Strava goes political. What are your thoughts? Should I delete the App?

And more votes than Washington and Lincoln combined!

Cool. Since you are good at math you also know that Obama served 2 terms which equal 8 years in office while Trump served 1 term equaling 4 years in comparison.

Did they speak out against violence done in the name of left-wing political causes? Not a rhetorical question; I don't follow Strava so I don't know. If they did, then kudos to them for at least being consistent. If they didn't, then please get off the soap box. I don't look to running-related social media to be my moral compass.

azsxdcf wrote:

This is your daily reminder that Trump got more votes than Obama.

I heard he got more than Moses, Gandhi, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, too.

trollism wrote:

Paradoxical wrote:

Wow, seems like I hit a nerve there. Maybe crawl back into your safe space if the internet comments are too offensive for you.

You weren't offensive.

Just whiny.

It's weird to complain about whinyness whilst being very whiny yourself.

Just saying.

You know what else is weird? Complaining about someone complaining about whinyness whilst being very whiny themselves whilst being very whiny yourself.

it's all about emphasis, and bias. eg you de-emphasized the nature of the protest in dc and chose to omit the impetus to the summer protests ensuing from the brutality and murder of black people by police. conspiracies aside, there was never evidence that could prove the election had been stolen, but there was evidence to the latter in the form of corpses

Not so. The president of the US was subjected to censor while the Ayatollah has been allowed to keep his.

Out of 5000 on FB, I'm pretty split on Americans vs liberals. Not once has a lib ever been subjected to "Facebook jail" while several conservatives have.

Facebook, Twitter, etc. all were given special protections in becoming the global platform they are but have now used that monopoly to censor conservative speech. There is no other equal to go to. Look what they did to Parlor.

Let's talk apples to apples more. The baker in CO was targeted because the couple were a PRIVATE Christian-owned bakery. When they declined to make a cake for a gay wedding, they became the target of every liberal group and media outlet to ruin them. Unlike Facebook, etc. there were hundreds of other bakeries to choose. They weren't a monopoly.

As far as companies who choose celebs who endorses them, it is the conservatives who speak for their cause who gets dropped and a fat vulgar Christie Teigen (sic) gets rewarded with endorsements.

Problem is, many of you are not informed as the media refuses to cover it. I was debating an Ivy League educated about the corruption of Hillary Clinton and brought up the fake FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. He had no idea what I was talking about

It's funny that liberals (most are athiests/agnostic) argue and debate everything about religion, God, faith while trying to appear "elite and learned", never question the news they are fed daily by a liberal willing media who appease the democrat party. So much for "elite and learned".

Urine Idiot wrote:

Facebook, Twitter, etc. all were given special protections in becoming the global platform they are but have now used that monopoly to censor conservative speech. There is no other equal to go to. Look what they did to Parlor.

There are no special protections. Section 230 applies to anyone on the internet. Section 230 encourages platforms to moderate content. It was written to give Twitter and anyone else the freedom to do exactly what they are doing.

Nobody understands Section 230 and thinks that Twitter, etc are breaking rules when, in fact, they are doing exactly what the law intended.

There are plenty of equal sites to go discuss conservative views. If a viewpoint is so fringe that it cannot support it's own community for discussion (self hosting, etc) then why do we care so much? This argument falls flat.

Again, you want governments to compel speech -- you are a leftist.

Paradoxical wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I mean you literally

1) Complained about not being able to make comments on the internet b/c of cancel culture

2) Told someone to log off if they couldn't handle your offensive comments

in the span of two posts! Direct contradiction! You even quoted so you could see that as you were writing!

Calling you a random phrase generator would be a charitable interpretation of the though process that went into your above responses.

Your reading comprehension has failed you. I never complained about not being able to make comments on the internet. The cancel culture I was referring to was businesses kowtowing to leftists for fear of being cancelled.

Cancelling = not being able to make comments on the internet b/c of fear of repercussions.

Odd that you cannot see the parallels, but free speech is alive an well clearly.

Why are we upset that business must cater to their customers to make money? Clearly the far-righters aren't a big enough spending bloc to justify catering to. Yawn. Make more money?

Harambe, your arguments always seem to rely on a ridiculous strawman. I have never heard a conservative say that conservatives have a right to be paid by Big Tech, only that is dangerous for companies that control the entire flow of today's information silencing political dissidents. People like you seem to believe that this is perfectly fine because they're "private companies" (really, it is just because they are silencing people you don't like, but I will play along) even though companies like Facebook, Google, Apple receive billions in corporate welfare.

+1

The members of the Left on this website simply can't keep up.

NERunner53 wrote:

Nice common sense post. Black protesters are met with violence. White domestic terrorists get to roam the halls of the Capitol. It's not a revelation to recognize disparate treatment in America, something that has always existed by gender and race.

But yea, you should go ahead and delete Strava if this has you in a tizzy. No need to announce it, just go.

What you wrote is at odds with reality. Were any black rioters over the summer shot by the police? Not to my knowledge and instead, many of the police kneeled down to show support for rioters over the summer.

During the Capital riot, an unarmed white woman was shot point blank by a black police officer in the Capital building.

If a given Strava user does not like the statement, they should delete the app and stick their head back up their spectacularly ignorant @$$

Paradoxical wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I mean you literally

1) Complained about not being able to make comments on the internet b/c of cancel culture

2) Told someone to log off if they couldn't handle your offensive comments

in the span of two posts! Direct contradiction! You even quoted so you could see that as you were writing!

Calling you a random phrase generator would be a charitable interpretation of the though process that went into your above responses.

Your reading comprehension has failed you. I never complained about not being able to make comments on the internet. The cancel culture I was referring to was businesses kowtowing to leftists for fear of being cancelled.

It is not the reader’s comprehension that causes confusion in this case. If you write using only vague buzzwords and phrases without any content, no one will comprehend if there is a pint you are trying to make.

I look forward to many years of hearing what about the BLM protests. It is such an easy way to divert attention from the storming of the capital.

As if anything that happened at any other riot somehow excuses what happened on the 6th.

Paradoxical wrote:

Harambe, your arguments always seem to rely on a ridiculous strawman. I have never heard a conservative say that conservatives have a right to be paid by Big Tech, only that is dangerous for companies that control the entire flow of today's information silencing political dissidents. People like you seem to believe that this is perfectly fine because they're "private companies" (really, it is just because they are silencing people you don't like, but I will play along) even though companies like Facebook, Google, Apple receive billions in corporate welfare.

If you want to re-write laws such that any companies accepting "corporate welfare" must abide by the bill of rights as if they were a state entity... then go ahead and lobby for that? That is clearly not the interpretation of the laws as they stand though.

It is also hilarious that you say these companies control "the entire flow of today's information" as you post about them on this website. There are countless alternatives to the big tech giants for hosting/anything you may need.

There are plenty of alternative networks like Gab, Parler 2.0, LRC (lol), that allow a wide range of content. Is your argument that this it is unfair that these sites aren't popular? Doesn't that have more to say about the popularity of the views expressed on those platforms?

A lot of this anger seems to stem from the fact that far-right views simply aren't popular. The market has relegated them to small parts of the internet because.... people just don't care!

Jumping in here. Because you're conflating a lot of separate issues to make yourself feel victimized. 1) You never really respond to the idea that people globally have access to 100X? 1000X? more viewpoints than they used to - all through the internet. Big legacy media doesn't have the stranglehold on information/news/editorialization that they used to. This is an important point that you need to address! Just because some big social media companies are enforcing stricter moderation does not mean viewpoint exposure/accessibility, as a whole, is worse that it was 5,10,20 years ago. Like Harambe said, when tens of millions watch Newsmax and OANN from their homes... the status quo seems to be amplifying more far-right viewpoints than ever before! 2) "The right to be paid by X company" is clearly in reference to sponsors dropping conservative programs, social media companies demonetizing, etc - you know the stuff you said "This 100X" to. At the end of the day the big social media companies have done the math and see that distancing themselves from that end of the spectrum makes them more $$$ than embracing or allowing it. Perhaps some unified action or boycott could convince them otherwise - it's worked before. 3) Harambe never says he agrees with the philosophical justification for banning these people or viewpoints (I know this because I've been in many of these discussions with him) - just that it is legal. I would argue it is a bad path to go down for these companies. Users will want clear guidelines for what is allowable/not on every specific platform. Changing the rules, especially with seemingly political motives, does not inspire confidence in the leadership of these companies. However - it is entirely their right to set moderation standards - I can only hope in long run American business but more faith in ideas of free discourse that have enabled this country to be so remarkably stable and prosperous.

How is this political

I'm a man, I'm 40 wrote:

Strava is easy to ditch. If you have a pair and disagree politically you should delete too.

If you had a pair you wouldn't have been on Strava in the first place.