Parler, free speech website, taken down from the web

No. Science will tell you if he is or is not. You won't listen otherwise.

josiahi l Williams wrote:

george c wrote:

But much fewer of us. Among other things this trump-era will convey is the push for people to move heavily left or right or be left behind. I hope not, but fear this.

I said "us" because doesn't 90% of the people consider themselves moderate? I considered myself a left-leaning R. Since this disaster the past 4 years I am firmly D hoping for the party to rid itself of the stink or a third party alternative.

The polarization occurred under Obama's reign. Don't kid yourself and I voted for him in 2012.

If you saw the same level of polarization in 2012 and prior, we live in such dissimilar situations that there is no reason to compare.

george c wrote:

josiahi l Williams wrote:

The polarization occurred under Obama's reign. Don't kid yourself and I voted for him in 2012.

If you saw the same level of polarization in 2012 and prior, we live in such dissimilar situations that there is no reason to compare.

Who led the "birther" movement by lying about Obama being a Muslem born in Kenya? Our divider in chief has been at it for years.

coach wrote:

Who led the "birther" movement by lying about Obama being a Muslem born in Kenya? Our divider in chief has been at it for years.

Great point, but for me it was not near the level as today.

Orange you glad fat boy can’t use this?

Joe Biden and others (I can't say exactly which ones because this is happening behind the scenes, but that isn't relevant) I thought that was obvious at this point.

Follow the f*cking money it really isn't that hard.

My point is - even if it is technically legal (for now) for Big Tech monopolies to censor political speech - why, and why only towards one side if not for corrupt purposes. And even more confusion, WHY are people okay, if not fully encouraging it?

How did they do it? They banned the president of the united states and other dissidents from every social media platform and then tried to remove other platforms from existence. This really isn't that hard to follow.

Paradoxical wrote:

Joe Biden and others (I can't say exactly which ones because this is happening behind the scenes, but that isn't relevant) I thought that was obvious at this point.

Follow the f*cking money it really isn't that hard.

My point is - even if it is technically legal (for now) for Big Tech monopolies to censor political speech - why, and why only towards one side if not for corrupt purposes. And even more confusion, WHY are people okay, if not fully encouraging it?

How did they do it? They banned the president of the united states and other dissidents from every social media platform and then tried to remove other platforms from existence. This really isn't that hard to follow.

Why do it now... if they've had the power to do so for years?

Maybe because... he really did incite mob violence!?

coach wrote:

Who led the "birther" movement by lying about Obama being a Muslem born in Kenya? Our divider in chief has been at it for years.

Obama started the Birther movement when he said he was born in Kenya in his Harvard bio.

DiscoGary wrote:

coach wrote:

Who led the "birther" movement by lying about Obama being a Muslem born in Kenya? Our divider in chief has been at it for years.

Obama started the Birther movement when he said he was born in Kenya in his Harvard bio.

Of course you're still a birther...

Harambe wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Obama started the Birther movement when he said he was born in Kenya in his Harvard bio.

Of course you're still a birther...

Hey. You’re calling my man Obama a liar! If he says he was born in Kenya then I believe him.

Back on topic. The companies protected by 230 do not have the right to censor their content without losing their 230 protections which would expose them to lawsuits over the content.

The companies colluding to shut down competitors are almost certainly breaking antitrust laws, and maybe racketeering.

Of course there is no functioning justice in this country and Dems certainly won’t hold them accountable.

DiscoGary wrote:

Back on topic. The companies protected by 230 do not have the right to censor their content without losing their 230 protections which would expose them to lawsuits over the content.

The companies colluding to shut down competitors are almost certainly breaking antitrust laws, and maybe racketeering.

Of course there is no functioning justice in this country and Dems certainly won’t hold them accountable.

Section 230 is intended, in part, to allow entities on moderate content on line as much as they desire.

This is a common misconception:

DiscoGary wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Of course you're still a birther...

Hey. You’re calling my man Obama a liar! If he says he was born in Kenya then I believe him.

Wrong.

His literary agent, not Barak, erroneously listed him as such, but retracted it.

This has been well documented and what you said is just plain wrong, not surprisingly.

Source:

Close your Amazon account

Tatar wrote:

Amazon banned/censored/cancelled Parler from its web services platform. Are you SERIOUSLY saying Jeff Bezos is a communist?

Bezos is an anti-capitalist appeaser, acting as his own destroyer. He is right to feel threatened and that the left will come after him if he doesn't.

????

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/man-breached-capitol-fur-hat-004453775.html

Also 2,600

Gina wrote:

????

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/man-breached-capitol-fur-hat-004453775.html

Also 2,600

Just to be clear, the nut job above is who Trump was addressing his remark to later that day when he said ""We love you, you're very special."

Priceless!

Tatar wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Just joined this a few days ago a it is an alternative to Facebook as it does not censor comments.

Tried to get on this AM.

It's gone.

We are full on 1984 now

It's because it uses Amazon Web Services. If they don't want Parler as a customer because extremists use it to organize that's their choice.

If you feel this is harsh, Amazon isn't a democracy and doesn't pretend to be. If you want an alternative - go speak to socialists. They have a few ideas about trying to use government rather than private business for essential infrastructure.

It's funny cause it's true

trollism wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

We are full on 1984 now

Seems very cool at the moment for Trump lovers (you're not kidding anyone) to say '1984' when private businesses make business decisions.

________________________

Being anti-authoritarian and anti-corporate monopoly does not mean that one is a Trump lover. Remember when House Dems pointed out the problem with tech monopolies? (see below)

Another point: one does not have to believe that the election was stolen to defend other people's right to say so publicly--and there's no doubt that tech platforms are the new public square (otherwise, why would it matter if they censor Trump or not). People in a free society have to be able to criticize the government, even if the criticism is illegitimate. Otherwise, we have to cede authority to somebody to decide what is legitimate criticism vs. not. AND...they very ceding of authority over truth to a person or institution is the backbone of authoritarian structures.