martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,096
- 34,387
marty, it's called a monoploy, and isn't allowed in the US. see they don't like our country.
Parler CEO says app will be offline 'longer than expected' because of Amazon, Apple and Google
Parler, a social media app popular with conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump, has gone offline.www.cnbc.com
"Parler has gone offline after Amazon withdrew its support in the wake of the deadly U.S. Capitol riot last week. The app was reliant on cloud computing power provided by Amazon Web Services. John Matze, the founder and CEO, said in a statement on Monday that the Parler app will be down “longer than expected” because other cloud hosting companies do not want to work with Parler in light of the press statements issued by Amazon, Google and Apple."
What these big tech companies are doing is outrageous -- it is flat out socialism communism fascism Orwellian government censorship.....Why didn't the radical leftist Democrats who control big Tech just allow the free markets to decide -- instead of having people like Biden and Pelosi decide who Twitter or Facebook can or can't have on their platform - why didn't they just allow the free market to decide?? -- That is the problem when you have big government get involved with what private businesses can or can't do -- you get communism....
This shouldn't be a left or right issue (except that the right should be able to dictate what the left does or can't do) --- this should be a bipartisan issue -- we should allow free markets to have control over social media, not big government -- and the best way to do that is to nationalize Facebook and Twitter and declare them public commodities and let Trump and others he appoints decide who and who can't have access -- we should also break up Google and Amazon because these corporations have been too successful at gaining a near monopoly -- and breaking up monopolies is totally a function of a free market....In fact, we wouldn't have all of these large media, pharma and agricultural corporate conglomerates if we just allowed free markets to decide...Just think how much better something like healthcare would be if we just nationalized it and declared it a public commodity like the free market demands...
Translation:
“We told you so, we degenerate beggars have been telling you for years; let Father Government take the reigns and decide for us.”
You understand that each of those companies made their own decisions, don't you?
So you are ok with every single hosting company denying them the ability to have a website?
Sounds kinda like not wanting to bake a cake to me. How is this different?
Because if all the bakers in an area decided to not provide the cakes, then it would be an issue, and I would have an issue with it, just as I would have an issue if they denied over the counter point of sale products.
In this case you have a far more limited service, controlled by a few companies. If most of them deny these people access, they are denying them the ability to enter what has become a form of the commons where political ideas are broadcast and debated.
Got it. You only believe in the principal of a business making it's own decisions when it favors religious nuts. We already knew that. Nothing is stopping some crazy right wing hosting site from scooping up that business. Perhaps Stormfront.
No, I believe in free exercise absent a compelling government interest. If the bakers all ganged up and denied a wedding cake to a gay couple, the government has an interest. If the baker denied a non specific, point of sale item to a gay person, to me the government has an interest. In the one specific case of a contracted service like a wedding cake, that celebrates an event the baker in question finds sinful, free exercise wins out over the government's interest in commerce.
In the case of Parler, if they can't find a host due to all the hosts deciding not to work with them, then the government has a compelling interest in stopping it due to the limiting of their right to expression.
If all the providers deny them hosting, then it could also be a conspiracy or a racket.
A conspiracy to what end? More customers that don't want to participate with treasonous right wingers?
How is being hosted on the same platform "participating" with others on the platform?
Is the phone company participating in phone sex when two people talk dirty to each other over a phone call? Is the person who's call is being transmitted over the same fiber a participant?
How is baking a cake participating in a ceremony?
It's providing a specific good representing the specific ceremony and that ceremony is something said people find sinful and against their religion. providing is participating as the good is specifically contracted for said ceremony or post ceremony celebration.
Now if they just took a cake off the shelf and used it at the ceremony, that wouldn't apply.
Oh shut up. You're wrong, and we both know it.
No, I am not. I am setting the line between the right of a person to free exercise, vs. the right of a person to commerce.
You choose to ignore free exercise entirely because you hate religious people.
Just like you support deplatforming any non progressive because you hate them,
Trying to be slick about it isn't working.
Exercise your rights all you want. Just don't expect everybody to bow to your wishes. It don't work that way.
This is trying to deny people the ability to exercise their rights in the current manner they can be exercised.
it's no different then banning people from the public square.
