credibility than Project “we’re gonna have someone literally defame Roy Moore so we can sting a newspaper” Veritas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No need to refute them. The courts already did and their opinion has far more gravitas than some activists on leftwing propaganda site. Also, notice how i predicted exactly how this would play out when i first brought up Veritas. It's like you people are following a script. No wonder you had your tech overlords ban the NPC meme. It hit much too close to home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2010: Acorn and Juan Carlos Vera
2010: Senator Mary Landrieu
2010 Abbie Boudreau
That's just a sample of Project Veritas and O'Keefe's actions during 2010, and they have kept coming.
Perhaps you should look up the court records that relates to Project Veritas and O'Keefe, because trust me - they don't paint a very pretty picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Says the guy chickening out the moment he gets presented with examples of Project Veritas' misdeeds. Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you call Business Insider and The Daily Beast "extreme leftwing" shows that you're a fringe rightwinger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Imagine being so far gone you think The daily beast is not an extreme left site. I think you're the first person i've met who made such an obviously false and ridiculous claim. Most leftist can acknowledge how biased that site is just as i can acknowledge that Breitbart is incredibly biased. You're a fanatic in the cult of regressiveness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna know how I know you’ve never met or interacted with an “extreme leftist” in your life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Anonymous Coward with whom we're arguing probably thinks Joe Biden is an "extreme leftist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He probably thinks that anybody to the left of Attila the Hun is a communist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m happy to see you acknowledge your ignorance. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why does that matter? Did they use deepfakes to produce those clips? Because if not, you have no argument and you're sticking your head in the sand. This is the classic regressive left tactic - demand sources - reject sources based on your own bias - claim there is no evidence. It's textbook circular logic and the sign of the intellectually weak. Judge evidence based on it's own, not on the source. That's what intelligent people do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They tend to lie. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwin g-group-beloved-by-trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do the now? Or are you being ignorant yet again?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/445091-libel-suit-against-project-veritas-thrown -out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The courts certainly disagree. It's almost like you're wrong and you're refusing to actually look at the evidence because it might burst your bubble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying is not necessarily defamation. Even you should know that by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Defamation is a legal term and the courts rejected the lawsuit. What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Project Veritas can lie without necessarily defaming someone. That it has lied and misled people — repeatedly — proves it has no credibility or integrity. Any “news” or “reports” from Project Veritas can be summarily dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They were rejected because of an inability to prove malice, not that Veritas was telling the truth, you ignorant dipshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like this? https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_99fb784b-b4b1-5571-935b-c325c57d3f6a.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It throws a 'too many requests' error so i have no idea. Why don't you respond to how your smear articles were thrown out of court instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for admitting to adhering to such a low standard (and of course to suddenly moving the goalposts once you can't counter the arguments).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks much for your "progressive" arrogance and smugness. We expect no less from your kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Says the guy being arrogant and smug!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You named one without being very specific. That’s not 5. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed, especially since hundreds of subreddits were banned]
Report them, then.
Not…really? I mean, T_D was basically a dead subreddit by the time of its ban, from what I hear on Reddit. And nobody with any sense should think the deletion of that subreddit will magically make Reddit a happy fun place made of sunshine and flowers and puppy breath. Also, most everyone agrees that the ban for T_D came far too late, so…yeah…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have been reported and nothing gets done. Are you actually denying reddit does not ban right leaning subs far more than left despite no worse violations? Holy fuck
As for your last line - yea, no. Get out of your twitter bubble and you'll see you're actually in the minority. Most people are not regressive leftists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sort of like how nothing was done against T_D until Reddit couldn’t ignore the PR nightmare?
Until I see evidence that Reddit punishes self-identified conservative users/subreddits more often than their liberal counterparts for doing TOS-violating acts in equal measure? Yes, I am.
I’d rather be in the minority if it means I’m not a flagrant bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh the 'i can't win on facts so i'll put my head in the sand and throw labels like bigots around' Sorry pal, that's called an ad hominem and the only thing that does is display your lacking intellectual capacity and the weakness of your position
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your making extraordinary claims without presenting extraordinary evidence and deflecting from that lack of evidence with a bunch of namecalling does more to expose a lack of intelligence than anything I posted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have very well documented evidence through Project Veritas, among others, and summarized by Tim Pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That you consider them credible says all we need to know about your own credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Project Veritas are a bunch of liars. You're too blinded by your own ideology to see that. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwin g-group-beloved-by-trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Already refuted above. My advice, stop reading fake news sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop blindly believing Project Veritas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop dismissing video evidence because you don't like who is presenting it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they didn't defame people, I wouldn't have a problem with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They didn't though according to the courts. Perhaps you should stop taking some activists' word over the legal system? Also, i'm talking about video clips with full sentences so bad that no context could justify it. The evidence is right there, you simply refuse to acknowledge it because deep down, you're perfectly fine with tech-fascism. Just understand that eventually you will be on the receiving end and there will be no one left to who wants to help you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/27/project-veritas-moore-washington-post-261023
Just because they won a defamation suit doesn't mean they weren't lying. It's just that malice wasn't proven.
Apparently you can't read, but that was already established.
James O'Keefe also defamed ACORN despite them doing nothing illegal according to all prosecutors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy
So you're attracted to liars if you agree with them? Apparently that's what you're telling me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyone who thinks Project Veritas is a source of factual information has deluded themselves. They have been caught several times with outright lies or conveniently edited videos that leaves out important contexts.
If you have to lie to make your argument - you don't have an argument to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh so like any MSM? Do you hold other sources to the standard? Because if you do, you should stop reading Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian or watch CNN, MSNBC etc. I'm guessing you don't. Also, unless they used deepfakes to create those videos, judge the clip on their own merit. You're using ad hominem in order to avoid the core of the argument because you know you will lose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's also "out of context". Let me demonstrate:
"Do you…read…The Guardian or watch CNN, MSNBC etc.?…judge [them] on their own merit[.]"
That's what it sounds like as your acceptable level of Journalism, because that's what Project Veritas does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But why am i held to a higher standard than you? Surely, if you can dismiss video evidence based on smear articles by regressive activists and in spite of courts disagreeing, then i can dismiss media that has been caught lying repeatedly? Why the double standards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re citing Project Veritas, that’s why. Stop citing liars as purveyors of truth and we’ll stop treating you as someone who prefers comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get my news and information from multiple places to get as a complete picture as possible, and those sites you mentioned isn't even among the top 10 I use.
You on the other hand seem to think that Project Veritas can't do no wrong even though they have been caught again and again lying or maliciously editing videos since it's inception. So I use the word "deluded" for anyone who says they get their "truth" from Project Veritas, because that's the nicest word I can use for that kind of people.
Just looking through O'Keefe's legal history should give even you a hint of what kind of dishonesty he is capable of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not that Rachel Maddow was caught lying through her teeth about that fake-o Russian conspiracy. Oh, but wait! As long as a "progressive" lies, you are fine with it, because "any lie for the cause."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, who here has mentioned Rachel Maddow? You were the first to mention her in a whataboutist way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
She's a documented liar -- even the far-left Washington Post nailed her for it. But you love your liars as long as you think the liar is on your side. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A few things:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that it’s relevant, but out of curiosity, what specifically about a Russian conspiracy did Rachel Maddow supposedly lie about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pot, meet kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Sorry pal, that's called an ad hominem..."
He says, and then proceeds with
"...and the only thing that does is display your lacking intellectual capacity..."
A grammatically atrocious ad hominem attack. Nice job. Better go take Introduction to Logic 101 again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except mine was not an ad hominem since i did not use it in place of an actual argument but rather as the logical conclusion to his tactics. Also, English is not my first language. I'm sorry the Grammar is so poor you can't think of a proper point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you admit you're a Russian bot. :-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we’re doing the same to you, so hi kettle, I’m pot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you're not. It's pretty sad you can't see that. I suggest working hard on your logic skills if you truly think we're doing the same thing here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
ACORN no longer exists because of a fraudulent video James O'Keefe did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't win on conured up facts and definitely not on smugness. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
Yes, really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was responding to the "Most People are not regressive leftists" part. But since you're too dumb to read…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except your link did not disprove my statement. I'm sorry you suffer from delusions of adequacy and resort to fallacies when faced with the truth but them's the breaks i guess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sounds more like you, who can't back up what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But i did. My link backs my statement where as your link did not back yours. Also, you've moved down to kindergarten insults now? Yup, truly one of those well educated and intelligent leftists you so like to claim is common
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems appropriate enough, you sweet summer child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Awwww he thinks 2010 chan language is still cool. I'm glad you've admitted defeat. You should try being on the side that reality supports. That way you wont lose constantly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Defeat by the likes of you? Keep dreaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you actually read that article, or were you hoping that others wouldn't, because it does not say what you think it does. To the extent that Twitter users differ from the population in general politically it's in the single digit range, and even then more people identify democrat than republican, so what were you saying about people being in the minority?
Of course, many political independents actually lean toward one of the two major parties. Of the Americans who lean toward either party, 52% of U.S. adults identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 60% of U.S. adult Twitter users say the same. Similarly, 43% of U.S. adults identify as or lean Republican, compared with 35% of adult Twitter users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't find anything about regressive leftist in the link you provided, so I'm afraid it doesn't back your statement up at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
First of all, nothing had been posted to the_donald in months. Everyone had already migrated to their .win site. Shutting the sub down today had zero effect.
Also, the_donald was NOT "pretty significant" in getting Trump elected. It was a shitposting circlejerk, like 99.9% of Reddit. It's hilarious to suggest something so self-important (and completely non-verifiable).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech
You're a dishonest right wing asshole, thick boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
one man says...
WE all must believe and say the same to be equal.
Another man says.
God, How boring to talk to myself all day long.
Anyone want to go back to the demonstrations of the 60's?? re-evaluate them and NOT Scream HIPPY's Shoot them..
What are the rights of a Muslim walking into a Jewish/christian/ANY religious building and preaching his OWN?? And the reverse? Lets go back 30-40 years..Even 10 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
If Marxists* had the entire public square, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all and this nation would be an entirely different place.
*All 2 or 3 thousand of them. But i take it that anyone not agreeing with your shit is "Marxist", since labeling "outsiders" is so popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
'The people banned were clearly not acting in good faith, unlike those poor, persecuted conservative voices banned from more popular platforms for hatespeech, harassment and active violations of the rules they agreed to when they signed up.'
Hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
Plaintiff provides no facts in his Complaont to support these contentions.
As with every other projecting reich-wing troll before him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
So you’re saying “conservatives” need a safe space to convince themselves they’re still popular?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of free speech
The bottom line is, as always, is that right wingers are liars and hypocrites. Hypocrisy is their life blood ... they could not function without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The point of free speech
Not all of them, there are actually sane people on the right but they are drowned out by the loudmouths and the knuckle-draggers who have high-jacked the political right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons
What I'm more Interested in is -- why were they banned? If they broke some sort of clearly established rules, then that's awesome that they got banned. But if they were banned for simply for disagreeing with others, then that seems unfair. Discussing the reasons why is what separates a free speech platform from a biased platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons
If only that question was answered in the gorram article...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons
We can all agree on that regardless of political affiliation there will always be asshats. I don't doubt some people joined Parler with the clear intent of being asshats, but if it turns out that they banned or moderated people just because they expressed views that can be considered on the left of the political spectrum it tells us that Parler are hypocrites and biased against non-conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons
I don't think discussing reasons matters.
First, even parler has bias, and I'd not expect a word of explanation from them (or techdirt) if I was posting spam. I like the techdirt comment moderation quite a bit, framing it as a popularity contest of sorts amongst its (biased) audience.
Second, if you don't want to drown in junk, choices have to be made. See 4chan followed by 8chan as example. What are YOU gonna read? Cat photos? Hydrangea reproduction?
Actual free speech looks like a community of trust around a topic or topics of interest. Presumably there are rules for bringing up new topics and ways to select the readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons
Update: Being curious about the reasons why people might get banned, I can see that Parler has rules posted in its Community Guidelines section that they disallow impersonation accounts. With Parler being a new app, there is currently that "Land Grab" phase where a whole lot of account names are not yet taken. It appears that a number of folks have been attempting to register themselves as public officials, or websites for which they dislike. As an example, the Thor Benson guy cited above attempted to register himself as the official account for The Federalist. Others attempted to register as Donald Trump.
So yeah, probably joining a community and immediately breaking the rules isn't such a great idea. Pretty clear violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasons
They also banned the Devin Nunes' Cow person. I mean, that's technically a violation, since the he's obviously not really a cow, much less one belonging to Nunes, but that's kind of a petty reason to ban him/her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reasons
Hey, Koby! You know those few conservatives banned from Twitter, Facebook, etc? They broke rules.
So yeah, probably joining a community and immediately breaking the rules isn't such a great idea. Pretty clear violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surely, then, you have no issue with Twitter banning anyone who self-identifies as a conservative if that person uses language that breaks clearly established rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Twitter banned conservatives for the npc meme. Look it up. They are blatantly biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using a meme to sat I hate the left comes under hate speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It could perhaps have something to do with the fact that people used the meme to spread misinformation about the election among other things.
Also, if you somehow think that the NPC meme was only used by conservatives it tells me your consumption of media is severely restricted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reasons
This is the question you can't honestly ask or answer about the major platforms. And yet ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Well I say free speech, but I really mean MY speech...'
Since it's been pretty clear that those complaining about the 'terrible persecution of free speech' are primarily if not exclusively talking about speech they care about and/or agree with it is in fact possible to have the platform kicking people off left and right and still claim that unlike those other platforms Parler really does care about free speech, because look, by and large the assholes who got the boot from the other platforms are still allowed on Parler.
So long as Parler is primarily giving the boot to those that the assholes don't like you can bet that they will continue to get a pass from the same people who were decrying the tyranny of other social media, because unlike the noble 'conservatives' that social media crushes under it's boots those others had it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Well I say free speech, but I really mean MY speech...'
You’re a tool. There’s no evidence that Parler is being biased against the people in this article, only anecdotes. Do you always drink Kool-aid this easily?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Well I say free speech, but I really mean MY speech...'
Same goes for Twitter and Facebook, which is the whole point of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protocol vs Silo
If there were many interoperable "speech services" that shared their content with one another the result would be what's left after each of them banned all the speech they disliked leaving us with nothing but photos of kittens. None of them are going to carry content they dislike (and let users decide what they want to read) so this is a no-go.
If instead these services offered their content to separate clients ala Usenet or RSS then nothing has changed. The only difference between that and what we have right now is that we use a different client for each service.
This is a drum not worth banging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protocol vs Silo
Techdirt itself is an example where speech it doesn't like (primarily idiots) gets carried anyway and as a user I decide if I am curious enough to read the flagged content.
As to usenet, well, the problem was that netnews protocol really didn't allow for moderation which was desperately needed. Protocols view lets me choose my moderator or federation of moderators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would be wrong about that. I know because I’m on a Mastodon instance.
Every Mastodon instance has the option of federating with other instances. The admins of every instance worth a damn takes the time to defederate from instances with what they think is “problematic” content (e.g., Gab instances). The “problematic” instances aren’t deleted from the Internet when this happens; you can still join Gab, after all. All that happens is people on the instances that defederated Gab don’t see Gab’s content on their timelines (unless they manually follow an account from that instance).
End users also have similar controls: They can choose to hide all content from a given domain (i.e., instance) when viewing the profile of someone on that domain. Someone on an instance with lax federation policies can make good use of that option if they feel the need.
Mastodon is not without its issues (e.g., the main fork still doesn’t have options for preventing boosts and replies). But let’s not act like its federation and domain block options are tantamount to censorship. Even if people choose not to listen, you still have the right to speak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protocol vs Silo
You obviously don't know what "interoperable imementations of a protocol" means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And so it begins
Parler will ban accounts...until there is nothing Left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Users Parler doesn't like (list is non-exhaustive):
"the gays"
"foreigners"
"black people"
"anyone even vaguely jewish"
"europeans if they criticize trump"
basically Parler is a right-wing echo chamber, that (give previous history of these type of places) will shortly lose it's hosting and DNS systems like Stormfront etc and be effectively wiped off the map.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some on the right sure seem to like the right kind of Jews. It's a toss-up with any given individual. And that "like" might be temporary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Many on the right don't care if you're a Jew, or you're black, or red, or yellow, or green.
Because we're not bigots, and we're not racists, and we're not anti-semites.
But I understand why you see the world that way.
You racist bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donald Trump didn’t get the memo, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, I see the problem, you're wearing the mask over your eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now THAT would be censorship, getting rid of the website. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Parler's business plan is to attract the people too toxic for Twitter? What could possibly go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think so. The large majority of conservatives are quiet, with an innate sense of fairness and good faith, that's why they're called the "silent majority".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So how come the "silent majority" isn't reflected in Trumpy's polling numbers and why he's trailing Biden by double digits in important swing states?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Time will tell, won't it. Elections are coming. Last time was a surprise. This time will be a VERY public statement about the Future of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rescue it from the brink or burn it to the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always thought that by “silent majority”, conservatives were referring to “White people who are too afraid to say and do racist shit even though they absolutely want to say and do racist shit”. I mean, it does sorta make sense that conservatives think all White people are as racist as the average conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Project much? The only racists that sound like what you describe were the KKK attending the Democratic Convention. Remember them? Proud of your Democratic history? Idiot. Republicans freed the slaves. Remember that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You forget the history of the Southern Strategy, the Dixiecrats, and the ideological shift between the two parties in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement. The GOP that freed the slaves bears little resemblance to the GOP of today beyond the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
blah blah blah on and end endless bullshit because you have nothing to say.
The racists are the Democrats.
Everybody knows that.
It's historical fact, not fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remind me, which party has heavily supported Voter ID laws in the United States within the past two decades or so — laws that courts have said were crafted with racist intent? Which party currently stands against mail-in ballots for the national election, which could help boost voter turnout but would also give people of color a better chance of voting than in-person voting? Which party breathlessly defends symbols of the Confederacy, a failed state that seceded from and fought a war with the United States to preserve the institution of slavery? Which party has tried to suppress the Black vote by way of gerrymandering, enacting Voter ID laws, and shutting down polling stations in districts heavily populated by Black people?
Because last time I checked, it sure as shit wasn’t the Democrats who were leading the charge in those regards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Europe has voter id laws. Cope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh, there's no doubt that European countries have voter id laws but they aren't crafted in such a way to make it difficult to acquire said id if you happen to belong to a marginalized group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're literally just a liar, and it's sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"blah blah blah on and end endless bullshit because you have nothing to say."
That sounds an awful lot like "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
Ideologically the two parties are completely different than they were 150 years ago. No political historian, or anyone who can read a damn history book, would seriously argue otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That street is named Madison Avenue, in fact, and it's not just allowed, it's encouraged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I looked into Parler and was going to join, until they demanded my mobile phone number, access to my contacts, and legal indemnification. No way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess free speech costs too much for you, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want to give up your privacy, go for it. Not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how for all your whining about censorship and your impassioned defenses of free speech, you weren’t willing to pay the price for the promise of a “free speech platform”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, you think it's funny, because you have no idea what funny is. Lefties have that part of their brain missing. Humor. And Honor. And Respect. They replace it with bullying, avoidance, and banding together into mobs. Everyone else finds it disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you think none of that applies to conservatives in any way, you’ve fooled yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've looked at Techdirt for many, many years. Show me an instance of a right wing mod on Techdirt piling on some poor leftie.
You can't.
It never happened.
It can't happen. You will silence any view you disagree with because you are too afraid to confront anyone about anything. You can only hide with your fake friends under your moma's skirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, we “silence” (read: hide) bad faith arguments, trolls, and spam. Dissent on its own doesn’t get flagged. Dissent rooted in strawmen, ad hominems, paper-thin arguments, and name calling so pathetic that even elementary school students would think it’s lame, on the other hand…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are a fucking bold faced liar hiding behind a fake name, Mike. Just like your other leftie friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh wait, you were serious.
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Says the "insider".
Are you special, being an "insider" and all?
Do you even see how ridiculous you look? Parler doesn't have "insiders", it doesn't need them. Why do you?
Do you have a secret code and secret hand signals, too?
Can you see the hand signal I am making right now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the one where you choke yourself trying to put your whole fist in your mouth again isn;t it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you smoking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Parler doesn't have "insiders", it doesn't need them."
Who pays for it then? Cos that's literally what a TD 'Insider' does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hiding from view isn't "silencing". All of the comments that we marked as spam can still be read here.
If you really think that's censorship, you must really have lived with a silver spoon in your mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It isn't silencing! It isn't censorship! You just can't SEE the comment! It exists in another Universe, the Universe of the UnSeen!
What utter bullshit you spout.
Censorship is censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've seen three year olds with more convincing arguments than you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, you can still see the comment. You just have to click to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You will silence any view you disagree with because you are too afraid to confront anyone about anything."
Lots of people here are disagreeing with you and you're being 'confronted' out the wazoo, and yet your supposedly 'silenced' voice is making an awful lot of noise. Your own many, many words, which I can clearly see, are making a complete mockery of your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems fishy
I keep wondering if Parler has been set up with help from one of the 3 letter agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems fishy
Possible I suppose, but I imagine there are easier ways to get that sort of information that doesn't involve a dumpster fire or alerting potential targets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seems fishy
Why do lefties like "dumpster fires" so much? They talk about them all the time. Is that where they meet to discuss their plans to take over the world?
Just listen to General Flynn. You 2% idiots are about to get crushed by the 98% of the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don’t. Why else do you think sites like Parler end up becoming shitpits for alt-right chuds like incels, Gamergaters, and White supremacists? (Whoops, tautology!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have seen the future that we are all blind to, do you, oh oracle of Truth and Enlightenment.
Not.
You're just another phony pony leftie idiot, like the majority of other long time posters here.
Phony as a 3 dollar bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Parler is much better than twitter, that’s for sure. Sorry if you need an echo chamber to feel safe :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Interesting. You do understand that if all the people who reason like you do start using Parler exclusively, that means Parler becomes your own little safe echo-chamber because you couldn't deal with the social platforms you left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like"
Sounds just like our law and order national justice system!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F U, bunch of whiney left wing twats. You will soon be silenced by something with a bit more volume and velocity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you should probably report this person to the FBI for making violent threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, report them to the FBI, that's a good idea. What a fucking idiot you are, Stone. Fake name, fake outrage, it's easy to be a leftie when you lie about who you are and what you think. Do you wear a mask and ski glasses, too? You're pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm afraid impotent screaming isn't loud or fast enough. Although, it does show us who is having a meltdown since the dichotomy in your statement is very enlightening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, big words for a high school kid. Are you out of high school yet? I doubt it from your writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What like your wet farts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bring it on, lamer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guidelines
Yeah,
I joined Parler and then read their Community Guidelines and went: Oy Vey. Why isn't there even one social media site that has NO Community Guidelines.. At least pretend there is Free Speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not what free speech means
Why isn't there even one social media site that has NO Community Guidelines.. At least pretend there is Free Speech?
Because anyone who was stupid enough to create a site like that would find out very quickly why those rules are in place, not to mention free speech is not and never has been short for consequence-free speech, there has always been consequences even if it's nothing more than social disapproval, such that the idea that free speech means a free-for-all is nothing but a phantom that has never existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because any such service would soon find itself spammed into irrelevance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, you're an authority, while you hide behind your fake name. You know it all. No one can tell you anything, because you see everything in such a high degree of detail and accuracy. You're an Oracle, a Seer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honey, you can flirt with me all you want, but I won’t let you fuck me unless you can afford my asking price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup, you're a certified leftie. A conservative would never mistake what you just said as either an argument or humor. It's in a third category that only lefties understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A conservative would never recognize humor that isn’t rooted in attacking marginalized people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you "marginalized", you poor baby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you for proving my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I take it that's a YES.
Of course, we all knew that already.
You poor marginalized baby.
Hear that tone?
That's the world's smallest violin, playing a sad song, just for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Funny to see you even fail at irony. Impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn’t take a conservative to recognize that you have shitty humor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not like yours is any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Says an Anonymous Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm honest. Stephen is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Honest enough not to give away your real name? Okay, Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a Coward! I'm an Anonymous Coward!
Is Samuel your real name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How the invention buisness bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you lack self-awareness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought I was getting free speech
but all I got was this crummy social media app that banned me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not gonna lie, when I saw this thread had over 170 comments I thought it was Hamilton shitting things up. What I wasn't expecting was the usual anti-vaxx brigade of Koby and restless, topped up with a fucknugget who was dumb enough to sign up for a recognizable username and rant about a Twitter-competitor service that even he can't be fucked to use because user verification.
You gotta hand it to conservatives. Even when presented with a silver platter that has someone to suck their cock for them, conservatives still manage to fuck it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The worst thing to do to a man is give him exactly what he wants"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'We want X!' 'Here you go.' 'This isn't what we wanted at all!'
Hmm, I'd suggest changing that to '.. what he asks for', as the two can be widely different, if not in direct opposition, for example claiming to want equal treatment on social media when what is really desired is special treatment and exemptions to the rules everyone else has to follow.
If those decrying the tyranny of social media got what they wanted that would indeed be great for them, it would be giving them what they are asking for that would be terrible(for them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'We want X!' 'Here you go.' 'This isn't what we wanted at al
Hey, Parler is cool.
Techdirt is a joke.
That's life.
Face it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'We want X!' 'Here you go.' 'This isn't what we wanted a
And even on Techdirt noone takes you seriously. Tired of winning yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apparently Parler is so cool you'd rather post here because... edgelord reasons.
Thanks for playing, you triggered little snowflake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The left can’t meme, so they even resort to using rightwing words like “triggered” and “snowflake”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I can tell, many of those who post here are closer to libertarian than leftwing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your point is for right-wing perspectives to be accepted, why does using "rightwing words" offend you so badly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dunno, I like Parler. I feel calm and peaceful when I see hundreds of articles with thousands of comments from people who have a worldview similar to mine. Yeah, there's a few troublemakers, they're pretty obvious. What I don't see is the kind of "piling on" that sites like this do. Conservatives are individuals, not sheep, like leftists. That's both good and bad. Sheep all go blindly together, and conservatives want to figure things out on their own. That means they organize a little more slowly. On the other hand, conservatives will pick up a gun and run towards danger, once they see a genuine threat to their liberties, while the sheepie lefties will run home to mommy and hide under the covers. So, it's kind of a mixed bag. Delayed, but overwhelming response, just like the next election. Just wait and see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, I can’t imagine why a circlejerk doesn’t have any pile-ons. 🙄
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What does that even mean, idiot boy? Parler is NOT dominated by fake assholes like you piling on with your fake friends PaulT and ThatOtherIdiot. It doesn't have "insiders" who plot and scheme about how to push a fake agenda with coordinated disinformation, like the Russians do. It has real red blooded Americans, like Mark Levin and Dan and soon Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you have a script that fires on reply, or do you actually think is what passes for discourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m betting they have some sort of Lorem Ipsum script that uses whatever keyword he’s using this week to fill out a bunch of different replies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Incoherent ranting with nothing but insults, bigotry and other mindless content doesn't exactly take much effort to come up with, and since that's all they have it's not too surprising that they'd be rather quick with comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Incoherent ranting with nothing but insults, bigotry and other mindless content.
aka Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But enough about your sad pathetic personal life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm getting old. Back in my day shitposting required effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On this site? Are you stupid or just another lying sack of shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for proving my point by completely missing it. And no, this isn't lulzy by any standards. It's childish and truly pathetic. If this is your Monday night entertainment, I'm sorry you have to stoop this low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, ouch, I'm so hurt, you speech sounds like violence to me. Stop it or I will send BLM to burn down your house in a mostly peaceful way.
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Man, you really suck at this, huh? It’s painful to watch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, it's dominated by actual assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.westernjournal.com/1000000-users-sign-parler-app-twitter-bans-multiple-conservative-acco unts/?utm_source=parler#038;utm_medium=conservativetribuneutm_campaign=parlerutm_content=2020-06-29
1,000,000 new users. New Site. How old is Techdirt? How many users?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check back on those numbers in a year to compare how many accounts exist on the service with how many of those accounts are active. I’d bet on a lopsided ratio. Parler, like Voat and Gab and other such “free speech” (read: “conservative-friendly”) sites, will likely become another failed experiment as people flock back to the popular sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean "popular" sites like Techdirt?
Now THAT'S funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Popular enough for you to keep posting to it, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People can’t flock back when they’re banned, you galaxy brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry snowflake, but this time mainstream politicians and celebrities are joining Parler. It’s gonna last longer this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...you a**holes admit then by implication that Twitter does indeed silence conservative voices and leftists didn’t really want the free speech but to just spike the ball of them for leaving Twitter then. Fuck you. So the alternative for conservatives is to just EAD and take it in the rear. Fuck you. You pansy shits. You unwiped chocolate starfishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unwiped Chocolate Starfishes.
10 points for originality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really. If self-identified conservatives feel “silenced” by having to follow the Twitter TOS agreement, that says more about them than it does about Twitter.
No, the alternative is to leave Twitter and start their own Twitter-like service — which they’ve seemingly done, given how Parler is heavily promoted by conservatives. If conservatives don’t like Twitter’s TOS, tough shit. They’re not entitled to a spot on that service; neither is anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For once we agree.
If you don't like twitter, leave. I did.
Felt great.
Feels greater every day.
Did I mention I'm an investor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do we care about an AC claiming anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*"So...you a*holes admit then by implication that Twitter does indeed silence conservative voices..."
I don't recall anyone admitting to that. Twitter does not silence discussions about traditional conservative values like family values, law and order, fiscal responsibility, etc. Twitter does silence discussions that are racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. Are you saying these are also conservative values? Coz that might be your problem right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect for Techdirt
You know, I asked my friends at Parler about Techdirt, and they did tell me one thing that I had to agree with. You guys stick together. You might have worthless opinions, you might come to stupid conclusions, you might silence the best and the brightest voices that grace your site with attention, but you stick together. You lose the election, you lose power, you lose Brexit, you loose SCOTUS, you lose and lose and are about to lose again, but you stick together.
That's something. Not much, but something. Maybe you deserve a LITTLE respect.
naw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respect for Techdirt
You even fail at passive aggressive which is... impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The message wasn't the medium
Having the "Last Word" with a belief that it will influence an audience, only interested in seeing "their" pearls of epiphany... is a fool's folie aux deux. Devin Nunes left twitter and is now a Parler user? A testimony that will assuredly influence right minded like thinkers. Has his cow arrived yet? Go build a house...fight ISIS ...or deliver meals to the elderly...because these words have zero value and impact with respect to fomenting any sort of real progress. History will refer to users of the "I know you are but what am I" medium, not as "Twitterer's"...The descriptor will be shortened and one vowel will be replaced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The message wasn't the medium
Right. Not just Nunes. Not just Dan. Not just Kevin. Not just .... like, pretty much EVERYBODY I like is on Parler.
Except one. Where's Trump?
Can you talk to him for me? He doesn't seem to listen to me anymore.
Dunno why. Maybe it's my obsession with his wife. He always laughs about it but maybe he really doesn't like it.
Signed,
Charles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still on Twitter, and for good reason: He knows he’ll get more attention on that site than he will on Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is it that you lefties are so good at mind reading? Did you all go to mind reading school together?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's really not much mind to read with Trump though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok, you guys can be a little funny sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very fun to see how many comments have been hidden because the pathetic "progressives" here complained to the administrators. You must be millennial baristas living on stimulus checks while looting stores. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Absolutely right and quite well said, TBTop.
Very fun to see how many comments have been hidden because the pathetic "progressives" here complained to the administrators. You must be millennial baristas living on stimulus checks while looting stores. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
okay Boomer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
STILL too stupid to realize how moderation works here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, we all know how it works. Suddenly 50 comments go missing. You say it's the "community", which is just a fucking lie told repeatedly by fucking liars. Lefties, in other words. Keep your doctor, same thing on another subject. Losers. You have no moral character. None of you. No heroes, no morals, just disgusting lies repeated again and again, usually by the same person using different identities. Pathetic losers, all of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Said the whining whiner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence that it’s not the community?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWITTER
Twitter don't ban conservatives? WHAt ?? ARE you for real ..Come on man , stop it there are 100000 examples ..Just like you tube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence. Yes, Twitter bans conservatives. It also bans liberals. So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even the supreme court recently ruled that it is acceptable to use common sense. Remember common sense, you leftie lawyer losers? Common sense.
Twitter is Left. Facebook is Left, They are so left, that they are being left by their users.
Fuck you leftie idiots.
Gosh, it's fun to post here with my friends from Parler. I'm really enjoying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That ruling has zero relevance to anything being discussed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Coincidentally, that's the same amount of common sense Spamiltard exhibits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you're failing miserably at it. As will Parler which is probably the reason you're guys are already turning up here. A true sign of confidence in Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Na, I come here to try to clean up this shitty toilet of a web site with some actual American speech. Not like the horseshit that you promote here, with your leftist mob mentality. On Parler, I am surrounded by patriotic Americans with interesting opinions and the ability to quote both the law and historical truth. Here, well, the Streisand Effect is big news. Pigs rolling in shit are not fun to debate. But that's OK, I also pick up garbage at the park when I see it. Pretty much the same thing. Civic duty, you get me? When you see a stinky pile of trash, try to clean it up, in your own small way. A candle in the wind, so to speak. Just like my friend Elton John wrote about me. I'm a candle in the wind, a small light in the hurricane of socialist disinformation. Self Sacrifice. Country. Family. God. All good. You suck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your cleaning up works really good, don't you think, cupcake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General Michael Flynn Now on Parler (and Techdirt)
"I was once told if we’re not careful, 2 percent of the passionate will control 98 percent of the indifferent 100 percent of the time."
It’s so simple but so powerful and true.
Flynn goes on to say, “The more I’ve thought about this phrase, the more I believe it. There is now a small group of passionate people working hard to destroy our American way of life. Treason and treachery are rampant and our rule of law and those law enforcement professionals who uphold our laws are under the gun more than at any time in our nation’s history. These passionate 2 percent appear to be winning.”
Flynn says that despite there being countless good people trying to come to grips with everything else on their plates, our silent majority (the indifferent) can no longer be silent.
If the United States wants to survive the onslaught of socialism, if we are to continue to enjoy self-government and the liberty of our hard-fought freedoms, we have to understand there are two opposing forces: One is the “children of light” and the other is the “children of darkness.”
I think Flynn is a Historic American Hero. I think Trump plans to bring him in to run the military and national guard to fix America's problems, which he will do el pronto quicko. Then, he will follow Trump in the 2024 Election.
Flynn! The Symbol of the End of the Deep State! History in the making! He will be on the Thousand Dollar Bill!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, didn't take long for Hamilton to crawl out of the Shiva Ayyadurai woodwork. I suppose even Fran Drescher's ex knows enough to let people come up for air every once in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that’s how we end up with Republicans enjoying minority rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
President Flynn. Doesn't that have a nice ring to it? A real General for a President, that would be great in these uncertain times, don't you think? Is it too early to start a President General Flynn Fan Club? I'm ready to contribute, he's my kinda guy. One guy, alone, facing impossible odds, staring down Mueller, corrupt judges, the corrupt FBI, Comey, Clapper, Brennan, all of 'em. Staring them down and them SMASHING THEM into TINY PIECES and then HANGING THEM in PUBLIC as a STATEMENT about a NEW AMERICA! Well, maybe hanging is a little much. Perp walking would be OK, in handcuffs, at 3AM with their wife in a bathrobe. That should do. With Fox covering the whole thing, yeah, that'll be fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for expressing your wish for Trump to not be President, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, he can't be president forever, can he? Did you flunk civics, like your stupid friends?
Michael Flynn for President, 2024!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My god, it’s learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, I've never seen such a dedicated effort to invent different ways of consuming fecal matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans enjoying minority rule
That indifference comes from somewhere. We have it beaten into our gradeschool heads how important it is to vote, to express our own differences and make that choice, and yet somehow by the time we're all grown up and looking at our options, it's just not that exciting.
We like to blame MTV or our facebook feed or the YouTubez or whatever it is that we think is making the new generation lazy. (They're not. It isn't.) But really it comes down to Boss Tweed having us by the short-and-curlies since... well... since Boss Tweed.
Ours is a two party system, and we get to choose between a capitalist and a different kind of capitalist. That's super exciting.
And then there's those referendums which might be understandable for those who they directly affect. Most people don't actually know if the firefighters need their pension raised or if that costs too much out of the general fund. Most people don't know if bridges, libraries, lotteries, school augmentation funds, electoral funds and such are good or not.
In the meantime much of the shit that desperately needs doing never gets near a committee meeting. The planet is dying and the nation's infrastructure is still collapsing under its own weight.
So sure, the same interests that captured the Republican party also captured all the government departments. They also captured the Democratic party. For an allegedly free state we're all owned, even the twinkletoes that are trolling this forum. Especially the twinkletoes that are trolling this forum.
As much of a monster Trump is, Biden is simply going to give us a reprieve until the GOP comes up with another demagogue that will totally pump up folks like Gibson and TBTop and make them feel they're on the winning team and are really huge men. Maybe another Trump. Maybe Zombie Donald, or maybe someone who knows how to use our surveillance system to assure that dissenters from the One True Party quietly have their careers ruined. And yet, a Trump victory might drive us to realize the federal government isn't going to serve the people until the people force it to.
Frankly, we're already there. It's totally on brand for Trump to delay the election, or kick up enough doubt to call it to question, or in a worst case scenario, scorch the earth while he's lame duck.
But we the people didn't have any contenders in the game long before the Southern Strategy, long before the religious, big textile and big oil took to the GOP.
I think Carter was accidental, and the DNC stomped hard to the right because of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans enjoying minority rule
WTF?
You believe in a Socialist Utopia. We believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
You believe in Censorship (Techdirt's version), mob rule and disgusting liars with phony names. We believe in Free Speech, Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law.
You are evil, and fascist, and represent the collective, the Hive.
We are good, independent, patriotic Americans, a shining example for the whole world to envy.
Signed,
Your Friendly, Humble, Patriotic American (God Bless America)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republicans enjoying minority rule
While the 1% believe they are entitled to own everything, including people, and the purpose of law is to force the people to make them even more wealthy. Trump is employed to advance their ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evil, Fascism and Hives
You are evil, and fascist, and represent the collective, the Hive.
OH GREAT NYALARTHOTEP YOU FOUND ME OUT -- wait...no. It appears I am compelled neither by the power of Christ nor by American jingoist chants. You can USA...USA... at me all you want, and I will not burst into flames but be mildly annoyed. Feel free to try, though. It is entertaining.
We are each obligated to define for ourselves what is the enemy. I don't define you as the enemy, rather I see you as a pitiable victim who just might be incapable of comprehending the social mechanics necessary to organize a nation of millions. I get it you want to be led by who feels right, and have policy that feels good. But that doesn't work unless your nation is just a few dozen hunters who migrate across the plains every year. Once you start down the path of agriculture, society gets complicated.
I get it if you need to demonize those who disagree with you. It's a common human failing and even geniuses sometimes fail to overcome it. I'll be your enemy if it helps you feel better. Grarr. Curses. I'm going to get you Dorthy and your little dog too.
But given I live in the United States of America, it is demonstrably a fascist police state run by an administration, a captured senate and a captured Supreme Court that accepts and encourages a fascist agenda. It's a strict plutocratic oligarchy that pretends to be a democracy on election day. As an American citizen I do live under these institutions whether I choose to or not. I dissent from the mechanisms they use to stay in power, but our institutions don't listen to me. Rather they certainly would regard me as evil and ultimately will send me to the camps (sooner than than they'll come for you, at least), but for the moment I am a lesser concern.
Aas for hive mentality, observe that I don't represent my opinions with the collective we as if I stand with a unified front of activists and freedom fighters behind me. Rather I am acutely aware of how individual my opinions are. The facts they're based on, however, are ours to consider or ignore. You may choose to stand with larger institutions in order to share purpose or feel that power, but in doing so, you give up your own autonomy, which you will discover once you are ordered to engage in duties contrary to your conscience. When Tomi Lahren, for instance, had to reposition herself from pro-abortion-access to strictly a-fertilized-egg-is-a-person pro-life. You can see how her soul cracked between the videos before and after she was reconditioned to toe the line, and liberal tears never quite tasted the same since.
Feel free to elaborate on who this we is, other than the royal we or the feline we. Who else is in lockstep along with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evil, Fascism and Hives
You lie; Trump manifestly does NOT rule. The Left rules. You're just trying to be even more insane than those who do rule.
One lie, all lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evil, Fascism and Hives
You're going to have to elaborate, Anonymous Reactionary what you think I said that was untrue, why you think I deliberately intended to mislead, and how you figure the left rules. Don't and I'll assume you're just trolling.
In the meantime, madness is irrelevant. A statement is not intrinsically false because it is made by a fool or a madman or an evil demon, so whether or not I am insane is irrelevant. If you think one of my premises is delusional, start there and be prepared to support your position with facts.
Argue my positions, or don't, Anonymous Reactionary. But if you don't I'll assume there is no good to be had by engaging you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evil, Fascism and Hives
Since when has having a majority in one half of one branch of the government meant you rule the country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruling from the minority
Maybe he was referring to 2017 and 2018 when obstructionist Democrats (not actual liberals), Republicans with some conscience and an angry war vet all conspired to block Trump's great MAGA plan (but not the tax plan that will bankrupt the US in a decade).
And he would have done it too if it weren't for those meddling kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
We believe in Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I highly doubt this. I think you want the status quo so long as you have food security and shelter security and income security for you and yours. Maybe it's easier to believe that the inalienable rights Jefferson wrote of are still respected when police aren't directly hunting and shooting you. (I'm still hung up about Philando Castile who was pulled over at least 49 times for minor offenses until they found excuse to murder him. The father of my grandson is pulled over a lot for minor shit as well, and I can't help but wonder if it's only a matter of time before law enforcement kills him.)
Do you revel in the inequality in our society when it affects groups that you don't like?
I suspect you give no fucks that large swaths of our population are oppressed by the system, often imprisoned for it or beaten to pulp for it. Sometimes they get killed by it. Do you care?
I suspect you also give no fucks about the civilians firebombed by US drone strikes which number higher than all the gun deaths put together in North America. Yes, it was started in the Obama administration. Yes, Bush was sweeping villages with mercenaries and detaining and torturing people -- Americans even -- without due process. (I expect my elected officials to operate in accordance to their oath and an ethical standard of conduct, it doesn't matter to me what party they belong to when they don't.) Considering the atrocities committed by our nation within its borders, the atrocities committed by our nation outside its borders are way worse. (We don't torture. We hire non-Americans to torture for us.) Do you care?
And I suspect you give no fucks about the population of the US suffering the highest incarceration rate globally, in which we demonize and dehumanize our inmates, as demonstrated by our lack of concern when COVID-19 moved like brushfire through the penal system. I suspect you give no fucks that over half of our inmates were sentenced disproportionately to minor crimes or convicted falsely (100.00% incarceration rate, 90% conviction rate. Convictions rather than fair adjudications are what accelerate political careers.) Do you care?
We believe in Free Speech, Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law
Except the US has a clear long history of a stratified justice system that pushes warm bodies into our prison system as above, and lets law enforcement, judges and the wealthy walk away with light sentences (if the DoJ just doesn't refuse to prosecute them).
Much like the Tea Party and the Bush-era Republican party, it appears you only believe in these notions as rights when they apply just to you and your immediate buddies, and not to anyone outside of your Facebook friends list. It's been demonstrated by the Trump administration and by his supporters and followers this inconsistency is true to type for all of them.
To be fair, that's what feels good. We all want to be Harry Potter, special, chosen, on Team Good Guys, part of a small cadre of elites. It's normal to hold dear to beliefs and ideologies that feel good. I get it. Mongo only pawn in game of life.
We want to elect officials that feel right even when they are helping their buddies rob the nation and are only accelerating the nation's downfall. I can't blame you. We can't blame human beings for tragedized commons. It's what we do.
So, personally, I only wonder if the catastrophe can be prevented, or I should start grieving now that it's going to come crashing down people people will still be blaming immigrants, minorities, Muslims and liberals as they plummet.
Feel-good me-only policy is just not realistic. Not in a nation of 320 million people, for which we get electricity, running water, cell phone service, fresh fruit imported to our corner store, the internet and a space program. For all that you have to strive for a pluralistic society in which the welfare of everyone is regarded. Or it comes apart.
If you expect the underclass to live by harder rules than you, it means you'll have to suffer the consequences when they no longer consent to doing their bit for your pleasure. And if you decide to do what the police are trying to do and force them to it, well, again, either you get a fascist police state chewing up its own populace or a horrible and bloody revolution. And neither of those are a good look for a civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialist Utopia
You believe in a Socialist Utopia.
I don't believe in any form of government. I've come to learn that I don't have the answers. There are brighter, more educated minds than mine trying to develop that more perfect union, and they don't know what kind of government is going make for the next thousand year reign.
I'm okay with not having all the answers. Finding an ideal enough state that won't fall apart in a couple of centuries is a complicated problem.
But we have a fuckton of ideas as to how to make our nation better, how to make it more public-serving, how to deconsolidate power, how to make elections more meaningful.
And we don't do them. None of them. Even the no-brainers. Even when (as we've discovered) the checks and balances our branches are supposed to have don't check or balance.
Right now, as so much of our government is captured, we're desperately looking for alternatives to the fourth box of liberty and there's just nothing there.
And now that our fascist police state is entirely unmasked, and we know that no-one in the federal government is going to do a thing about it, it's no longer a matter of if things flash, but when. I suspect in the next couple of years we'll have another spot in the street that will eventually be marked with a big brass seal commemorating the people massacred there. And another barrage of gunfire will be heard around the world.
And everyone will have underestimated just how horrible it is to watch the Tree of Liberty feed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're incorrect, they don't actually have to remove any content
You seem to think that Parler has to remove any content, but they don't. They don't have to remove anything. On the other hand, if they don't remove certain types of content, they'll find that their userbase will disappear. That's completely not the same thing at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're incorrect, they don't actually have to remove any con
They have to remove illegal content, so there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... and?
Which puts them in the exact same position as other social media platforms, so not sure what point you're going with there or who you're addressing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was also banned apparently for an obscenity where I suggested Trumo was too close to Kim Jong Un
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, I hope they're close. Trump offered him Condos! What a negotiator! I want those condos in North Korea! Do you know what they will be worth in the future? HUGE! It's going to be HUGE HUGE HUGE.
Yeah, it's taking a little longer than expected, but that short little prick will figure it out soon. Maybe we need to encourage him with a MOAB or two, I'll just wait for Flynn to show up and direct the show.
Maybe on the 4th of July, that would be good, right? Drop a few bombs on NC to encourage them to buy Condos! That might work!
Actually, I think I plan to pardon Roger Stone on the 4th of July, that's what my wife wants. And Charles. Where is Charles, anyway? And where is my wife? Why are they always together while I'm at work.
Doesn't matter! I'll just go grab some more pussy! Cats. Pussy Cats. I have a cat, did you know that? And a pussy. No, that's not right. Anyway, I'm up too late, gotta go find my wife. Where did she go again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"And it has the right to do so."
Corporations don't have rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Supreme Court of the United States said otherwise. Until they overturn that ruling or the legislative branch passes a law that overturns the ruling (and holds up on constitutional grounds), corporations have rights.
And even if they don’t, the people who own those corporations have rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't really make an argument without the facts
Lots of people got banned for comments made. What were the comments? Makes a difference if they were threats ect. Not saying they were, just pointing out that no one even vaguely indicates what they were banned for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't really make an argument without the facts
Exactly, I hope this can get bumped up above the noise. Sure, they got banned. What did they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't really make an argument without the facts
Which is the same question asked of those claiming that conservatives views are being banned from Twitter and Facebook, so far no answer has been forthcoming that proves there is a systemic bias against conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't really make an argument without the facts
I'd be happy to hear from both groups. Quite frankly, I've seen plenty from both sides on Twitter that never got banned.
I know some who have gotten banned, at least temporarily, for things like not using preferred pronouns or saying trans women/men aren't their preferred gender. I'm pretty sure those are things that explicitly go against Twitter's ToS.
I've yet to see examples of actual disparity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't really make an argument without the fa
I think there's a big difference being insensitive or clueless versus being hateful and sometimes it's hard to judge the content and context of a post to determine what the intent actually was. I also think that means that moderators often err on the side of caution and issue a ban or suspension even though there where no harmful intent from the poster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading Headline?
Did they get banned because Parler didn't like their political stance or because they were trying to push the system to purposely see what it took to get banned?
The one admits that a group joined just to "screw with MAGA folks" and another admits to doing it to "[call] them out on their sketchy legal tactics."
How did they do this? Were they spamming? Did they post what they knew were against the ToS? It would be nice to see TD dig a little more into this.
You could also set up your own account and slowly start posting crazier and crazier shit to see what happens. Start with tin foil hat conspiracies and eventually go full blown Montana militia member.
Taking a punch at Parler is great if it's deserved but they never claimed they were the wild west where anything and everything goes. It seems that people think just that from the responses to Thor Benson on Twitter. Parler claims that they aren't going to ban based on politics but make no promises about purposely trying to break the ToS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading Headline?
I think you're dead right. Frankly, the idea that as a "community member", you have the obligation to Censor speech you don't like (as they do here, see the 200+ comments that can't be read above) as opposed to countering speech you don't like with better speech seems really wide open to the potential for abuse. A few people "in power" (the "insiders") have the ability to silence everyone else. That's just not right. That's just not American.
I am happy to see another American author post here, finally. And a great writer and philosopher, too. And, I think he or she is likely tall, fit, very good looking, accomplished, and is kind to animals. That's how I imagine azkid. Funny name, though. Azkid? Dikza? I dunno about the name choice, but the writing is great.
Anyway, God Bless America and God Bless Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
No, not Dizka (now I need to look that person up). Just a fan of westerns and from Arizona. I didn't want someone coming back saying I didn't have the balls to post with an account.
Personally, any platform censoring anyone (as is their right) needs to be treated as publishers under the law. That makes them liable for actions done as a result of their system.
Basically, if Antifa or the KKK were promoting violence, such as a planned riot or attack, then Twitter/FB/Parler could be liable if they didn't remove the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
Wait, are you Donald J. Trump? You write like him. You sound like him. You know, understated, persuasive, compelling, undeniably good looking, well dressed and well spoken and with an ambiance of accomplishment accompanied by large contributions to worthy charities. Like that. Are you Donald? Or Baron? Or Mike? Are you Mike Flynn. He was in the Intelligence service, you knew that, right? He's got all those SAME qualities, that's why the Deep State tried to imprison him. WHO ARE YOU? No, don't tell me. Keep it a surprise. You're one of 'em, that's for sure, or something who they listen to a lot. Maybe a writer for the president or the first lady? Maybe a bodyguard? No, a policy maker, you're like that. A Genius. A Visionary. A friend to the Pope (the good Pope).
God bless you, and God Bless America. And Darn it, God Bless Mike for letting me publish here. I'm in tears tonight. Thank you everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
I most certainly am not Flynn. I definitely don't work for the intelligence services. I don't know what you're talking about. The NSA/CIA/FBI are all fake news. They don't actually exist. It's all deep state, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
Well, if you WERE Flynn, and you were TRAINED in the intelligence field, and you were talking on a PUBLIC forum, then you would know enough NOT to admit you were Flynn, right? I know Mike Flynn, and I know if I asked him in public if he WAS Mike Flynn, I have no idea what he might say. He's clever, that one, he really is. So, how to resolve this paradox? Flynn or no Flynn. How about this? We dunk you in the water, and if you die, then you're not Mike Flynn. If you live, then you are Mike Flynn, and we burn you alive for lying. That sounds reasonable.
Signed, Judge Sullivan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi! I’d link to the “you’re wrong about Section 230” article, but I can take you down in one sentence:
Section 230 doesn’t mention any kind of platform/publisher distinction when it says all interactive computer services have 230 protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, Stephen/Mike, we know you have your personal interpretation of all the laws in all the universe (since you are the Wizard of Laws), but tell me again, in English, what you are trying to say.
When you censor speech, as you do above, then you are not a "platform", you are a "publisher". Is that what you were trying to say?
Or are you trying to say something else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you Stephen. If you could link to the specific article I would appreciate it. From my understanding the code doesn't seem to refer to content platforms but service providers.
"The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
You can debate what it means my "provides or enables computer access... to a computer server" but a plain reading of the code doesn't imply content platforms.
230 clearly refers to a service provider as not being liable for the illegal actions of its users- such as people pirating software or music or someone putting out illegal content (child porn, classified information, etc). It doesn't (and really couldn't at the time) take into account social media.
Without judicial or federal clarification I would hesitate to apply it to content platforms.
Again, that doesn't mean that 230 doesn't apply to those platforms but it needs clarified and revised as the technology has changed. There needs to be clarification as to whether platforms like Twitter/FB or Parler would qualify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn’t have to then, doesn’t have to now. No court has ruled that 230 doesn’t apply to social media services. Until a court rules that way (and has its ruling upheld), 230 absolutely applies to those services.
Besides, I can’t think of a reason why Twitter should be held legally liable for any speech that Twitter’s owners/employees didn’t have a hand in creating or publishing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why I said I think we need clarification from the judiciary.
My admittedly limited understanding is that if someone is deciding what should and shouldn't be published they are no longer a content platform. At that point they are publishers and need to be held accountable as such.
Now, to your point, is it reasonable to expect social media companies to be able to police their content 100%? Clearly, that answer is no. Should they be liable? Possibly. To what extent? I don't know.
I would think if something is reported multiple times and is clearly a violation of law- inciting violence for instance- and they do nothing then they would/should be liable. It would be a high burden of proof for whomever is prosecuting, as it should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The judiciary is clear, though.
is pure bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you look at section 230 cases you see that it applies to defamatory statements, IP and a select few other situations. They aren't liable for defamatory statements and only really lose immunity if they promise to remove and don't or materially change what is posted. There is nothing I can find relating to criminal activity beyond that. At least, nothing seems to be mentioned in the brief material on case laws regarding 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rulings you're ignoring:
ones where moderation of x does not make a platform liable for Y: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180124/16291839077/court-dismisses-second-time-lawsuit-seeking-t o-hold-facebook-responsible-acts-terrorism.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is only that "moderation" is an extremely vague term.
At which point does it cease to be content moderation and become content curation? Certainly doing the latter is what content providers do, not interactive computer services.
It's like the distinction between expression and idea in copyright. Very muddled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for the part where there's no distinction at all.
Platforms are only liable for content they themselves author. There is no level of "curation" that magically makes them responsible for the creation of a third party.
Only anti-230/speech liars are trying to push forward the deliberate disinformation narrative that there's anything "muddled" about the decades of clear common law 230 reinforces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hehe, if the distinction were clear, you'd just explained it instead of coming up with this cleverly disguised circular argument.
The infamous tape starring Hulk Hogan wasn't produced by Gawker's employees. Still you know how the story ended for Gawker.
And so again, there is the elusive dividing line between an "interactive computer service" and a "publisher" / "speaker". What might it be?
I even believe you that you genuinely think this distinction is clear-cut. That's just the confident and carefree attitude of the 1990s, when this legislation was conceived. Not unsympathetic, but the times have changed a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, your premise is flawed. There is a ton of overlap between “interactive computer service” and “publisher” / “speaker”. Basically, §230 covers any content in the overlap between “interactive computer service” and “publisher” outside of “speaker”/“content creator” (except for sex trafficking, IP, and federal crimes). There is no “dividing line” here.
Furthermore, that wasn’t the distinction discussed here. It was the difference between “moderation” and “content curation”. You argued that there had to be a difference and that “content curation” would be outside what an ICS/ISP would do, but asked how we could say that the distinction is clear. Toom said there is no such distinction (or if there is, it’s a distinction without a relevant difference) and that “curation” doesn’t make an ICS/ISP liable for any content on their platform at all or for the curation itself. That is, you’re asking for a clear dividing line between two things that are not actually different from each other. Again, your premises are flawed.
As for Gawker, their actions there did not make them an ICS/ISP or a user of an ICS/ISP, making §230 inapplicable.
So here are the relevant distinctions/definitions: an ICS or ISP (interactive service provider) publishes any third-party content given to them by default, with any decisions to remove or not publish something being done after publication or using an automated algorithm to filter out certain things (like spam) (the default choice is to publish); a content creator/author/speaker is one who—as the name suggests—actively makes or materially modifies content (not just shortening, editing for mistakes, quoting, or republishing it somewhere else, especially if it’s done automatically without human input) or (arguably) who actively selects which content to publish beforehand (the default choice is not to publish); a publisher is simply anyone who outputs contents made by someone to the larger public.
The distinction between what content is published as an ICS/ISP versus what content is published as a content creator/author/speaker is clear-cut (at least in the vast majority of cases), as is whether or not someone is an ICS/ISP versus a traditional publisher. There is also a clear-cut distinction between moderation and what traditional publishers do. However, there is no distinction between an ICS/ISP and publishers in general, nor is there a relevant distinction between curation and moderation. None of us claimed that the latter two distinctions exist or are relevant to §230 at all.
It’s also worth noting that the authors of §230 stand by it as it is applied in the modern day. What you see today is exactly the sort of thing that §230 was intended to do, and the original supporters stand by it even today. So no, the times haven’t changed in such a way to make §230 have unintended consequences or become outdated (aside from excluding IP perhaps). The lines are no more blurred now than they were before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, thanks for that detailed explanation. I used to think like that too, before I got a bit more creative in imagining the edge cases. Took me quite a while to recognize that this 90s dogma had been flawed all along, so you're not alone.
Yeah, of course that's true (if we accept that "otherwise objectionable" has been interpreted by courts as "anything the ICS doesn't like". Which probably was not the original intention behind that wording. Lawmakers have usually no qualms to write something like "as they see fit" into laws).
But again, it's just tautologically true, because you've already stipulated that they qualify an ICS (for whatever reason. Your imagined definition is nowhere to be found in this much cited section 230 - you'd have to look up court rulings to find more precise definitions. Too bad they vary).
Still, one remark: some of those presumed "Interactive Computer Service" do (for new users) selecting before an automatic publication. Or allow only a very short time frame till some checking by humans is done.
To be fair, considering the volume of content, the larger ones of them, like the Stackexchange network, have outsourced this task to the community.
If you think that's a conceptually clear-cut distinction, you're far more forgiving than me.
You're also damn close to a profound insight with your "create their own content" point.
ICS often mandate certain licenses for their users' posts, and in a stronger way than traditional publishers did. Hairy issue. The Stackexchange network even mandated a retroactive re-licensing of old posts.
In that particular case, the association of the content and "ICS" can't get any more stronger. It's like Disney owning the copyright of the content a Disney employee (finally a natural person!) producers - but unlike Disney they're not responsible for it.
It's power without responsibility. Who wouldn't like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, the original authors have explicitly said that that’s what they meant and that the law is working as they originally intended.
Actually, they don’t. Do they publish content provided by others using a computer to be viewed on a computer? Do they allow users to interact with a computer program to create/publish their own content? Then it’s an ICS. No court has ruled otherwise and not been overturned on appeal (unless the parties settled before any appeal was filed). They may not use the same words, but they are entirely consistent with each other with, like, two exceptions once physical goods get involved.
Again, no. The mandated licenses with ICSs are generally only nonexclusive licenses for the ICS to use the user’s content. In the case of traditional publishers, it’s often an exclusive license if not outright selling rights to the publisher with the author keeping a license.
Did the ICS create the content themselves or pay someone else to produce that specific content? Are they claiming authorship? If not, then the association isn’t all that strong IMO.
I did say that that particular distinction was only a rule of thumb. At any rate, note that I said the default decision is to publish in general for an ICS. Also, unless you have a specific example, I don’t have anything to add.
I’ve yet to encounter much in the way of actual instances where the issue was not clear. I’m not terribly concerned with hypotheticals that don’t actually exist.
Merely owning a nonexclusive license to all user content and publishing that content doesn’t mean you created it, so I don’t see what you’re talking about.
That’s not at all the same. That’s a work-for-hire, meaning that the Disney employee has no rights over the content and Disney is legally the copyright owner of the content. In fact, in that scenario, the employee isn’t even legally a third party. ICSs just have a license to publish it, and it’s all automatic. That’s completely different.
Look, I don’t think you get this. You haven’t provided any real-life instances that are actually a gray area or anything. It’s all clear-cut to me. I’m not great at explaining myself, though, so maybe that’s the problem. Or maybe we have some fundamental disagreement here.
Part of the issue is the question of the First Amendment, which also divides along many of the same lines as CDA §230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then they changed their opinion with the time. What did they say back then? Like Cox? Wasn't it something along the line of: I want you to help us control what comes in our house, what our children see.
You're probably thinking of Roommates, don't know another case regarding physical goods. But there's also Gawker again (not the Hulk Hoagan case) and Accusearch. And as far as I remember this one, it was about "developing content" ... whatever that means. I mean in contrast to "create".
They do exist, again see SE. Screening is done for all new users' posts. But it's outsourced to other high rep users. The HuffPost of old would be another example.
That's not the issue here; it's the retroactive re-licensing of user-generated content. Users agree that their content posted at the ICS will be under license X. ICS decides later that they put the accumulated user-generated content under a different license Y.
So does SE think their users are some kind of unpaid employees? Interns?
Sure, in practice CC BY-SA 3.0 => 4.0 doesn't change much. But what if they were even more arrogant and retroactively changed it to a more restrictive license, maybe even exclusive? A traditional publisher doesn't give himself (or imagine) a right to just change the negotiated license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they have not. Both of the original writers have recently said that their opinions on the matter have not changed. They have not “changed their opinion[s on this] with the time[s]”. They stand by it even today. That your opinions have changed over time and/or you think their opinions are or should be outdated is irrelevant. Neither of them have changed their minds.
Uhhh, that’s not SE doing the screening but the users. In other words, users (even if it’s just a segment of them) get to see the content soon after it gets submitted for publication without humans at SE doing anything. That’s very different from a “letter to the editor” being published by a traditional publisher or a traditional publisher deciding whether or not to publish a book/magazine or something, which is done by paid employees and where a lot of content gets rejected for reasons besides being objectionable (namely, it won’t sell enough to pay for the publication costs).
I also said that that particular “definition” of ICS (that ICSs publish by default while traditional publishers don’t) is just a rule of thumb that holds true more often than not. Another question is whether, if manual screening is done beforehand by the publisher (or its paid employees), the publisher/employee(s) ever make substantive changes or revisions to content after submission but before publication.
And what did “[t]he HuffPost of old” do? If it’s similar to or the same as what SE does, then my answer is the same here. Otherwise, what about it would place it in a gray area for §230.
No. When an employee/intern has their content published by their employer, the employer gets any legal rights to that content (with a possible license given to the human author(s)) or (possibly but fairly rarely) an exclusive license to publish that content. (The former because it’s a work-for-hire.) Either way, the ability of the original author(s) of the content to use the content they themselves created is restricted somehow.
On SE and other ICSs, on the other hand, the publisher gets a nonexclusive license to use and publish the content under conditions specified by the license. There are no restrictions on the author’s (in this case, the user’s) ability to use or publish the content they submitted. It basically means that the author cannot sue the service provider/publisher for making use of the content as long as that use is consistent with the license agreement, but the author doesn’t give up anything else that they otherwise would have had if they self-published.
If the terms of a nonexclusive license changes, even retroactively, the licensor still owns all the rights associated with copyright or trademark; the only change is with what the licensee can do.
Okay, a few things to unpack here.
First, as stated earlier, a nonexclusive license to content cannot restrict the licensor (in this case the user) at all. It can only specify the terms under which the licensee (in this case the ICS) can use the licensed content. That’s it.
As for changing to an exclusive license, that changes things dramatically. See, a license, like all contracts, require some sort of consideration (give and take) to be held valid. When someone is simply granting permission to the other party, as in a nonexclusive license to the first party’s content, you don’t really need much consideration for it to be valid. Nonexclusive licenses are generally presumptively valid, even if they’re clickwrap; in this case, the consideration is that the licensor (user) gets a nonexclusive license to make use of the other party’s platform (technically it’s the other way around, but whatever). For a retroactive license, the consideration would essentially be continued use of the platform and such.
However, an exclusive license changes the math considerably. In that case, the licensor is actually giving up rights that they would have had. More balanced/formal negotiations and more consideration from the licensee is generally required for such a license to be held valid. I’m fairly sure that retroactively changing the license from nonexclusive to exclusive like that would be held invalid in court. I honestly don’t know if a clickwrap contract granting the service provider/ICS an exclusive license to the users’ content would even be held valid in court to begin with, but a retroactive exclusive license would almost certainly not be.
But let’s say SE did it anyways and it somehow held up in court (highly unlikely as it may be). In that case, it might be more of a gray area in my opinion about how §230 would apply (if at all) to exclusively licensed content, or it may mean that it’s clearly not protected by §230. However, I’m unwilling to speculate on that without any real-world examples of it actually happening, and I think that the legality of such a thing is so questionable that I doubt that it’d ultimately matter anyways.
Well, yeah, but that’s the thing: this wasn’t a negotiated license to begin with. It was a take-it-or-leave-it license. And frankly, whether or not the ICS provider maintains the right to make changes to the license unilaterally is more of a question of whether the changes are legally binding retroactively or not than whether or not a publisher is a provider of an ICS or not.
Basically, what you’re discussing doesn’t really change the §230 calculus at all. It’s more of an issue as to whether or not a publisher (traditional or not, ICS provider or not) and legally make unilateral changes to a license/contract like that and, if so, whether or not those changes would be held binding retroactively. It doesn’t really change whether or not the publisher is providing an ICS, whether or not certain content is third-party content, whether or not certain actions are considered moderation of third-party content they find objectionable, whether or not certain actions are providing users the ability to moderate content, or anything else regarding §230 definitions or protections.
Really, the license doesn’t have all that much to do with §230 at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You missed the word "Then" here. Dishonest quoting.
The exclusivity is off-topic stuff you introduce to avoid addressing the main topic. That the license is changed unilaterally.
They didn't do it with a clickwrap contract. They just did it. Without the user having to agree. That's the main point.
It wasn't about the legal issues here, just about the general attitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I did not. I explicitly included the word “then” in the original quote. The in-line partial quote with bracketed stuff later on did exclude it, but only because it wouldn’t have made sense grammatically otherwise.
Actually, it is important from a legal standpoint. My point was that a nonexclusive license can be changed unilaterally under certain conditions, but that an exclusive license can’t. It also makes a difference as far as §230 is concerned.
Actually, they did. The contract they’re changing was one that you agreed to when you signed up. That contract, as I recall, includes a provision that says that it is subject to change. They also inform you of the changes when they happen, at which point you can choose to delete your account and discontinue your use of the platform, effectively terminating the agreement. You could also remove certain posts you made in the past, effectively removing the license as it would pertain to that content.
The attitude wasn’t part of the discussion we had been having up to that point; it was solely about the legal issues at play. That you have a problem with the attitude is irrelevant. It also still has no impact on how §230 applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’d also like to point out (separately) that even if gray areas may exist, that doesn’t necessarily mean that CDA §230 is a bad law or anything. The existence of a few edge cases (especially ones that are extremely rare or currently nonexistent) isn’t always an immediate disqualifier. It might mean some refinement is necessary, but that’s what the courts are for. They can help fill in the blanks.
So far, barring a couple of exceptions where physical goods were involved, I haven’t seen any non-overruled case where the courts have ruled wrongly IMO about whether or not a given publisher was acting as the provider of an ICS, and the only potentially gray areas I can think of that I don’t know or think have ever even come up in courts are letters to the editor for an online-only publication and where an otherwise typical ICS requires users to give the ICS provider an exclusive license to their content or give up their copyright/trademark rights to the ICS provider entirely, but the latter has never even happened to the best of my knowledge, while the former seems to be widely assumed to fall outside of §230 and is covered by the unofficial rule of thumb I presented where it’s third-party content iff the default decision is to publish before having human employees/paid contractors try to filter anything undesired out.
Basically, I don’t see any real issues with the current laws regarding this outside of a very select few cases that I feel were wrongly decided by the courts to deny §230 protections where I feel they should have applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Proving you're illiterate and lacking in rational capacity doesn't refute my claim as much as you imagined it would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there is a difference between moderation and content curation, it’s that moderation is after the fact while curation is before the fact. However, as far as §230 is concerned, it’s a distinction without a difference. Curation is immunized. And no, I don’t think content curation is limited to content providers and not interactive service providers, so your premises are heavily flawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content curation
I think that's the whole point of the Reddit voting system, which prioritizes threads according to upvotes and values.
But Reddit doesn't remove poorly-performing content. It just shoves less popular content to the bottom.
This is comparable to moderation schemes that hide content (but can be unhidden by a user that wants to see it) but not to moderation schemes that remove content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we accept your slightly tendentious interpretation of section 230, the question what makes someone an "interactive computer service" only becomes even more pressing. I'm certain you understand that.
And I'm also certain you're creative enough to imagine all kinds of services that fall somewhere between an online newspaper and Twitter (let's say as it was 10 years ago).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I explained that, too. Basically, does it involve a computer, and does it involve the software interacting with users (as opposed to more one-way communication)? If so, then it’s an ICS/ISP. Is that broad? Yes, but it was supposed to be according to the original authors.
I often use the basic query of what the default decision for publishing third-party content in general is. If the default is to publish, then it’s probably an ICS/ISP. If not, then it probably isn’t. It’s a good rule-of-thumb.
And BTW, online newspapers are protected from liability for content provided by users, too, if they accept comments. The difference between that and letters to the editor is that the latter are picked by humans to publish specifically.
The point is that the relevant question is really more of the role of the publisher with respect to the specific content-at-issue rather than their role in general. And while there may be certain programs that fall in a gray area between ICSs/ISPs and traditional publishers (including online newspapers with comments like this one), it is fairly clear-cut with respect to particular content.
More importantly, I’m more curious about what you have in mind as a (potentially) gray area. Aside from some decisions by lower courts about services like Amazon with regards to physical goods provided online by third parties, there hasn’t been any nonoverturned case law that I disagree with or think may be a gray area with regards to whether the defendant was acting as an ISP/ICS with regards to specific content in a way relevant to whether §230 immunity applies.
If you want a more particular definition, all I can say is read §230 and the relevant case law. Its definition is pretty clear-cut as far as I can tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you look at section 230 cases you see that it applies to defamatory statements, IP and a select few other situations.
No, it literally exempts intellectual property. I mean, you clearly have not read the law. Section (e)(2) says it in big letters: No effect on intellectual property law.
You should perhaps try not to argue over a law you have not even read and one in which it appears you have zero familiarity with its history, purpose, and myriad case law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it very explicitly does not apply to IP. In fact, it applies to most federal civil laws and nearly all state or local laws that treat an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or user of an ISP as a publisher of illegal or unlawful content provided by a third party, but not IP laws, federal criminal laws, or (as of FOSTA) sex trafficking laws. I’m fairly sure those are the only exceptione as far as culpability for third-party content goes.
(It also immunizes moderation decisions regarding objectionable content and the provision or use of tools to allow users to block certain content.)
Unless they wrote the statements, but other than that yes.
False. Failure to remove content they promised to doesn’t change the applicability of §230. Maybe they could be sued for breach of contract, but I’m pretty sure that §230 also protects from that since it’s a moderation decision, and either way, they are still immune from suits that treat them as the publisher of that content.
This is a somewhat gray area (I think) in that it depends on the particular changes made, and even then it’s only for the changes made (I think). Furthermore, automated changes (like replacing all instances of a specific word or phrase to another using an algorithm) are also protected.
As I said, federal criminal laws are explicitly exempted from §230, as are IP laws—there is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
False. Failure to remove content they promised to doesn’t change the applicability of §230. Maybe they could be sued for breach of contract, but I’m pretty sure that §230 also protects from that since it’s a moderation decision, and either way, they are still immune from suits that treat them as the publisher of that content.
Eh, on this one he has a point. See Barnes v. Yahoo.
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230/cases/barnes-v-yahoo
I think it was a bad decision... but that's more or less the argument the original comment was making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay, but that’s still a breach-of-contract issue, and I wasn’t 100% sure on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And just what do you think that moderation is? Section 230 allows moderation, which is exactly that, deciding what should remain published, and what should be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, once more, 230 covers defamatory remarks specifically and a few other select situations. It doesn't cover criminal liability.
If a paper publishes an editorial/letter to the editor that moves to incite violence they can be held liable for damages. 230 does not address this.
What is the liability to social media if they remove some posts that are designed to create violence but not others? That's my underlying question.
There is a reason I ask this. I saw someone claiming that they were banned for calling on people to protect monuments that protesters said they were going to take down.
Of course, the person claiming this didn't show/say exactly what he originally posted but conveniently had a screen cap of the protester calling for the monument to be toppled.
If the counter-protester had his post removed and the protesters didn't would Twitter be liable for any destruction or violence incited by the protesters removing the statue since they chose to let that post remain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, once more, 230 covers defamatory remarks specifically and a few other select situations. It doesn't cover criminal liability.
This only partially correct, though I find it amusing, because earlier in the thread you claimed it DID cover criminal liability.
To clarify: it is not at all limited to "defamatory remarks specifically." Courts have rejected that claim MANY MANY TIMES over. Second, it does not apply to federal criminal liability, but does apply to state criminal liability.
If a paper publishes an editorial/letter to the editor that moves to incite violence they can be held liable for damages. 230 does not address this.
This gets into a very different set of issues, including the standard for "incitement" to violence. I would say that almost no editorial or letter to the editor could possibly meet the incitement standard, so the larger question is moot. Find me an editorial that has ever been deemed to have failed the Brandenburg test. I'll wait because you'll be searching forever.
Second, 230 does address that. If the speech violated federal criminal law, the site might still be liable for it (might -- as there are other factors). If it did not (and was not infringing on an IP right) then the site would not be liable for it. That's it.
There is a reason I ask this. I saw someone claiming that they were banned for calling on people to protect monuments that protesters said they were going to take down.
What does that have to do with anything? All of that is 1A protected speech.
If the counter-protester had his post removed and the protesters didn't would Twitter be liable for any destruction or violence incited by the protesters removing the statue since they chose to let that post remain?
No, because that's not at all how the law works. Twitter would not be liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brandenburg and Miller cases
Oh America, the land where obscenity is not protected as free speech, but calling to violence is protected as free speech except if it's imminent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brandenburg and Miller cases
For the record, what is considered “obscene” is itself extremely limited. Swearing and adult porn are still protected by the First Amendment in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, what's the difference between moderating other people's content or producing your own? Because "producing your own" isn't about the restricted case of some real human producing content all by himself.
Traditional media companies have employees, who produce content, or get content from from freelancers and other companies.
Is the deciding difference that "moderation" means only removal after content has already been published by automatic means?
By the way, I'm also puzzled about the strange wording of §230(c)(2). If it was originally meant to say "moderate as you want", it's an extremely cumbersome and misleading way to put that.
The context of "otherwise objectionable" in there is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing". So one would assume this "otherwise objectionable" is about something quite drastic, too, and not just "I personally don't like this opinion".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example, you wouldn't expect a Christian organisation that hosts a forum to allow posts about any topics they find objectionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Objectionable could be "off topic", spam, some incongruent rambling, etc. I thought they had something like this in mind.
But I doubt that stating up-front "we are ignoring hateful comments depending on your race or gender" was something the good lawmakers from back then thought of. Which was included in Reddit's policy on June 30 (changed again in the meantime, though it would have become interesting if they left it up). Because not even a humble snack bar can legally discriminate in this manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The part of Reddit's new policy that AC is misrepresenting:
Bolded part was later clarified to:
Because one form of bullshit used to attack civil rights is to pretend that civil rights speech like "black lives matter" is itself hate speech; so this phrasing in the rule makes it clear the appropriate place for such disingenuous complaints is the circular file.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just stated it in an abstract manner, because this will be important
They replaced this section. Maybe some lawyers there got nervous.
I don't know how "black lives matter" can be regarded as a hate based on identity. Not even on an extremely literal reading. Also it's not about the new policy, only the old one is ... interesting.
I thought they had something like "die cis scum" in mind which would be hate based on (gender) identity on a literal reading.
Because of its absurdity - since the overwhelming majority of people everywhere including in the military and police are cis - this slogan admittedly isn't backed up with a serious threat.
But in other cases this is not so clear. Probably this wasn't about numerical majority anyway (women are a majority in the US). Numerical majority also can be differently defined: worldwide, national, community?
Anyway, it's not about questioning the good intentions of the Reddit policy writers. Just about the general abstract principle behind this which they think is covered by their ICS immunity.
Let's say the moderation policy of some evil twin of Reddit states "We let hateful attacks on Asians (because there are so many of them in the world) stay but remove hateful attacks on Whites". Is such a policy covered by the "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material" section?
If that's so, the heading should changed be some time. It's simply too embarrassing for such an important legislation. Maybe into "Protection of Blocking and Screening Sovereignty".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Technically, yes it is restricted to some real human(s) producing content. Not one by himself, no, but moderation of others’ content is not really part of the creation process.
This involves negotiated contracts, monetary transactions for specifically chosen content, and/or solicitation of specific content. Basically, the traditional media companies actively choose which content to publish. ISPs don’t. Even more simply, there’s a difference between deciding what to include and deciding what to exclude, and there’s a difference between hiring someone or purchasing their content outright and allowing others unconnected to you to put their content on your platform at their leisure.
That’s part of it, though automated filters are also considered moderation. Basically, is the default decision to publish or not?
Welcome to lawspeak. Laws are very much not written in the simplest way possible for various reasons, whether it be to make carefully crafted loopholes or avoid unintended consequences, overbreadth, or misinterpretation by the courts. I wouldn’t say it’s misleading in this case, though.
According to the courts and some dictionaries, “otherwise objectionable” basically means “speech I don’t like”. Again, lawspeak doesn’t always conform to our expectations. I also don’t really consider “lewd” or “filthy” to be “drastic”, and it’d be impossible to define “otherwise objectionable” any other way that would still be fair without making the inclusion redundant. I, for one, never assumed that “otherwise objectionable” was particularly drastic like you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can debate what it means my "provides or enables computer access... to a computer server" but a plain reading of the code doesn't imply content platforms.
Yes it does, and every single court has held it does. And the authors of the bill say it does.
230 clearly refers to a service provider as not being liable for the illegal actions of its users- such as people pirating software or music or someone putting out illegal content (child porn, classified information, etc). It doesn't (and really couldn't at the time) take into account social media.
This is wrong on multiple levels. Child porn (federal crime) is exempted from 230 so 230 literally does not apply to it. Pirating is intellectual property. Section 230 literally exempts all intellectual proprerty.
And, yes, Section 230 literally takes into account social media. The law was written in response to a lawsuit about two early social media platforms (Compuserve and Prodigy).
You seem like you're trying to understand this stuff, but you have almost everything backwards.
Without judicial or federal clarification I would hesitate to apply it to content platforms.
There have been dozens upon dozens of cases. All have said that 230 applies. What more "judicial clarification" do you want?
Again, that doesn't mean that 230 doesn't apply to those platforms but it needs clarified and revised as the technology has changed. There needs to be clarification as to whether platforms like Twitter/FB or Parler would qualify.
Do you know how many cases involving Twitter and FB have invoked 230? There are dozens. And every single one of them has said 230 applies to Twitter and FB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
when they wrote 230 an interactive computer service was a computer that you would dial in to like a BBS or a OSP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's no need for judicial clarification; all you have to do is look at the history of the law and the types of services that were being used at the time to know that Section 230 absolutely applies to user-generated content platforms, because user-generated content platforms were what created the case law it was intended to clarify.
Section 230 of the CDA exists because of the decisions in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995), which held that Prodigy became a publisher of all posts made on their discussion forums because they had moderators that removed spam and the like, and in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), which held that CompuServe did not become a publisher of any posts on their discussion forums because they didn't moderate anything.
These two decisions, taken together, meant that online services that accepted any user-generated content had a perverse incentive to moderate nothing, because if they moderated anything, they became responsible for anything they missed. Both decisions absolutely involved user-generated posts in public discussion systems that are functionally identical to Twitter/Facebook today in terms of the issues at hand.
Section 230 was put into the Communications Decency Act because people had noticed there were people posting porn on these here internets, and when they reported it to the provider of the forum, those providers would point at Cubby and Stratton Oakmont and say "sorry, can't help you: if we take down that porn, we become liable for absolutely everything else any of our users post, whereas if we don't take it down, we aren't."
The majority of discussion around the CDA and 230 at the time involved what people were posting to "content platforms" like Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserv, all of which at the time had forums that were on the most part identical to the features of today's social media. It was before search engines, and very few of the home users who were the ones clamoring for porn censorship had or used personal homepages at the time. The CDA happened because of people getting access to the "content platform" part of their online service and freaking out about the porn there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
Personally, any platform censoring anyone (as is their right) needs to be treated as publishers under the law. That makes them liable for actions done as a result of their system.
This is not at all how the law works. See here: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre- wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml
I would suggest reading that post, because almost everything you claim about Section 230 is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misleading Headline?
I will admit to being tall, fit, good looking, accomplished and kind to animals. Well, at least kind to animals, anyhow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If those users were trying to push the system by using benign political speech with which Parler’s admins disagree, you have a distinction without a difference.
Every big name Parler convert who advertised the service over the weekend acted like it was a bastion of free speech compared to Twitter. If Parler admins and users want to claim the service is a haven for free speech while the admins ban otherwise benign political speech along ideological lines, they’d be hypocrites and we’d be right in calling them that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, and if pigs could fly and dirt were dollars, we'd all be in the black, eating hot dogs with chili peppers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I clarified the first question you quote: were they purposely doing something that violated the ToS? Were they spamming users OR did they get banned for their politics? There is a difference.
So far no one has proven the assertion that "the admins ban otherwise benign political speech along ideological lines." That's what I want to know. If they are, then they need called out for being hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I guess time will tell. Currently it's too early to say and I think we safely can disregard the people who explicitly signed up to Parler to troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My thoughts exactly. I hope that Parler ends up as advertised. It would be good to see civil discourse from all sides. Not that there is much civility online anyhow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know why I got banned. I'm just banned. The last thing I tweeted was a response to a truly bizarre message from the CEO over there. This is pretty much a quote of what I typed:
"Oh my God. I can't believe Parler's CEO is typing this, gonna cap this screen."
The day prior to that I spent a half hour dropping F-bombs (allowed) and critiquing some knucklehead posts. Maybe F bombs aren't allowed, even though it is implied they are.
No idea. Don't care at all really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh, guess the snowflakes running the platform couldn't take a little 'locker room talk' when it wasn't said by someone on their team, imagine that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading Headline?
Hey azkid. Since you appear to have showed up here to discuss this earnestly, and not troll like a bunch of others, I'm happy to respond to your questions.
Did they get banned because Parler didn't like their political stance or because they were trying to push the system to purposely see what it took to get banned?
It's mostly the latter, which is catching some of the former, but neither one matters with regards to the point of this article. The article was simply to explain that Parler was misrepresenting itself when it claimed that it would only takedown speech that was unprotected by the 1st Amendment. As such it doesn't matter why -- other than that it was speech they had otherwise promised to host.
The one admits that a group joined just to "screw with MAGA folks" and another admits to doing it to "[call] them out on their sketchy legal tactics."
Right. But both of those things are protected by the 1st Amendment. And Parler insisted that it would keep such speech up. And then did not.
In other words, as we pointed out last week, Parler is discovering what every other social media platform discovers over time: you have to weed out trolls or your site just becomes garbage. No one is complaining about that decision -- just mocking the fact that they (and their fans) pretended it wouldn't go that route.
Taking a punch at Parler is great if it's deserved but they never claimed they were the wild west where anything and everything goes.
Yes, they literally did claim they were the wild west where anything goes. Over and over and over again in the press they said that they would leave up any speech that didn't violate the 1st Amendment and that they were the "free speech alternative" to other social media sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
Well, that's not a very Christian thing to say. Consider this: Most Marxists (most of the people who post here under phony names) are godless, morally devoid pitiful soulless cretins who turn their back on light and truth and instead embrace the darkness of lying, cheating, stealing, burning and promoting totally fake propaganda, like BLM. So, without any hope of salvation, or any real hope of attaining their poorly thought out goals of a socialist utopia, they are already burning in hell. You can tell from the vitriol in their voices. They are suffering, all.
So, your wish has already come to pass. They are rotting in a hell of their own making.
Signed, The Enlightened One
Eat your popcorn and enjoy their screams of torment. It's fun, really. Very Christian. Free Entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol
Haha nice to see the boot on the other foot for once. It's about time the left had their views challenged.
I'm going to join now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lol
Well, I'd vouch for Parler. I feel good when I go there. I've seen a little bit of stupid commentary, but it's really easy to tell people directly what you think when they are way out of line. And 99% of the posts I see come from thoughtful and talented writers, artists, politicians and hedge fund managers. I've seen some doctors, especially talented surgeons, they're fun to follow, especially the plastic surgeons. You can't believe how a small change to your nose can make you look really great, no kidding. Anyway, a very nice crowd, no so many leftie crazy anarchists like twitter, overall a calm and satisfying experience. Kind of like conservative meditation, where you hear so many voices that sound like yours you can imagine a wonderful future where Michael Flynn is President in 2024 and then Baron Trump in 2032 and then Michael Flynn Junior in 2040 and then .... well, it just goes on and on. Meditation for Conservatives. MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm......... I love Donald ...... MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm I love Michael ..........MMMMMMmmmmmmmm I love Baron ..............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t see how Parler banning “left-leaning” users ostensibly for being leftists means their views are being “challenged”. If anything, Parler banning people based on political ideology would mean Parler has an explicit political bias. I wonder if the people calling for Twitter’s head over its perceived political bias would have an issue with a Twitter-like service showing a nakedly explicit political bias — especially since Parler claims itself as an avenue for “free speech”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a very confusing post. I'm sure you had at least one strong point you were trying to make. What is it again? Parler has political bias? Or Parler bans free speech? If you want to see free speech banned, look above at the 200+ comments that have been removed and are now invisible. Parler doesn't do that. You do that, Mike. You are Mike, right, Mike? You sound like Mike. You even smell like Mike. You have the same emotional tonality, the same weak arguments, your real name is certainly not Stephen, is it. Are you Mike? What's your point, Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lol
Bring it on, cupcake. So far your "challenges" were on kindergarten level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ah too bad
Payback is a motherfcjer aint it.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ah too bad
So you think it's okay that social media moderate and ban people dependent on political leanings?
Which makes your post a bit odd since you then explicitly condone any political bias in social media.
Perhaps make up your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shold have been honest
Parler should have just said "we're a site for alienated conservative free speech".
Then there wouldn't have been the expectation of supporting liberal speech.
Its really stupid though. Its absolutely no fun to participate in an online discussion where you agree with everyone.
Its far more fun when people have opposing views. But that's not what political types way, clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Shocked!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler bam
Anyone insinuating they are required to provide a DL to sign up for Parler is flat out lying and spreading, again, a false narrative against any and all platforms that actually endorse free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never argue with a Progressive Socialist. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My preferred solution would be for all social media sites to offer two separate platforms: One where they enforce whatever moderation of content rules that they feel are responsible and practical. The second, mirror platform would be unmoderated. The wild wild west, as it were. And short of violating any federal, state and local statues, such as clear intent to incite violence...anything goes.
Spew hate and vitriol to your dark heart's contentment. Obviously, the portal to sign up or view the wild wild west platform must have plenty of warnings and disclaimers to inform potential users/viewers of the unmoderated nature of the platform. Don't like the unmoderated forum? Then don't sign up or view
the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'You want that, you go to the chans.'
No social media company is going to deliberately choose to spend time and money hosting a filth-filled free-for-all copy of their main platform(or at least not for long), as if someone likes that sort of stuff there are already sites they can go to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any other real posters amused at how these alt-right trolls' sc-reeee-ching collapses like cotton candy in contact with the water of rational independent thought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you referring to this article as the "rational independent thought"?
This article contains hearsay and personal views of the author, so I think calling it "independent" could be potentially accurate, however, it's anything but rational.
What did the users who were banned from Parlor say to get banned?
This is nothing more than confirmation bias and personal victory lap for the author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distributed Web
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Distributed Web
https://joinmastodon.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like Liberal Trolls are Butthurt!
From Parler: -- To the people complaining on Twitter about being banned on Parler. Please pay heed: Here are the very few basic rules we need you to follow on Parler. If these are not to your liking, we apologize, but we will enforce: - When you disagree with someone, posting pictures of your fecal matter in the comment section WILL NOT BE TOLERATED -Your Username cannot be obscene like “CumDumpster” -No pornography. Doesn’t matter who, what, where, when, or in what realm. - We will not allow you to spam other people trying to speak, with unrelated comments like “Fuck you” in every comment. It’s stupid. It’s pointless, Grow up. -You cannot threaten to kill anyone in the comment section. Sorry, never ever going to be okay. If ever in doubt, ask yourself if you would say it on the streets of New York or national television.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Article Seems Biased
Can you show the actual content that got banned instead of people just claiming they didn't do anything so we can judge independently for ourselves? Or is this just a hit piece?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Article Seems Biased
The people claiming it didn’t present that information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libs get a dose of their own medicine
I love it when liberals complain about hypocrisy. The entire point of banning liberals is to expose their own hypocrisy. BAN, BAN, BAN all LIBERALS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libs get a dose of their own medicine
Is this really what you want? Two separate echo chambers where each political group sits around and talks about how right they are? If you're not able to handle reading an opinion counter to yours, maybe you're not very grounded in your beliefs?
Moreover, this article doesn't even cover what these users did to get banned. It demands absolute proof of the banning of politically right speech on Twitter while providing no proof of banning politically left speech on Parlor. Without revisions, this article is a personal victory lap for the author, not news of any sort. Pretending like this is some actual victory for anyone is absurd. This article is a victory for willful ignorance and confirmation bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Libs get a dose of their own medicine
Same standard being applied, in that is a request for proof of bias. Besides which, the article was not about political bias, but rather that a so called free speech site moderates its users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do realize this is a honey trap to get conservatives' phone and hence all private information, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Parler is such an undesirable platform, it's certainly odd that so many fans are here to defend it so vigorously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha Ha
So a bunch of lefties decide to try to ruin something and got told to pound sand for a change. Cry me a river.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not…really? I mean, anyone who went to Parler with the intent of fucking things up likely knew they wouldn’t “ruin” the site. But they did point out the hypocrisy in Parler’s “free speech” stance by showing that Parler does, indeed, ban people based on their speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks" This says it all right here.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no honest platform requires your keys to the kingdom: your SMS capable phone number. In this CONTACT TRACING police state age, you are insane to sign up with your wallet's contents in plain view, also called your SMART PHONE NUMBER. The NSA has owned all phone communication streams for at least 10 years now. Just ask Edward Snowden. AVOID PARLER LIKE THE PLAGUE. And I do not mean the Plandemic fake Kung-flu. Take a look at this: AlPacino.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a crock of shit from these loser deep state shill hack dip wads ... don't trust a thing they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice to see leftards moaning!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying times
Lengthy comment with a conservative viewpoint disclaimer.
I remember a few years back there were stories running that had claimed Russia supported neither candidate, or both, depending on your take. The story was that they were simply sowing discontent. That story was backed by then head of the FBI.
Fast forward a few years. Go to ZeroHedge and read the comments, or to Brietbart. Go to The Hill, or The Times, or Vanity Fair.
Notice the broken English, the ad hoc attacks, the deflective answers?
What if all this "public discourse" wasn't really public discourse at all? I built my wife's gaming PC but I'm not a techie, you guys are and would know more than me the capabilities that exist.
Could a foreign power aggregate, somehow, a network of user accounts to post conflicting viewpoints to stir the pot? The FBI thought so, as did Twitter and Facebook.
Did that ever stop happening? What would years of fake hyper partisanship actually look like when a real and actual crisis hit? People lose their jobs, fear for their lives, fear for government overreach, and maybe all that hyperbole starts looking like truth.
Maybe some cop, who knew George Floyd and worked with George Floyd for a decade (bet you didn't know that), settles an old perceived beef with him in a horrific way, unknowingly providing the gasoline to the tinderbox that was America. Maybe the news runs the story as "racist cop" because that sells more papers than "personal beef." Who knows. I'm certainly not pretending racism isn't out there, and I agree it's atrocious, I'm just floating a scenario.
Let me ask a question. Do any of you personally know any extremists? I work in rural Kentucky at an automotive plant. I'd say I'd qualify as about as stereotypical country as it gets. I don't hate democrats. I don't hate black people, or liberals either. I don't agree with most Democrat policies, I don't partake in most "black culture," and I can't relate to liberals at all. But I don't hate them, and moreover I respect their right to think and talk and vote however the hell they want.
Do any of you personally know any far right extremists? I rather doubt it.
Until we can admit that CNN and FOX both have an agenda, and that agenda is to SELL news, then there's no way forward for us. That's a tragedy because we're not talking about the real elephant in the room.
We live in an age when we have to decide if "hate speech" is even a term, or is it just speech that someone doesn't like? If it is a term, is it or ought it to be illegal? If it's illegal, then why is it not protected under the constitution and should we amend it?
How can a free and open society combat hostile foreign powers in a digital age without also trampling civil liberties? These are the conversations we need to be having. Instead, we're looting Target and arguing about masks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying times
First of all I'd like to thank you for post, I hope you stick around. You've gone into a lot of different thoughts here that I'd love to go into, but I'll stay with just a couple of things for now.
Unfortunately yes. I can tell you it is not easy to discuss policy with them, and often not worth the effort. I also know extreme left-wingers as well, but they don't have nearly the same volume as the extremists on the right.
And this is the rub. Extremist right-wingers take the views of prominent republicans and sources like Fox news as gospel. If we could actually talk about policy without devolving into a state of "you disagree with me therefore you are wrong and not worth speaking to" there wouldn't be nearly as much toxicity around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crry babby faagggots
Wow, all the cry baby leftist faggots screaming about FREE SPEECH, how fucking hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: crry babby faagggots
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh?
No one is "screaming about free speech". We're just pointing out that you and your friends pretended that what you really wanted was free speech... until you got it, and people started making fun of the fact that you're dumber than a box of rocks.
Then suddenly you guys started banning left and right... and everyone's making fun of you for being hypocrites.
No one cares or is upset about being banned from Parler. None of the people banned want to be on Parler. They're just doing it to prove the point that when you claim you wanted free speech, you were full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: crry babby faagggots
It's hilarious to see you actually think 'faggot' would make for a good insult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter censors *all* kinds of users
All evidence to the contrary, this blog says "falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives". They've been heavily doing that for years (see Costolo+Obama, Alex Jones, Zerohedge, their notes on Trump's tweets, etc. etc.)
What few know - or care to admit - is that Twitter doesn't restrict their censorship to conservatives.
Twitter heavily censors all kinds of users, including liberals, Mike Trout fans, Target customers, Russian and Iranian dissidents, etc. etc.
In fact, Twitter censors about half the replies to Rouhani and about 40% of the replies to Medvedev (I don't speak Chinese but I'd imagine they heavily censor replies to Chinese leaders too).
See the "more speech" application for reproducible reports showing what Twitter actually does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can someone please explain how Twitter adding speech to Trump’s tweets instead of deleting Trump’s tweets is the same thing as censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because saying someone is wrong/lying is exactly like preventing them from talking, unless the one doing so is Trump or someone on his side of course, in which case it's just 'saying it like it is'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twitter censors *all* kinds of users
Put that strawman back in the corn field, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was writing a blog post about twitter vs parler
I was writing a blog post about twitter vs parler; their differences, similarities and I checked in on parler one more time and saw the most bizarre post by their CEO. Which pretty much confirmed for me what was going on there.
Anyway, I spent an hour over 2 days, giving "conservatives" a hard time, and got banned too.
https://trumptimestamp.wordpress.com/2020/06/29/twitter-vs-parler/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I was writing a blog post about twitter vs parler
"Parler’s community is so lopsided, their CEO. is offering any high profile liberal $20,000 to make a home there. Go ahead take the money and run because Parler, as it stands, will never be anything other than an echo chamber for the delusional, profoundly misguided, and the dregs of society."
Are we a "basket of deplorables"?
Are you Hillary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baskets of deplorables
Before you start needling someone about generalizing, you might want to look all over this forum at the generalizations being made by Team Deplorables.
That is, if you're truly worried about fair fighting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Baskets of deplorables
I like you, you are an honest writer, and pretty accomplished in communicating your opinion. You're insane, of course, but have never hidden or denied your insanity. That also makes me like you. An honest insane writer of some ability. Did you commit yourself? I'm thinking yes. Maybe I'll try it. Any suggestions about accommodations? I saw a nice place on the Malibu beach for drug addicts, it looked very nice. Where are you? Can anyone commit themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You're insane, of course"
Is this your attempt at a side-channel attack?
Should I assume, then, you are not on this forum in good faith? It would save everyone a lot of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "You're insane, of course"
Sorry, I thought you were the same guy who was advocating for gun rights for the insane. Not you, eh? My mistake, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The crazy guy
Sorry, I thought you were the same guy who was advocating for gun rights for the insane. Not you, eh? My mistake, I guess.
Yeah, we're having that conversation over here.
You didn't answer my questions, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I was writing a blog post about twitter vs parler
I don't find this type of low grade trolling particularly interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'As the TOS you agreed to said, ALL of that is on you.'
Interesting to see, as you pointed out, that for all the cries about how social media isn't held accountable Parler apparently explicitly made it clear that they aren't liable for anything, and that in fact their users will be the ones on the hook for any legal action aimed at the site thanks to user content.
Assuming the trash-fire of a platform sticks around long enough to get sued it will be quite hilarious to see their users find out the hard way what they signed away in their eagerness to flee from the 'persecution' of other social media sites and their infernal 'rules'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good , if your coming on to cause problems like you lefty's like to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you GasLighting Me?
I just don't understand this site. There seems to be threads, as if trains of thought, but it only shows one side of the train of thought. What the heck? It's like listening to some idiot talk to himself, over and over, again and again, for no reason at all. Is that what you intended this site to look like? What the hell? Is this "gaslighting"? I don't know what I'm reading, it sounds insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s almost as if one “side” is presenting cogent, coherent, logical arguments for a given subject of discussion and the other “side” is doing lots of bad faith shitposting. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you GasLighting Me?
The only truthful words you wrote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are you GasLighting Me?
This aint golf, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are you GasLighting Me?
What does golf have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you GasLighting Me?
There seems to be threads, as if trains of thought, but it only shows one side of the train of thought.
Nah. If you look above, I see disagreement from the account Azkid, who seems a bit confused about the law, but didn't post in a trollish/assholish manner, and his comments do not appear to be minimized and there's thoughtful engagement.
It's the trollish comments that get voted down.
Maybe don't be a trollish asshole. Seems like a good rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you GasLighting Me?
I don’t think you know what “gaslighting” is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This website is one of the most unhinged I have ever seen. Why is a tech site more political, rabid and biased than even liberal publications on the web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better question: If you think this site is shit, why bother to even read it, let alone comment on it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's like something impels these people to shit in their own bed, then go about the neighborhood demanding to be let into everyone's house and shit in everyone's beds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[Projects facfs not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems like you don't really support free speech after all then, eh?
But nice of you to make it explicit rather than hiding behind a pretend support of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly if any platform is going to prosper, you need the backbone of the US economy, Karen, to feel safe and able to to post (and buy things) without extreme content from either side. At this time, Facebook has a lock on this. Good luck with your free speech platforms, I do not shop in alleys either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Direct question to the author: Mike Masnick
I am an unverified parler user, and I have said some things on parler that would have probably have at least resulted in a police phone call from my local authority.
I am still active and posting strange, controversial and overtly right wing statements. Possibly even blasphemous.
Yet I am still not banned.
I have (I think) abused a technical glitch to attempt to contact a particular user to talk to me in private. If that person is under a certain age in my country, I could go to prison and into protected custody for at least 1 month, yet I am not a child abuser or pro anything along such lines, and most importantly, have no intentions as such.
Would you like me to tell you when I get banned so you know which post it is that got me banned.
I can't see any direct evidence of you providing such examples in your article so I think you may find yourself one from me if you're interested. I screenshot/record as i go as a matter of professional pride and so on...
ALSO. tl;dr be interesting to see what the tech suppport is like here, how quickly my post is deleted (if it is deleted) and if I do get that phone call from the police & why!
isn't 2020 strange?
p.s. @Mike @https://www.techdirt.com/user/mmasnick #will-this-be-answered
are you interested in bug report submissions or is there another route? not a big one at all, but, left me with a display that was... for 2s confusing.
Cheers bud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter claims unbiased Platform
Twitter is an incredibly liberal platform that will shadowban you behind your back so you don't even know what's going on. How creepy liberal is that? Parler is trying to grow its base without harassment. You're defending internet trolls and shaming a much less censored platform lol WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your mother
Moderation is for nazis. You're all nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of the Federalist Papers bit
If we were angels we'd need no moderation
If we were moderated by angels, we would have the moderation paradox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not going even register there on Parler. Why do they require your phone number for simple registration? Why every sketchy site requires my number nowadays??? NOWAY!
MeWe and Gab are good. They just require email which is completely ok with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler Free Speech
Parler should and Must ban account, for reasons of Terrorism threats of violence and harrassment, child safety.. or you want this allowed to. Parler is FREE speech but it is also a responsible platform allowing a more open dialogue than places like twitter ad FB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're a jackass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censoring conservatives
But not only conservatives, not all conservatives and not for conservative-identified opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey fags fucking with people on social media ain’t protected by the first amendment you stupid communist homo cunts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"fucking with people on social media"
Not all fucking with people on social media is criminalized, and of those forms that are, many are challenged based on first-amendment protections.
Should a campaign ad about a referendum be allowed to misrepresent it (to say it protects gay employees when in fact it makes them vulnerable to additional discrimination)?
This is the sort of thing the nation is debating in the courts to this day.
The problem is there is a lot of incitement, deception, slander, grossing out and misrepresentation on social media, and laws that protect / prohibit these attacks tend to only cover a narrow range of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fake news
its not false that conservatives are being silenced on twitter. many of their accounts have been banned. gotta love how you liberal "reporters" doscredit yourselves so easily for you Unamerican Democrat parties policies. another site to not take serious. techdirt. have fun spreading your lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives on Twitter
That conservatives are interacting with Twitter's content policies is not in dispute. The dispute is why.
Again, what conservative content is banned on Twitter? If it's incitement or hate speech, are you sure you want your brand of conservatism associated with incitement or hate speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Conservatives" apparently banned too
I strongly support the Constitution as it was intended and oppose the murder of over 800 black babies every day by the institutions created explicitly to carry out that genocide, so I probably qualify as a "conservative". I am guessing I was banned too because when I tried to log on after months of not logging on, the site had a banner say, "Access forbidden" and it cycled between logging me out and trying to load the feed.
I fount the site to be clumsy to navigate and didn't bother going to it for months until tonight when I follow an email link from a Sarah Carter article that I want to read.
In any event, there is no evidence that I was banned for being a lefty. However, I was suspended by twitter for calling AOC a racist hag when she called black Republicans "tokens". I refused to remove the comment and deleted my account instead of being subjected to that cancel culture brown shirt behavior.
I remember a hippie leftist teacher I had in the 80's who said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I would die fighting for your right to say it." Now, the Dems are more like Brown Shirts than Americans who recognize that we are legitimate opposition to one another and that can only lead us to settling our differences by feeding the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and Dems alike. Eventually, bullies get what they have earned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Conservatives" apparently banned too
It was intended to set up a federal government and establish what it can and cannot do. Nothing more, nothing less.
What are you talking about?
That’s not what happens when you’re banned. That’s completely different.
Your point?
You called yourself a conservative, so no duh.
I can see that, and Twitter absolutely has the FA right to do that. I’m not seeing bias here.
I mean, you have the right to do that, but that’s not what cancel culture is.
You misunderstand that quote. We’ll protect you from government interference in your right to say it. That’s different from the right to be heard or to say it on a privately-owned platform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Conservatives" apparently banned too
"That’s different from the right to be heard or to say it on a privately-owned platform".
Privately owned, but exempt from libel law with its 230. Once you start censoring posts and deciding what content is or is not newsworthy or valid, you cease being an open platform and then become a publisher. That is the debate. Spamming and flaming are generally expected to get you banned anywhere, as well as death threats, but not allowing someone to share a New York Post article because it involves Hunter Biden is content censorship, and conspicuously right before the election. And, it turns out the New York Post was right. Speculating on Uncle Joe's involvement based on a valid media story is also banned. Welcome to Pravda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Conservatives" apparently banned too
Tell me, if a bar kicks people out for their speech, do you believe that you should be able to sue the bar for defamatory speech said in the bar by customers who weren’t kicked out?
Also, §230 makes no distinction between open platform and publisher, and the authors and supporters explicitly wanted platform holders to be able to moderate freely without fear of being sued for defamatory content put on their platform by third parties just because they failed to remove it.
And, without §230, that would potentially open you up to liability under the same regime you propose.
It wasn’t just because it involved Hunter Biden. The story was very sketchy to begin with. The fact that it was right before an election was never alleged to be coincidental and only amplifies the need to quickly remove disinformation. Had a similar article been shared that involved Donald Jr. instead of Hunter Biden, one of Biden’s lawyers instead of Rudy Giuliani, and a very liberal crackpot of a computer-store owner instead of a Trump-supporting one, I have no doubt that it would’ve been removed as well.
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think if you are stupid enough to admit you only joined to screw with conservitives perhaps you shooul not wonder why they kicked you out!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think if you are stupid enough to admit you only joined to screw with conservitives perhaps you should not wonder why they kicked you out!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Falsely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cry more, retards.
If you're there to start shit, you get the axe. Plain and simple, faggots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that a Russian bot?
That totally looks like a Russian bot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take your own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler...
Parler, like most so-called "free speech zones" online, immediately pollutes their site with GOOGLE SNOOP DEVICES... And they demand private data/details before you can even sign up.
Forget it!
We've had enough of our lives plundered by high-tech creeps like the Big 3. People should FIGHT BACK and stop using the programs, services and snoop-devices of our abusers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler
Parler like too many others DEMANDS you cell phone number, I don't have one because I don't need or want one. My choice to NOT waste money on something I don't need or want. So I get discriminated against by way too many places and People, denied access, use, and more. Phones run peoples lives, ruin peoples lives, even kill people why should I pay too much for any of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Demanding a cell phone number.
Do they confirm the cell phone number somehow?
There are services that provide very temporary email addresses for websites that unnecessarily insist on everyone having a unique one. I wonder if there are services that provide similarly temporary phone numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks..."
So, you're surprised that you're banned, not for having a different viewpoint, but for misusing the platform?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"joining Parler to screw with MAGA folks"
So it's okay for the President and his minions to Own the libs but it's not acceptable for those on the left to own the Trump cultists?
What a lovely double standard.
Curiously, when I want to own Trump's groupies it's by pointing out their double standards or take their odd hypotheses to their logical conclusion.
When they want to own me, it usually by calling me a name and invoking a thought-stopping cliché. Orange Man Bad! is a favorite. Socialist and Communist are fun too, since they're only negative when ideologies are regarded as sports teams (rather than philosophies of economic and state organization).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you're surprised that you're banned, not for having a different viewpoint, but for misusing the platform?
No. You miss the point. No one is surprised. We are pointing out that every platform eventually realizes it has to ban people for misusing the platform. Which is exactly what Twitter, Facebook and YouTube do.
So, maybe stop whining about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is, why were they banned?
There's a difference for banning someone for speech, and banning someone because they are a dick. Going to a platform to "mess with conservatives" is being a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banning dicks
This raises an interesting moral question. Most of the pro-theism positions in the atheism vs. religion debates are [apologetics,] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics), arguments that obfuscate the nexus of the theistic paradox rather than focusing on these points and finding a rational resolution.
Apologism would absolutely count as messing with atheists (or _messing with religious opponents though the late 20th century when Apologist targets were rival faiths rather than atheists).
Apologism would absolutely count as being a dick and banworthy.
So, of course, would anything that counts as owning the libs which is the foundation of Trumpism and the GOP since 2009 and that black man was President of the United States.
Is that a line you're willing to hold for everybody, or is it just conservatives who are allowed to be a dick to everyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahaha
How's it feel, cocksuckers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The writer is an idiot
The writer of this article is obviously in the pocket for FB and Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The writer is an idiot
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The writer is an idiot
Your reading comprehension is not great, Robert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any journalistic search to why they were banned?
Understanding that there's a difference is voicing your views on a neutral platform such as Parler and being temporarily banned for harrassment is completely different things.
Principle #2 in the community guidelines.
You can absolutley have an opposing viewpoint and discussion on a Parler page without being banned. You cannot spam or harass a page with comments or trolling memes to where it affects others communications.
If you walk into a gym of people having adult discussions about politics blowing an airhorn like a child so nobody can talk...you're probably going to get kicked out. It's a method of silencing an opposing viewpoint. Which is why you get banned for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such civil discourse would be entirely off brand.
Considering what's on brand for conservative-side posting these days, most of it being in line with cry some more!, (case in point) I don't buy it.
I suspect that any valid argument on the left side magically disappears. I also suspect the moderators of Parler can't tell what is or isn't a valid argument. The left (or whatever bogeyman of the day: LGBT+, Antifa, The Deep State, climatologists, etc. are indicted by Trump supporters with a list that strangely compares to Trump's own observed behavior (and that of our GOP Senators.)
(Curious, the search engine doesn't allow me to search hidden messages. That might be a useful feature considering how it's likely to be part of the Trumpian game plan to deny ever having said such things.)
And considering the degree to which conservative elected officials, media pundits and stakeholders openly lie to support their issues (Trump has 22K+ false or misleading statements by June 2020. Infamously Jon Kyl's stated abortion counts for well over 90 percent of [Planned Parenthood] services which remains exemplary of what one can expect on the US Senate Floor) I seriously doubt the folks on Parler would be able to tell what statements are grounded in fact, and what is off-the-cuff bullshit.
So no, I'm not going to believe it until an impartial outside source reviews Parler and observes that actually the dialogue there is very civil and its moderation system is impartial. Everyone provides links when available to confirm the sources of their facts.
I highly doubt I'll see such a review anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is not censorship to ban people who are trying to be pricks (which you admitted) in your article. Banning pricks & trolls is just smart business & best for the community. Too bad you don't seem to understand the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And we’re arguing that this is no different from what happens on Twitter and FB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No-one's saying that they don't have the right to do so or even that it's not the right decision, people are simply pointing out the hypocrisy and dishonesty of a platform that touted itself as better than the other social media platforms because unlike those other platforms Parler would be a true free speech platform that would allow all legal speech... except they didn't, and they quickly found out why that's a stupid idea and got right to acting just like the platforms they'd decried as 'censoring' people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missing details
What is missing from the article is the details. Why exactly were all these people banned? Were they banned because they self-admitted that they only joined so they could "screw with MAGA folks". What was the reason given? We don't know what these people wrote. Like most lefties, they like to call names like homophobe, knuckle dragging neanderthal, racist, etc. when they don't have a logical comment or argument. Lots of possibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irrelevant details
Bloody hell are you people obsessed with that hypocritical shitpit to be popping up in an article this old to try to defend it.
It shouldn't matter what they were banned for unless it was for illegal content, because as the CEO himself said in an interview...
“We’re a community town square, an open town square, with no censorship,” Matze said in an interview on Thursday, from his home in Las Vegas. “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.”
... only to immediately start banning people for entirely legal speech(screwing with people of another political bent it entirely legal, as is spam) and have a set of rules for what they will and will not allow that are more stringent than the claimed standard.
A platform(or the people defending it) does not get to try to puff themselves up by claiming that unlike those other platforms they'll allow all free speech, immediately violate that claim and then act surprised when their hypocrisy is immediately called out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parlors’ banning Of folks
I don’t want lewd or porn pics, or just blatant, hate filled speech with curses, nor should anyone else.
So, banning will occur, more important is the, words or pics.
Or, the what was posted.
Ive gone back & forth with several Parlor account holders, as long as they don’t go filthy or ridiculous, I will discuss facts and beliefs. Yes it is subjective, but there are reasonable limits to what shall be acceptable.
Time will tell, if Parlor is better, or worse than twitter(unlikely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
So, how does censorship feel to you? Parlor provides a place where people can escape the insults, bullying, Mental/emotional assaults. Try presenting a point of view without name calling, with facts and data, with an open mind and with a little thought toward strangers and how the vitriolic hates speech affects them. Then perhaps the lefties will be welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No meanies(not on our side) allowed.'
Bloody hell you lot just keep coming, you got your safe space on Parler, are you really so hypocritical that you can't stand people saying mean things about it like other platforms face on a regular basis?
Congrats, you just described why the assholes keep getting booted from more civilized platforms and ending up on the likes of Parler. Really though if you needed a safe space where you didn't have to worry about those meany 'lefties' saying bad things about/to you just admit it, don't lie about/mischaracterize the platform by claiming that it's all about 'free speech' and “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter -> Parler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump / Cuomo / Vaccine
It's entirely on brand for Trump to make promises that are impossible (or remotely possible) to keep. The whole continual border wall that Mexico would pay for thing serves as a good example. Because of Trump's promises and his explicit expression that the vaccine would only manifest around the time of the election if he won I remain skeptical the Pfizer vaccine candidate is acceptable (id est, it's safe, immunizes from even one strain of COVID-19 and is mass-producible).
If it is, we got lucky, though it would be on brand for Trump to claim credit. It would also be on brand for Trump to favor distribution of a working inoculation to people he favors, much the way he decided not to bother with relief to Puerto Rico.
So, right now the whole business between Cuomo and Trump is not news I can trust.
As for preferring Parler over Twitter, sure. Go. Enjoy. For the moment it is kinda like wearing the red hat in public. And I expect that like 4Chan/b it is a nexus of fringe hypotheses, dubious rumors and facts reshaped to suit specific ideologies. And that's fine so long as Parler is not routinely inciting lone wolves to attack elected officials, to lynch certain kinds of people, or to push policies against hiring / serving fringe demographics.
But historically, these are the common output of far-right social bubbles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now who was it that was obsessed with that group again...?
Yeah, about what that shitpile is like... as pointed out in the Why Do Republican Senators Seem To Want To Turn Every Website Into A Trash Heap Of Racism & Abuse? article via screenshots let's just say 'jews' seems to be a popular topic of discussion over there, which should give you a good feel for the kind of scum infesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these people say they went on to harass people. Theres free speech and then there's people violating the rules by HARRASSMENT. Free speech is going on a site to have a good time and talk to people about things your interested in, like "conspiracy theories " and have a civil debate. That's not what antifa was doing on parler and you know it. Antifa is a non violent peaceful organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antifa on Parler
So what was antifa doing on Parler? Are you aware specific instances in which people identified themselves as members?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freedom vs license
As usual, people are trying to ignore the differences between apples and oranges. A friend got banned from Facebook for simply posting a LINK to a Washington Post article which simply listed all of Trump's legal challenges that he filed in each state. Parler does not do dumb and arbitrary shit like that. There is a malicious extremely biased manner in which Twitter - and Facebook to some degree - have been suppressing any content which the Social Media Lynch Mobs have decreed are offensive or do not share the popular narratives of what is going on. This is exceedingly stupid and annoying for anybody to arbitrarily decree that people who have differences of opinion about what the facts are should be suppressed and labeled as "misinformation." Where was your concern when the Media were informing people that Michael Brown was murdered in cold blood by a cop in Ferguson after saying "Hands Up, Don't Shoot?" Hmmm? Have the media or ANY leftists/liberals EVER admitted that their narrative was WRONG and helped to destroy a community by publishing inflammatory accusations about a Police Officer who was CLEARED of wrongdoing by the BLACK Attorney General of the United States of America? Liberals and leftists besieged the public with Lies about George Zimmerman, quoting him with statement that he never made, making allegations that he had suffered no injuries, citing fake experts to "prove" that he had uttered racial epithets...What about the way the Media tried to destroy a young boy's character and life because he chose to wear a Maga Hat and simply stood his ground with a liar pounding a drum and shouting right into his face? What about the misinformation the Media promoted about Kyle Rittenhouse, every source accusing him of transporting a gun across state lines to deliberately kill innocent protesters....and shutting down ANYBODY who tried to present information which showed the kid was innocent of those lies and distortions. This article here is just more of the same distorted lies, claiming that Parler is no different from Twitter and Facebook, without any examination of the actual OBJECTIVE facts about who is getting banned and WHY. The fact is that Antifa and Leftist Activists have made DEPLATFORMING and depriving other people of their rights to expression and ASSEMBLY part of their agenda. People on the right are trying to prevent leftists from getting away with the practice of simply shutting down events which feature speakers who they hate. Conservatives, are the only ones who still agree that everybody should have civil rights...even those we do not like and agree with. This superficial article presents a false equivalency that ignores the publicly stated intentions of Anarchists and Activists to shut down anybody whose ideas they wish to suppress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: freedom vs license
Parler has just over a million accounts in November 2020. Facebook has 2.7 billion. Twitter has 262 million. If Parler continues to grow, it's going to run into the same problem where moderation is necessary and yet too big a task for hired hands, so they resort to algos and general policy. And that works for shit.
Have the media or ANY leftists/liberals EVER admitted that their narrative was WRONG and helped to destroy a community by publishing inflammatory accusations about a Police Officer who was CLEARED of wrongdoing by the BLACK Attorney General of the United States of America?
What I remember is that the police narrative kept changing to fit the evidence. What I remember is that a teenager was left in the street to bleed out and die after the incident. What I remember is that Officer Darren Wilson got a grand jury hearing wheren a prosecutor spent forty-five minutes in a court convincing the jurors not to indict where typical hearings are under a minute and indictments come so cheap and easy that people have to watch for their own lunches lest they are indicted as well.
Perhaps you can explain to us why a police officer is treated differently by the justice system than US citizens. Or do you figure law enforcement gets privilege?
Oh and what I remember is that what were peaceful protests turned into riots after the police opened up with CS gas. They also were happy to arrest journalists who annoyed them, or try to keep journalists caged off away from the brutality. (It didn't always work.) After curfew, the police would race around in their MRAP lobbing CS cannisters everywhere until the whole neighborhood was a fog.
Tell me that sounds to you like proper police procedure. Yeah?
PseudoEgo these are not sports teams you're defending, and heck if they were, they'd be removed from their leagues for cheating.
In the meantime, PseudoEgo, perhaps you can share with the class why you think Rittenhouse went to a protest with an assault rifle. Before you answer, you might want to actually look up the story. We've been discussing it over here.
Everything about Rittenhouse tells me he was pretending to be a young brave going out to get his first kill. Which might make more sense if he wasn't in a post-industrialized nation where killing US citizens is actually murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Security Numbers disclosure
It's obvious you didn't read the user agreement and privacy policy.
Quoted from https://legal.parler.com/documents/privacypolicy.pdf, bottom of page one:
"Influencer Network Information. If you choose to join our influencer network, we may ask for information that can be used to verify your identity, such as a copy of your government-issued photo identification, and information that can be used to facilitate the redemption of virtual items or payments, such as your Social Security number (SSN) or your tax identification number. We delete your government-issued photo identification information when it is no longer necessary to verify your identity. "
This only applies to their "Influencer Network" account options, i.e. monetizing your content on Parler.
Do you mean to tell me that if you monetize your content on YouTube, you are not required to provide your SSN or tax id so that the income you make is reported to taxing authorities? Last time I checked (a few moments ago), you do have to provide a tax id or a SSN if you don't have a business tax id.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you could have gotten this wrong unless you didn't read the policies or are you just trying to write a hit piece here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Been trying to get deleted/banned from Parler for weeks
Been trying to get deleted/banned from Parler for weeks, but nothing I do gets me banned. I can't delete my account because I used a suggested strong password and I don't know what that is, and you need to put your password in to delete your account. You also need to put your password in to change your password. There is no password recovery. So I can't delete my account and I have tried literally everything to get banned and harass staff to get banned. What's my recourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Been trying to get deleted/banned from Parler for weeks
You would be better served going to the Parler FAQ page, but here is what they suggest:
Hope you set an email address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
parler banning people 'they do not like'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that sure sounds like moderation.
So no insults. No porn. No absolute free speech.
And still no empathy for other social media and the rules they set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harassment
Every last one of those crybabies up there just self-explained why they were banned. Lol
"I created an account just to mess with conservatives." Yeah dude, I can see why you were banned.
If you create an account just to screw with people, you're a troll and you SHOULD be banned regardless of the web site.
If you create an account to debate and give general respect to everyone, then no, you're fine.
The people above got exactly what they deserved. NO WEB SITE is going to allow harassment of any kind. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're missing the point.
Remember that it was team Trump calling the rest of us special snowflakes. It was team Trump that thrived on liberal tears who set the conversation at orange man bad.
And when the rest of the planet responded, not by censoring your comments but putting them behind a click-gate, not by censoring your lies and disinformation but by attaching relevant fact-check information...
...only then did team Trump make complaints alleging their own freedom of speech was encroached (it wasn't). And someone made a safe space for team Trump (after disparaging left-wing safe spaces from right-wing trolls). And it was called a freedom of speech zone.
But the point of this article is that it's not. Freedom of speech only exists in forums where speech you don't like can be said. If anything is blocked for any reason, it's no longer a place for free speech.
We knew this because even 4Chan/b doesn't want child porn (or furry porn except in designated threads, and still no MLP posts.) and 4Chan doesn't like commercial spam. But brony porn and spam are still safe when free speech is absolute.
The fact that people are being blocked from Parler for any reason, trolling or otherwise, vindicates the responses by big social media to Trump supporters shitting all over public dialog for four years.
But what fascinates me is you don't get it. And this has been consistent on the conservative side of the dialogue since I've been alive. You have double standards for everything. And you don't even see it for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're missing the point.
But what fascinates me is you don't get it. And this has been consistent on the conservative side of the dialogue since I've been alive. You have double standards for everything. And you don't even see it for yourself.
They can't get(or admit) it, because if they do then suddenly the entire social media persecution narrative/complex they've got falls entirely to pieces and all that would be left is 'social media is kicking our buddies off because we're assholes', which simply won't do.
If their own standards are applied equally then more civilized social media platforms are suddenly acting entirely within their rights and are fully justified in what they do, so they have to engage in rampant hypocrisy lest they be forced to admit to being wrong and/or have to own that the people they've been defending and decrying as 'persecuted' are in fact assholes who had it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACAB and now ATSAB
At this point anyone who is not a Trump Supporter has to, for their own self-protection, presume the GOP and Trump supporters act only in bad faith.
It's much the way that law enforcement corruption, having risen to the top and created a culture of double-standarded bad-faith behaviors and policies that support them, have made it impossible for alleged good police officers to stay good apples while keeping their jobs. When they don't get fired for not being a team player, these officers find themselves conceding and covering for their brethren, because that is accepted policy. But even if that's choosing their battles to those of us on the outside of the precinct, it's still bad-cop behavior. We civilians need to expect we're going to get screwed (or beaten up, or killed) by even those good officers because they have to toe the line. Covering for abusive officers and committing perjury in court are now actively part of the job.
So it is with the GOP and Trump supporters. The whole culture is poisoned. The whole culture is about having a double standard and defending it with lies. It's impossible to be in the pro-Trump society without asserting double standards, that Trump, and Trump's group should be treated differently than everyone else.
You can't have democracy with that. You can't have society with that.
And now we're at the point we cannot trust Democratic or unaffiliated officials who cooperate with the GOP because either they're complicit or they're suckers. Hence Feinstein's civility (and hugs) with Graham are being read as she's gotta go. But then she was complicit in putting a Trump shill onto the SCOTUS bench. That's pretty complicit.
Trump, his followers and his GOP have long dug this grave, and we have all reasons to distrust anyone who falls in even to extend olive branches. GOP officials been outright dishonest and aggressively predatory for so long, we have only cause to not to engage them at all, except in open hostility.
And this may ultimately be the failure of Biden, because in trying to work with the Republican Senate, he has to either become them, or become their sucker. And then we're back to having a compromised White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're missing the point.
...Which is impressive considering that the bulk of what drove MLP fandom in the first place was 4chan users moving onto the next edgy thing after swatiskas in HabboHotel got boring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This pretty much sums it up (though I could easily break down the other statements as well):
"Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks, and every last one of them was banned in less than 24 hours..."
Parler is indeed meant to be a platform for free speech, and also an exodus from mindless trolling and ad hominem attacks. If someone's main purpose in signing up for a community site is to act moronic and troll its members, they can simply go back to their original haunts and annoy people there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that’s fine, but that’s exactly what Twitter does, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But anon, mindless trolling and ad homs are free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is...
The main issue with this article is that we don't know what was done or said by the individuals that were "banned" or even if they really were banned. I searched through the twitter feed for the one that had a banned screen shot and even twitter suspended and deleted whatever he had posted. So it must have been pretty rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty Rude
To be fair, we don't know this.
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for algorithm-based adjudications, which have led to censorship and ban. It's a known problem with no known solution, hence the moderation paradox.
(I'm helping a relatively benign friend right now figure out why her YouTube account was suddenly banned with prejudice. It's unlikely she did anything or said anything that bad.)
And also to be fair, human error is a considerable factor, so even when we look at human-involved moderation, some people are just going to be the victim of miscarriage of justice. (And yes, this applies to civil and criminal court as well as forum moderator courts.)
So the specific details of what was said and what was done to them would be useful, but even if these individuals were not specifically the victims of false adjudication we can likely count on it happening.
The difference with Parler is they either haven't figured that out or are not admitting to it, and for the past four-plus years the conservative sector has a long developed history of willfully not admitting their mistakes and outright lying to further their personal agendas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U people seem to be nothing more than snowflake liberals that support communistic ideology. So that being said.....fuck u. And btw DEATH TO ALL COMMUNISTS. God bless America and God bless the REAL POTUS DONALD J TRUMP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"nothing more than snowflake liberals"
You forgot amen.
I doubt you know what Communism actually is, but then I bet you don't know what snowflakes are, either.
❄
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just like communists to want to label me an “anonymous coward “ simply bc Inwkmt out my personal info out on a clearly leftist doevoted site. Try again u Marxist pieces of shit. Hope u can defend yourselves with your spatulas and dildos when WE THE PEOPLE come for u. We will squash any and all resistance to our Constitutional freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"bc Inwkmt out"
Go home Anonymous Coward, you're drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can put whatever you want as a name without logging in. Anonymous Coward is just the default and more of a tongue-in-cheek thing.
You also clearly don’t understand communism or Marxism. Nor do you read this site much, which is clearly not a leftist-devoted site. Have you seen the criticisms of many democrats and liberals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1st amendment
Sorry to deflate your sails, but private website owners and private website comment sections DO NOT have to follow "free speech" laws, because they are privately owned. I was banned from the ABC News comment section (affiliated with Disqus) for exercising my "freedom of speech" in calling out bullshit from both the political left and the political right. Apparently you're better off only calling out bullshit from one political party. Who knew?
But my point is, no privately owned website is required by law to allow ANY speech or commentary that the owners don't like. Free speech does NOT apply to privately owned websites, messageboards or comment threads on news sites. That is fact. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1st amendment
That’s the point of the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congrats, you're yet another person who figured out why other social media platforms also engage in moderation and have the right to do so.
Honestly, one of these days you lot will read the gorram article all about how Parler is perfectly within it's right to engage in moderation and people are merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the site and it's defenders for doing so before jumping to defend that cesspit, but at this rate I'm not holding my breath...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a company such as twitter refuses to allow a whole side of the conversation, including leading politicians such as Senators even the President from being heard because of their views or ideas is a bit different than say having someone on a street corner expressing his views in a calm way and one or two people show up screaming through megaphones to shutdown their views.
If Twitter allowed conservatives the same platform to express their views as liberals, then Parler would not exist.
The fact that the leftists who aren't allowing Conservative voices to be heard on Twitter now want to go on Paler to shut them down there are complaining because they are being kicked out of the room is quite funny.
At least those people who all "joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks", still have Twitter. They're complaining because their political targets removed themselves from their vitriol and soon they'll just have each other to devour as a result of their rage filled lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When a company such as twitter refuses to allow a whole side of the conversation, including leading politicians such as Senators even the President from being heard because of their views or ideas is a bit different than say having someone on a street corner expressing his views in a calm way and one or two people show up screaming through megaphones to shutdown their views.
Ah yes, the famous 'free speech only counts if you're polite about it clause' for the New York streets, how could I have ever forgotten...
I too clearly remember that time Twitter silenced Trump and blocked him from posting for flagrant violations of the rules... oh wait, all that happened was that they had the audacity to fact check him and point out that his claims were being pulled straight from his ass with no basis in reality. If Trump's fragile little ego can't stand the idea that someone might call him out on his bullshit then he can either stop lying or stick with mediums where people either can't or won't do that.
If Twitter allowed conservatives the same platform to express their views as liberals, then Parler would not exist.
They do, it's not Twitter's fault that you lot can't act in a civilized or honest manner and treat the rules as something for other people to follow.
At least those people who all "joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks", still have Twitter. They're complaining because their political targets removed themselves from their vitriol and soon they'll just have each other to devour as a result of their rage filled lives.
You grossly misunderstand, people aren't complaining they're laughing at you and the site for showing your hypocrisy so quickly. 'If you can say it on the streets of New York you can say it here because unlike those other platforms we're all about free speech here... unless you're mean to us in our safe space, in which case you have to leave.' Also the ISS called, something about glare on the windows from some massive projection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When it gets so bad no one can agree on the color of the sky
Time has come to batten down the hatches for this civil war. I hereby cancel my subscription of maybe ten years due to a very warped direction techdirt has been leading.
I don't feel I am getting an honest, fair view here, just a loud echo-chamber that makes my ears ring!
Every warped blog I support is just making everything worse. Since, as you say, let this be fought out in the tech world, not the courts, I am voting in the tech world.
I already dumped Facebook, soon twitter and the list goes on. This is war. War is hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch the door on the way out
If calling out a site's hypocrisy is enough to get you start making war comparisons have fun jumping at shadows and nursing that persecution complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why banned?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leftists who poison the Parler brand
Wow. You lost me. Right there is some first-rate duckspeak. Congrats! I guess.
Maybe try to see what the argument actually is before quacking again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good riddance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good riddance
Yeah, except that right-wingers also did all of that stuff on Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
all [that] the leftists have in their corner
Sensible people are tired of being doxed and attacked ad hominem by group-think snowflakes. Which is clearly all the leftists have in their corner.
At this point I have to challenge you to tell me the basis of the term snowflake as you appoint it to leftists.
It's profound, the frequency with which groups (including the left) are generalized as monolithic groupthink hive minds by folks trying to justify special treatment for the right, especially when you guys so often repeat the same accusations, which are done by proud rightwingers, themselves.
Some of you have made it clear, including your dear President, that you want a stratified society where untermenschen are outcast, confined to ghettos, or Konzentrationslager or processed (evacuated) into mass graves or piles of ash.
The question for those of us on the other side is if that's what the rest of you want. Because it sometimes sure seems you're eager to kill us all in a genocide program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all [that] the leftists have in their corner
"Some of you have made it clear, including your dear President, that you want a stratified society where untermenschen are outcast, confined to ghettos, or Konzentrationslager or processed (evacuated) into mass graves or piles of ash."
What a load of nonsense. Lets be blunt: If "they" including Trump wanted that they would have it, especially with COVID-19 as an excuse. Trump would have federalized millions of right wing militia loyal to him, stood the military down and used said militia (armed with heavy weapons to augment their own courtesy of your tax dollars) to "quarantine" your big blue cities because "but but COVID" turning them into instant ghettos. They have 20 times the guns you do and they know how to use them. They would have easily blockaded the highways in and out, cut the water, cut the power, game over for your urban populations. Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Trump wanted that [he] would have it
The way Wednesday played out, I can safely guess Trump wanted it. Now I know a bit more than you do about the logistics it takes to quarantine cities or put them under martial law or to shut down utilities, and it is considerably harder than you think.
But maybe you're better off imagining that it could have been done if Trump wasn't so profoundly incompetent.
Because yeah, he is ready to kill to stay in power.
And while he is an idiot (and probably senile), he's still hooked you like a jewel beetle humping a beer bottle, happy to die for him.
But also because the next guy might be smarter, and he'll know the beer bottle trick as well, and if you're not smarter, you'll end up doing time or soaking bullets for him (and glad for the privilege).
Of course, it's not my place to tell you being a sucker for a confidence guy is a bad aspiration. If you want to be cannon fodder for a tin-plated dictator, you do you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If Trump wanted that [he] would have it
For some reason Steve thinks that the failure of Trump's militia of supporters to cause more havoc than actually happened at the White House is meant to be some "gotcha" moment. Like some passive-aggressive suggestion that things could have been worse, but they didn't because Trump was merciful... Or something?
Meanwhile in the other thread Trump boys are busily insisting that most of the Trump fans were peaceful and totally trying to prevent the "antifa bad actors" from stirring shit up, totes promise... Despite the video evidence saying otherwise.
So who do we believe? How about the people actually posting on Parler about how angry they are that Trump publicly denounced their attempted coup, furious that their glorious leader stabbed them in the back?
Best part is, Parler automatically filters bad actors - a right that Parler supporters have asserted in this very thread - so we know for certain that the Parler users posting about an intended coup are the real deal. Oops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Junkie talk
Yeah, this creeps me out like Pusher from the X-Files. Not only could he bend the will of those listen to them, but they also were desperate to stay connected like it was a highly addictive drug.
And the desperation of these guys in both articles is something I've seen before, from friends and peers who were drying out from a substance. Heck, an ex-roommate would become a mean bastard quitting cigarettes.
These aren't honest arguments, this is desperation to hear Trump's sweet dulcet tones once again, to get orders from The Master, to get news that their supplier will resume contact.
Trump is crystal meth for racists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: all [that] the leftists have in their corner
"The question for those of us on the other side is if that's what the rest of you want. Because it sometimes sure seems you're eager to kill us all in a genocide program."
Sure that's why the ABC news political director just called for the "cleansing" of Trump supporters. Project much? Of course when Trump supporters quite reasonably armed for their own defense show up at Mr Klein's residence to discuss his "cleansing" program with him he will wet himself in fear cry like a little girl and call the people he wants to "cleanse" Nazis. Typical leftist.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/abc-demands-cleansing-trump-movement-from-america/a r-BB1cyVJ7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Cleansing Trump supporters"
That does sound pretty sinister, doesn't it?
It's not projection from me personally. I'm super into not committing crimes against humanity, and super into living in a nation that doesn't do that. Haha! What a sucker I was, right?
But not as much of a sucker as Team Trump. The credulity that you guys have shown your peerless leader would get me mocked out of my middle school. You make the flat-earthers seem sensible.
It was the freedom to be racist, I bet. That talk about brown people being criminals and rapists and throwing everyone in jail he didn't like. Trumpers soaked that up like crystal meth. I bet you guys are jonesing for your lord and master's sweet dulcet tones something hard right now, while he's all quiet.
You should hear the guys desperate to let him back on Twitter. I lived in the recovery community. I know junkie talk when I hear it. It's that.
But yeah, you guys won on an Electoral College victory in 2016 (without a majority). You should have been playing it cautious, figuring that you need to share the bread and save some seats at the circus for the other Americans. You know, the ones you don't like that much and denied a bunch of federal bench seats to, including a SCOTUS bench.
But no. You teabagged the libs like it was a landslide. You celebrated with Liberal Tears mugs. You mocked our safe spaces and trigger warnings. You called us special snowflakes soon forgetting what that even meant. And when Trump started being snowflakey and sensitive, the double standard was totally evident. This was your country now and totally not ours.
So the seats are about to swap, and now you guys are calling for unity? For forgiveness? For consolation?
You mocked us for years and reinstated private prisons and tore kids away from parents and cut off food and welfare benefits, and when hurricanes, wildfires and a plague came, you were glad to let the people rot and die. And they did.
So yeah, I just want a system that works like my teachers once told me. (They lied. I believed them.) I think we need to work together to advance, and considering what suckers 73,000,000 voters were, I'm coming to realize the human ape might just be too stupid. But that's my internal debate.
But yes, a lot of people want revenge.
🍿❄
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good riddance
You're just trying to defend censoring stuff that triggers you. No different than a leftist snowflake. Parler doesn't indicate it censors for any of the reasons you claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rise of the right, again
Agolf Trumpler, trying to repeat the history of a certain landing strip mustache psycho from the last century. If you can't see that, change your meth dealer, because you're getting bad batches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler Censorship
So use Twitter and all the other avenues you have to voice "your" opinions. Getting a taste of your own medicine is often bitter. If you swallow it fast and shake your head it will go easier for you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parler Censorship
No one’s complaining about the bans themselves. They’re just saying that Parler isn’t any better than Twitter when it comes to moderating lawful speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parler Censorship
Who cares what they're saying? They don't have any evidence. They aren't even quoting what they posted that supposedly got them banned. Knowing LWNJs they probably thought free speech included orchestrating the killing and scalping of "Nazi's" or planning the burning of "fascist" ICE operations centers. Good god you can immediately tell if a protest is right or left wing because if it's left wing things are on fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trolling ~vs~ freedom of speech
There is a big difference between discussing/arguing points and just showing up and making your first post "Your a bunch of dumfks". BTW and that seems to be a good way to determine partisans these days too!
You just have to laugh at someone complaining about getting banned for trolling. Don't get me wrong, a troll with a decent argument is often times welcome, in fact it is good to see things from other perspectives even at a cost!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"literally there to bully"
When the alt-right and trump-supporter community decides to discard their liberal tears mugs, and maybe apologize for a climate in which such drinkware could be a fad, maybe then we'll consider whether there is genuine bullying from the left.
When team-Trump stops calling people special snowflakes, mocking triggering and safe spaces for a good two years, maybe it's time to consider if there is a single conservative point that is not about furthering the stratification of society and letting rich people ignore the poor they've exploited for centuries.
When the GOP and Donald Trump and his army of zombies stop trying to own the libs, stop trying to justify killing the libs, stop trying to dismiss the issues of law enforcement overreach and brutality and stop pushing for total social homogeneity, then maybe it's time to consider you guys aren't totally just a push for violent fascism centered around a cult of personality.
You're not in a place to argue libs are bullies. You guys wanted to purge the libs through the 2010s to 2020. Locking up the others, kicking them out of the country or dumping them into mass graves is totally the right-wing brand in the United States.
You can stay quiet and be thankful the left-wing is adverse to doing the same thing. For now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'How dare you treat us like we treat you?!'
When team-Trump stops calling people special snowflakes, mocking triggering and safe spaces for a good two years, maybe it's time to consider if there is a single conservative point that is not about furthering the stratification of society and letting rich people ignore the poor they've exploited for centuries.
The fact that the 'fuck your feelings, snowflakes' lot are showing up literally months after the article came out to whine about how mean TD was to their safe space is just the gift that keeps on giving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'How dare you treat us like we treat you?!'
The fact that the 'fuck your feelings, snowflakes' lot are showing up literally months after the article came out to whine about how mean TD was to their safe space is just the gift that keeps on giving.
I enjoy each and every one. Especially the fact that every single one of their responses misses the point and says something like "of course Parler needs to ban trolls" without recognizing the hysterical irony (and admission) in what they're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberal on Parler
We down vote stupid comments say something that would have gotten us blocked from FB or Twitter towards you R sum other low life harassing individual’s. We employ same procedures liberal s start then blocklist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler
How do you like it sh!thead liberals? One for you...one for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contradiction here...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/02/parler-pornography-problem/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hahahahahaha! Now the left knows how the right has been feeling! Sucks doesn't it?
Parler is moderated via democracy, so I'm not surprised this has happened, since all the conservatives flocked there since they were being banned or shadowbanned from other social media.
But it is accurate to say that the moderation model, such as it is, does not uphold free speech, but instead, popular speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hahahahahaha! Now the left knows how the right has been feeling! Sucks doesn't it?
Um... no? The whole point of this post is that every site has to moderate to deal with trolls.
Parler is moderated via democracy
The CEO has flat out admitted that he sits around deleting accounts. That's not "democracy"
I'm not surprised this has happened, since all the conservatives flocked there since they were being banned or shadowbanned from other social media.
Right, they were banned for breaking the rules on other sites. Just like Parler will ban people for breaking its rules.
But it is accurate to say that the moderation model, such as it is, does not uphold free speech, but instead, popular speech.
What does that even mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Banned from twitter for retweeting a tweet
What did the tweet say? And were you permabanned or just suspended for a few days. Please elaborate!
A lot of people get banned from social media for stupid reasons. A friend of mine was banned from YouTube without explanation of cause, and we're still trying to see if it's because of her association with Taíno activism.
But when there's a new trend (such as the Facebook ban on breastfeeding pics) or developments regarding a given policy, it does often turn into a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
This article is bullshit propaganda!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interjection! For excitement!
You'll have to elaborate, otherwise your statement will be interpreted as an emotional outburst and dismissed without evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not liking it when it happens to you, huh??? Now who's whining???
Your reading comprehension skills are not great, huh? No one is complaining about this. We're pointing out that Parler lied when they claimed they'd only moderate based on the 1st Amendment, and that EVERY site has to do moderation. No one is saying that's bad. We're pointing out that it's good that Parler is doing this, even as it demonstrates the company's hypocrisy.
And why join just to mess with someone? Don't you have any real convictions? Or an original thought of your own
You should ask all the trolls who joined Twitter, only to be kicked off and move to Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WAR
AS PREDICTED, NAZI BIG TECH JUST STARTED WWIII
WWG1WGA
WAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WAR
What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WAR
What is it good for?
(I'm fond of the J2 version, myself.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God Condemns thee
Wake up before the light or let darkness be your demise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God Condemns me
[assert hypothesis without evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
Not buying your phony story. You know very well thats a facebook and twitter tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has removed Parler from Google Play
Apple has given Parler 24 hours to have and present a moderation system or get removed from the Apple store.
Apparently they don't like 4chan/b rules either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I started reading your post until I got to the part that said Parler was a, "...favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives." Then I started laughing so hard I couldn't hold the phone still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah no kidding. Nobody censors misinformation. There is no need to. It's debunked by other users as fast as it's posted. Nobody censored flat earth theory, it was spherical earth theory that was censored. Nobody censored the false claim that the sun and the rest of the universe orbited the earth, the theory that the earth orbits the sun was what was censored. Truth is always censored by those trying to peddle faslehood. There is no need to censor falsehoods, they can just be refuted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, falsehoods can be refuted. Is that why your team lost your shit when the courts called your election theft claims unfounded, and your team chose to withdraw instead of pushing forward with the lawsuits you promised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real free alternative to socials like Facebook and tweeter already exists, since few years: it is called *diaspora, and it allow anyone to set up own server to accept subscription, granting interoprrability with any other one.
If you start up your own closed network, your intention is not free-speach, but to have complete control on your social.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No they're not
They're not banning content they don't like... like FB and Twitter do. They're banning people who threaten or submit lude content that violates the most basic tenants of decency. You idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"people who threaten or submit lude content"
Of course you have actual evidence of this, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people who threaten or submit lude content"
Evidence? So far I don't even see anybody even trying to quote what got them banned. Wonder why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence
So the answer is no. Everyone here who is assuming the system is just is proceeding on no evidence.
Yeah, that's really stupid considering how many institutions cover up their arbitrary bullshit.
Until I see evidence that Parler is being outrageously reasonable, I'm going to presume it's as ruthless as every other platform, and you guys are just being partisan.
But you can change my mind with evidence. If you care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course no actual quotes of the posts that got them banned.
Because, knowing the childlike left, they probably said "I'm going to kill [insert name here]" Or "Somebody should go out right now and kill [insert name here] Or "[Insert name here] is a Nazi and I'm going to kill them" or "We need to burn "insert name of organization, address of building etc here] to the ground" or similar, and were thus legally actionable giving them no choice but to take them down or face legal repercussions. It's almost impossible for any sane person to exceed the precious few limits on free speech in America but I see LWNJs do it all the time and this is probably not an exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course no actual quotes of the posts that got them banned
Ah, what they probably said or did. The cross-bar on the boar spear used to kill the last vestiges of guilt or regret.
Sure I took his money. He probably stole it. Probably was going to use it for drugs.
Man movie tropes are breaking out like hives these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use Common Sense
The site Parler is about free speech. It's not about harassing people whose speech you do not agree with. I am sure if you would post your own comments, with your respectful opinions, you would be fine. When you start posting on other people's comments, harassing them and trying to oppress their opinion, that is no longer free speech, that is harassment. Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter have long been allowing harassment of the opinions of people on right but not allowing criticism of leftist opinions, they have been censoring and banning users from the right but not from the left. Parler and these new platforms that people are flocking to are leveling the playing field. They are allowing free speech but not harassment. Harassment is not free speech. In fact there are laws in every city of every state against harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use Common Sense
The site Parler is about free speech.
No, that's just what it's marketing team tells you.
It's not about harassing people whose speech you do not agree with.
I've spent time on Parler, and it's basically ALL harassing people who don't agree with the Trumpian mindset.
And, removing people for harassment is still content moderation.
When you start posting on other people's comments, harassing them and trying to oppress their opinion, that is no longer free speech, that is harassment.
Harassment is bad. But it's still free speech in most cases.
Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter have long been allowing harassment of the opinions of people on right but not allowing criticism of leftist opinions, they have been censoring and banning users from the right but not from the left.
This is absolutely false on both accounts. Facebook, YouTube & Twitter have policies against harassment, and they enforce it regardless of political identity. Plenty of people on "the left" have been banned from those three sites. You just don't know about it because you live in a bubble and believe the nonsense that idiots feed to you.
Parler and these new platforms that people are flocking to are leveling the playing field
Cool. More competition is good and I encourage that. But they moderate just like everyone else.
In fact, the CEO bragged to a reporter that he liked deleting leftist trolls from the platform.
Harassment is not free speech.
Yes. It is.
In fact there are laws in every city of every state against harassment.
This is wrong. You do not know what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haven’t you forgotten to add “Just as Google. Apple and Amazon have done to Parler”????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Deplatforming of Parler
Given the iOS community is a walled garden, you might have a valid argument with Apple. It wouldn't be the first time.
But Android users can side-load whatever they want. (I do.) It's mildly less convenient.
My own opinion is in the air. I want to believe we can be responsible with things like guns, speech, cars and civic participation, but Wednesday and its aftermath implies grown adults cannot be responsible enough to not eat toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don’t know anything about Amazon banning Parler, but Apple and Google banning them from their stores is pretty recent, well after this article was written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon stopped hosting Parler
Apparently Amazon was providing the cloud services that hosted Parler's web assets.
Not anymore.
Parler is down and looking for a new place to pitch its tent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Amazon stopped hosting Parler
Interesting. In that case, it falls under “too new to have been reasonable to have been mentioned earlier or in the article itself”, just like with Apple and Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Amazon is shutting down the servers which Parler runs on. They'll be down for about a week according to Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Huh. Still not censorship, but interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Na
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old Tactics By Liberals
I would hate to know that I am so consumed with hate that it makes me a bitter and miserable person as you Liberals are. I will not go down that same road but I will say this! You Liberals always use the same tactics in order to cause confusion and chaos. People on Facebook and Twitter going on Patler only to harrass people and cause trouble have the right to be banned. Harrassment and hate speech deserved to be banned but you Liberals are so hypocrites you never see it that way. Big Tech is a monopoly and cannot stand the fact that they know have competition. But guess what your tactics are only making us stronger! Stop the victim playing. I do not have the right to go on anyone's Facebook or Twiiter account and harrass then either. Google can allowing someone to click and learn how to make a bomb or have Pornhub raping children among other things on Google. Twitter can have the Iranian leader saying Death to America and Facebook can show Antifa or BLM with videos beating up cops or others posting a video threatening to hurt others so please spare me the hypocritical rhetoric. If anyone wants to get on any social media platforms that is fine but taunting and HARRASSING others should not be allowed anywhere. Maybe you all should stick to the Socialists platforms and let us have our own. You all love to start trouble.. That is your only goal in life. I say get a life! The media and social media has caused a division for too long. Grow up and quit whining! You liberals cannot be civil and no one can even carry on a normal conversation with any of you. If we do not believe as you all do we are labeled nonsense words. It is getting HILLARIOUS. . If you want to join Parler do it for the right reasons and not for instigating trouble. That is so childish and lame. I think it is about time to grow up dont you think? By now we know every trick in the book you liberals use. But if you get on Parler only to HARRASS and start trouble then yes you deserve to be booted off. You need to learn what free speech means. Your goal in life is to cause trouble. It will not work. These tactics only make people and platforms even stronger and we are not going anywhere or go away. What you are doing is trying to shut Parler down. That is Socialism. This is our Country too and as much as you try to destroy it or cause trouble we will not be silenced. Get use to it. Only weak evil people stir up trouble and chaos. Live your own life and we will proudly live ours. Liberals never smile or never seem to be happy. Could it be that you all are too bitter and full of hate and too busy trying to destroy others people's lives that you do not live a productive life? That is living in bondage and you will always be miserable consumed with hate. Respect each others differences opinions even though they may not reflect yours. God Bless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Same old Tactics By Liberals
We’re not trying to shut Parler down, and we’re not complaining about the people being banned. Parler has every right to do so, as does Twitter, which is the main point. I’m all for the people who feel constrained on Twitter going to their own platform. They just don’t have any moral high-ground over Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That you're unaware of the difference between freedom of expression and being a nuisance is not surprising. Perhaps it wasn't their beliefs they were banned for, but rather the fact that they were making a pest of themselves. As you have rightly pointed out, no platform must allow conduct it doesn't accept. As Gab has panned pornography, so Parler bans pests. Stop whining, pussies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody’s whining. We’re just pointing out that Parler doesn’t confine itself to removing illegal, unlawful, or FCC condemned speech like it said it would. We have no problem with that; we’re just refuting one of the talking points and noting that Parler is doing the same thing Twitter does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe, just maybe...
...you shouldn't "screw with" MAGA people. js
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is the left so against free speech and a place where people can actually express everything they believe without censorship even if it doesn't fit the narrative. Those getting banned from parler are posting illegal content, which makes it ironic that they called parlers take on the 1st amendment a wikipedia read because this article directly contradicts itself by doing that. You still cannot post porn, copyrighted material or make DIRECT threats which shows a full understanding of the 1st and again reasoning for the ban. People are also banned on parler for spam I am sure. So if u create and account and spam "maga sucks" on each comment 15 times, it is no longer speech but pure spam. Articles like this are an attempt to defend the left as the party of free speech which has obviously been lost as a valid view point from everyone. At this point the best strategy is to stop counter narratives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one’s against that. We do dispute the definitions of “free speech” and “censorship”, but even under your definitions, no one’s saying that they’re against such a platform from existing.
Porn isn’t illegal, nor is spam. And yes, spam is still speech. Therefore, by your own admission, not all of those getting banned from Parler are getting banned solely for illegal content; some are getting banned for 1A-protected speech.
It has nothing to do with the left being or not being “the party of free speech”. The point is that 1) “free speech” doesn’t mean what you think it means, and 2) Parler is no more wedded to the 1A than Twitter. It’s all about a double standard that the right uses and the fact that Parler has to make the same sorts of decisions that Twitter does. I have no problem with Parler banning whoever it wants for whatever reason it wants in general. I am also perfectly fine with the existence of Parler. They just don’t have any moral high ground over Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But they do have the moral high ground over Twitter. Twitter bans conservatives for posting pro trump topics that they they inaccurately decide is false.... AKA doesn't fit their narrative.
Parler is banning trolls who are threatening other members.
So what is free speech in your mind? I can tell you for certain that free speech doesn't give you the right to threaten people. However, it does give you the right to say your opinion on a political topic if you want. Which is what Twitter is banning people for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, they are accurately described as false. And people weren’t being banned at the time for posting misinformation; they were banned for other reasons similar to what Parler does (at least at the time this article was written).
If they’re just trolls, it’s not a “true threat” and is therefore protected by the 1A.
Free speech is the right to say or refuse to say pretty much anything without fear of government intervention. There are some exceptions, like defamation, copyright infringement, and true threats, but that’s the extent of it. It also extends no further than that. A private corporation cannot infringe on your free speech outside of a lawsuit or something like that.
Actually, it kinda does. As long as it’s not a true/credible threat of imminent lawless action, it’s free speech.
I have seen no evidence of Twitter doing so against conservatives disproportionately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speech that doesn't fit the narrative
Which speech that doesn't fit the narrative?
I think at the point that Dear Leader was suggesting injecting bleach might treat COVID-19 (or that the virus didn't exist), we became hyper aware of the dangers of follies et deux (or follies et masse, maybe).
Alternative Facts was never one of Conway's better ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler has adopted and adapted its platform to the competitive market from which it entered. There's bs media on both sides of the political arena and "fact check" has approximately a 50% inaccurate result. 80% of media platforms are on the Left but that won't be the case for long. Now that there's awareness of publisher-like activities and censorship I suspect it won't be long before legislation puts an end to this immature way of communication with little to no accountability!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck off loser
The left will be destroyed. YES WE CAN!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler Banned Me?
Do you mean like Amazon did to Parler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An idea for an article
Article about Twitter, Google and FB banning users in January 2021? Stay consistent and write one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An idea for an article
Have those companies ever claimed that they wouldn’t ban people for posting legal, 1A-protected speech consistent with FCC rules and the DMCA? Are any of those companies criticizing other companies for their bans? Are any of them new companies?
If not, then the reasons for posting this story don’t match with the reasons for posting about that.
Also, there is a link below that you can use to suggest an idea for an article. Don’t use the comment section of an old article to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler
Spam, etc. is still banned for the user experience. If I had to guess these users were advertising or spamming. In other words, if they are getting banned from EVERY platform it my be them. The user agreement in Parler cites pretty clearly what gets banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
What a bunch of BS, there were plenty of leftists on Parler up to its last moments.
But one thing you didn't mention was that these people were going around making death threats.
I saw A LOT of death threats from leftists on Parler, some antifa people were even posting addresses and calling for hunting people down.
These of course could be reported, and you would be banned for it, inciting violence is against the rules on Parler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your blog, column whatever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your blog, column whatever
I’ve seen no evidence of conservatives being banned for being conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Depends on how you define 'conservative'
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parler
These people talking negative about Parler are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is asserted without evidence...
...can be dismissed without evidence.
You may have to get specific about details about Parler are false or misleading, and then determine the statement was willfully meant to deceive.
Otherwise, why should anyone care what you think or feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is asserted without evidence...
Just as these people are asserting, without evidence, that they were banned for expressing their opinions. Very telling that this article just says "I was banned" without showing the content that got people banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, twats. ~ not anonymous coward
Jason Koschkee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Parler banned trolls and you think that's the same thing as Twitter banning people just for posting anything positive about trump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same thing
You'll have to show evidence for Twitter banning people just for posting pro-trump enthusiasm.
I doubt that's why they got banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolute Leftist Crap
I was on Parler from July 7 until shutdown. I built an account with over 800 followers from scratch, had great conversations with other patriots who enjoy freedom of speech and there was absolutely zero far right violence as these jackasses claim. Was there conspiracies here and there? Sure. But why the hell wouldn't there be? The media reports almost exclusively left leaning conspiracy and propoganda at this point with little to no truth sprinkled in.... we have to wonder what is real and what isn't when they're trying to impeach a guy 10 days before he leaves office like a bunch of whiny cunts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"like a bunch of whiny cunts"
Well, we can work out why you might have been banned off Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies Lies Lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"so you all can go SUCK it"
Seriously, do you guys just swig half a bottle of Jack before posting?
Posts like this one make you sound like someone who can't uphold a job and kicks your dog out of general frustration.
Trump is toxic, to the US and to people like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb article. And Twitter isn’t doing the same thing but on a massive scale? Ducking moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Congratulations. You just missed the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dumb article. And Twitter isn’t doing the same thing but on a massive scale? Ducking moron
Yes. Twitter is doing the same thing. THAT'S THE POINT. That went right over your head. Every site has to do moderation. And they all discover that it's hard. It's never been "anti-conservative bias." It's been "Twitter banning assholes who violate its policies." That's how moderation works. And it's why Parler had to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you post without a name or ID this fucked up website called you a “anonymous coward”. This is the delusional Left crying in their sand box like little bitches. Change your site to gaytechDaily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Cowards
They have the choice of inserting a name, even one that isn't theirs.
If the default name is dumbass and you don't bother to change it, well, it suits.
Would Gay Tech Daily be about computers used in Broadway theaters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, you could just, like, change the posted name to whatever the duck you want!
The whole “Anonymous Coward” thing is a tongue-in-cheek reference to something not worth getting into here, and it’s not meant to be seriously taken as an insult. We even have (or at least had) a user here whose username is/was “Anonymous Anonymous Coward”.
But anyways, it’s just the default name for someone who isn’t signed in. You could put “Anonymous”, “Random Dude”, or “Henchman #2358”, or “butthurt crybaby” if you want. We don’t have a real-names policy here. Don’t be so offended.
How? Seriously, how is making a dumb joke about people unwilling to sign up, log in, or type something in the “name” box leftist or delusional?
Considering how easily offended you are, it’s funny how easily you resort to offensive language. And, again, how is this “gay”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Considering how easily offended you are, it’s funny how easily you resort to offensive language. And, again, how is this “gay”?
It's always so very telling when someone thinks that 'gay' is an insult, though given the rest of their comment I can't say it appears to be out of character.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parler banning people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's the lying about it that's wrong."
Um no. When I make a contrary opinion at, say, an anti-abortion site, and my comment (lacking in vulgarity or ad-hominem attacks) doesn't pass moderation, it demonstrates the site is not interested in dialogue but concurrence.
Twitter (among many sites) tries to adhere to community standards, and it often fails due to the moderation paradox. As a result, because there are too many tweets to moderate with humans, and automation of tweet moderation sucks, you're going to get either too many or too few false takedowns.
Part of the problem is a lack of transparent metrics. (A friend of mine was recently permabanned as a staunch advocate of first nation rights. While she's careful, she engages many more radical than she is. We don't know why she was banned and can't get a straight answer.) So the public cannot see who was taken down for what statements, and if they were violations of TOS (e.g. hate speech or incitement)
And as Parler got bigger it found it had the same problem. Since it responded inadequately, well, recent events happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parler banning people
I don’t see any evidence that the Twitter moderators don’t at least have the subjective belief that all the people they ban have violated community guidelines outside of the ones they unban. As such, I have no reason to believe Twitter is being dishonest in their stated reasons for banning someone.
If you have clear evidence to the contrary, please present it, because I haven’t seen it. Without it, I have no reason to think that Twitter isn’t being 100% honest here.
(Note: a subjective belief can be mistaken.)
Also, Parler hasn’t been claiming they ban people simply because they disagree with/dislike them, meaning that there is no such distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A threat to our Courts and Justice System
I am warning you. IF this Jim Crow policy of free speech censorship from the far left mainly and the far right continues our criminal and civil justice system is in real peril. NO One in America will get a fair trial and will have NO defense in court against perjury. In Fact public opinion prejudice will be fuel by Jim Crow censorship of social media to deny justice and fairness for ALL of us. In fact the Constitutional processes will be abolished by this extreme hatred from social media. Stop it now or America will be NO longer a real nation in 5 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I am warning you."
No one in America will get a fair trial.
No one in the US gets a fair trial. We have a 100.00% indictment rate, a 90% conviction rate, and the more people incarcerated than any other nation (by count or per capita). The US has 4% of the global population yet 22% of the global penal population. And that's before we get those who are in the justice system but just not in prisons.
The reverse is true for law enforcement and government officials who routinely commit perjury in court (or when on the House / Senate floor) and are never indicted.
So your warning is laughable.
More notably, it's conspicuous that our justice system is corrupt to the core and has been for decades and you seem to only express concern about it at this late hour.
I detect a lack of fucks given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A threat to our Courts and Justice System
Assuming you meant, “No one in America […] will have ANY defense in court against perjury,” I don’t see how that follows from what you’ve said or anything in the article. In order to be convicted of perjury, the following criteria (among others) must be proven in a court of law:
The accused person made a statement (spoken, signed, or written).
The statement made was/is objectively and provably false.
The statement was made while the accused was under oath or under penalty of perjury.
The statement is considered “material” (which is admittedly broad).
This gives us a lot of defenses against perjury. If the statement is not capable of being proven true or false, such a statement cannot be perjury, so that is one defense (though I believe that statements are more likely to be considered capable of being true or false in a case of perjury than in a case of defamation, but it’s still a defense to say that it was just an opinion). If the statement is actually true, that is also a defense. It would also be a defense if the statement was not made while the accused was under oath or was not made under penalty of perjury, though it is rare for anyone to try to call something perjury without that element being pretty undeniable. There’s also the defense that the statement was immaterial, though that, too, is fairly unlikely to work. Another defense would be if the accused did not know it was false or doubted it was true.
And it should be noted that the prosecution has the burden of proof on all of these, and needs to prove them beyond all reasonable doubt. On top of that, the bar for proving elements 2 and 5 is quite high, especially with regards to element 5.
It’s actually pretty rare for someone to actually be prosecuted for perjury at all, and it’s even rarer for someone to actually be convicted.
I fail to see how social media will change any of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A threat to our Courts and Justice System
Actually, I’m not sure how social media will “abolish[]” “the Constitutional processes” at all. Even assuming that “public opinion prejudice”, “Jim Crow censorship of social media”, and “extreme hatred from social media” all exist and present problems, and that they will taint the jury pools for any trial and thus make getting a fair trial difficult if not impossible, I fail to see how that would abolish any constitutional processes.
Also, are you unfamiliar with voir dire and jury selection? If any of the prospective jurors display clear bias or prejudice against or in favor of the defendant or (in a civil trial) against or in favor of the plaintiff, either attorney can dismiss that prospective juror from the jury pool with cause or—for a limited number of jurors—without cause, and displaying clear bias or prejudice with regards to either side or to that particular case as a whole is generally considered to be good cause for dismissal. (Same goes for bias or prejudice for or against any of the lawyers involved.) Heck, the judge might even dismiss such a juror. And if such a bias or prejudice is uncovered later or a juror is found to have engaged in outside research regarding the case or any of its participants, that’s grounds for a mistrial (or at least removal of any “tainted” jurors). And if a party’s attorney is found to have such a bias or prejudice and that party loses, that can be grounds for a new trial as well due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Basically, you would need the judge, the attorneys for both sides, and any appellate judges to all have the same prejudice/bias for or against the same party for a trial with prejudiced or biased jurors against a party to both go to completion and to not be overturned, vacated, or reversed unless the evidence against the losing party was so objectively clear and convincing and the evidence in favor of the losing party pretty unconvincing that no reasonable jury would rule in favor of the losing party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
full of total crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the bans?
This is something not addressed anywhere in the article. Why were they banned? Where they harassing people? Threatening people? I've seen the [sometimes] innocuous things people have gotten banned for on Twitter and reddit.
I've personally never come across porn on Parler. Even if it's there, Twitter and reddit are full of it so there's no reason why it couldn't be there.
I don't think offensive speech is a reason to ban people. It should only be illegal stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the bans?
Reasonable people can disagree on what people should be banned for, which is exactly why I don’t think the government should have any role in deciding that at all (with the possible exceptions of protected classes of persons (i.e. race) and anticompetitive behavior). If you just want to discuss what you think certain companies ought or ought not to do, that’s fine. The problem is the government stepping in.
At any rate, from what I can gather, the banned users seem to run the gamut from admitted or obvious trolls and spammers trying to push the limits to the relatively innocuous. (I have heard claims that some of those banned were harassing and/or threatening, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that, though I believe that it’s statistically likely.) Just like on Twitter and Reddit. That was actually the point, as Parler claimed that they would only ban illegal speech or speech that goes against FCC guidance, and even some of the trolls who got banned did nothing outside these stated boundaries. They had also condemned Twitter for banning trolls and said that they wouldn’t do the same. The point was not to condemn Parler’s moderation policies at all; it was to demonstrate their hypocrisy and inability to stick to their advertised claims about their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This conversation does indacte a marketable need.
Our popular social media services (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) could use some competing services that adhere to a total transparency policy, so that when any use requires a moderation action, the user and public are informed exactly why the moderation action was taken, down to the statement-in-violation expressed or inferred, or the category of restricted media.
The TechDirt system (which seems to use a combination of community flags and a logical set of rules that delay a post for human moderation) seems to be a good start.
Would such a service be feasible? Is it too much work for explicit transparency? Are there disclosure problems that forbid explicit transparency? Would it be too easy to bypass all the rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now I brought them here.
Amazon has filed a response (pdf) to the Parler suit noting over a hundred posts of incitement and intended violence that were not removed by Parler in a timely manner, fueling the compulsion for AWS to act.
And I brought the examples here for your edification, if anyone wants to argue any of these are appropriate political discourse for a public setting (editing theirs):
-~-~- -~-~- -~-~-
Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates #chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and you will know it.
#JackDorsey ... you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Suckerturd [Zuckerberg].... It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember the photographs inside your home while you slept? Yes, that close. You will die a sudden death!
We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets.
On January 20th we need to start systematicly [sic] assassinating [sic] #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of the #nba #nfl #mlb #nhl #mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents and #antifa. I already have a news worthy event planned.
Shoot the police that protect these shitbag senators right in the head then make the senator grovel a bit before capping they ass.
After the firing squads are done with the politicians the teachers are next.
Death to @zuckerberg @realjeffbezos @jackdorsey @pichai.
White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death like a hurricane upon zionists.
Put a target on these motherless trash [Antifa] they aren’t human taking one out would be like stepping on a roach no different.
We need to act like our forefathers did Kill [Black and Jewish people] all Leave no victims or survivors.
We are coming with our list we know where you live we know who you are and we are coming for you and it starts on the 6th civil war... Lol if you will think it’s a joke... Enjoy your last few days you have.
This bitch [Stacey Abrams] will be good target practice for our beginners.
This cu** [United States Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao] should be... hung for betraying their country.
Hang this mofo [Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger] today.
HANG THAt N***** ASAP
-~-~- -~-~- -~-~-
This level of edginess is typical for designated hate threads on /b and it's terrifying there are so many people desperate for it that /b isn't enough of a platform for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly free speech as defined by big tech. has be stifle. If it doesn't bother you that's OK. Will be in your neighborhood soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Want to try again in full English sentences that make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First off, I don’t think “Big Tech” defines “free speech” the way you think they do. Second, Big Tech can’t control speech outside their platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks"
According to the Court, speech can be proscribed if it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action.”
I suspect Parler was enforcing the 1st amendment as the Supreme Court has dictated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lol. No, "screwing with MAGA folks" does not come even remotely close to the Brandenburg standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Parler was moderating incitement"
Quite the opposite, according to AWS' report in the current court case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BANNED?
JERKS go out and troll other people, without contributing anything, they have no skin in the fight. if you are a JERK, you deserve to be banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BANNED?
I think we’re in agreement on that. No one appears to be disputing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BANNED?
JERKS go out and troll other people, without contributing anything, they have no skin in the fight. if you are a JERK, you deserve to be banned.
Yup. Everyone agrees. The problem is that when Twitter banned the jerks who were trolling on Twitter, you and your friends flipped out about "anti-conservative bias" leading them to go to Parler, where they insisted the same behavior would not happen.
This whole post is to show that it does.
General lesson: don't be a jerk. You should try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Maxine Waters hate spew she and other leftist were inciting violence against conservatives. Never taken down same with other leftist comments. Why do all of you leftist thinkers never take those things into consideration? Huh???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We’ve seen the same thing happen with conservative incitement of violence. What’s your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well this didn't age well:
"So, I have nothing against Parler existing. In fact, I think it's an excellent demonstration of why the concerns about "dominance" by Twitter or other platforms is silly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well this didn't age well:
I fail to see the issue. It’s just as true now as it was then, and it was true then as well, so… what do you mean it hasn’t aged well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies, lies, lies
Round and round we go! Yet another “fake news” article! Twitter DOES censor conservatives and you know it! It’s so obvious. Y’all are liars!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies, lies, lies
Private companies don’t “censor” by removing or deleting content or suspending or banning users from their platforms any more than a bar is censoring when they kick someone out for their speech. Therefore, Twitter isn’t censoring anybody at all, let alone conservatives.
There is no evidence that Twitter removes, deletes, suspends, or bans content from or accounts of conservatives more than liberals either in terms of raw numbers or in proportion, that such actions are taken against conservatives because they are conservative or express conservative ideas, or that equivalent behavior is more likely to be punished or punished more harshly by Twitter when done by conservatives than when done by liberals. As such, there is no reason to believe that conservatives are being treated unfairly by Twitter regarding its moderation efforts when compared to liberals. If anything, the opposite appears more likely to be true.
If you have a problem with any of those assertions or ideas, please present actual evidence that disprove them. We don’t really accept claims without evidence as good arguments, and we certainly don’t accept “you know it” or “it’s so obvious” as good arguments without more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this article needs to be fact checked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think this article needs to be fact checked.
It has been. It's true. The old CEO admitted it in an interview with Forbes, and the new CEO has also said that they will be banning people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People lie
So a bunch of people on Twitter claim they were banned on Parler and we buy it hook, line, and sinker. They're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People lie
No, they're not. Parler confirmed that the company did this. You seem to have bought a false line "hook, line, and sinker."
Why are people showing up now months later and lying about this story? It's so weird. It's disappointing that you can't understand reality, but don't take it out on us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People lie
I don’t get it either. Hopefully it won’t get as bad as that article about anti-vaxxers. That one still had new comments over a year later, if I recall correctly, and reached into the thousands well before then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respectable lawyers tweet
So you went on Parler specifically to harass people and are surprised you got banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Respectable lawyers tweet
No one’s all that surprised. This is exactly what all of us expected to happen. That’s kinda the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is a joke
parlor was formed because of the censorship and bullying supplied by the current platforms
that bullying and harassment followed them, and this article is nothing more than some harrassment starter, calling foul because they're not in control of abusing others there.
these childish manipulation style articles are an insult to humanity and really the whole lot of ya'll are just slowing down the sum of what we could all be.
reading this article gave me cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this is a joke
No one’s crying foul. We all agree that Parler has every right to do what it’s doing, and we aren’t saying that Parler is necessarily unjustified in doing what it’s doing.
All TD is doing is just pointing out that Parler isn’t just removing illegal, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful and unprotected content and leaving up any content that is protected by the 1A that doesn’t violate FTC or FCC guidelines like it claimed it would, and that it is effectively doing what every platform that accepts user-made content does: do some actual moderation beyond what the law suggests ought to be done.
Also, liberals get harassed and bullied on Twitter at least as much as conservatives, and the moderation on Twitter and Facebook has not been shown to target conservatives on their platforms for being conservative or sharing conservative ideas or treating conservatives on their platforms worse than liberals. If anything, it’s the opposite.
Finally, moderation is not censorship, bullying, or harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then stick with YOUR echo chambers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then stick with YOUR echo chambers
We’re not complaining or crying about anything. We’re laughing or rolling our eyes, but we’re not complaining. Parler can do whatever it wants with user-made content on its platform. It can remove what it likes and leave up what it likes. As long as it complies with the DMCA and bans on child porn and doesn’t do anything unlawful, Parler can do whatever it likes as far as I’m concerned.
And I doubt Facebook or Twitter care that much, either, especially since most people on Parler were either banned or suspended from their respective platforms, anyways, or still maintain any Twitter or Facebook accounts they already had. But even aside from that, Twitter and Facebook’s respective users far outnumber Parler’s, and most of the revenue they receive come from advertisers rather than users, so Parler doesn’t really present a significant issue for them.
Also, I, personally, rarely use Twitter and almost never use Facebook, so I don’t really care what you think of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]