Parler CEO Says Parler May Be Offline Longer Than Expected -- Why Didn't We Let The Free Market Decide???

[dblack]

Sorry, but a wedding cake isn't a nessasary thing like being able to access the most common form of political discourse.

And being on Twitter is necessary?

Seems we had political discourse for a few hundred years before Twitter.

Social media is where the discussion is happening now. Shutting off half the population from it is no different then a mob keeping them out of the public square.

Public square, my ass. You can't just go around declaring businesses to be public property. We're not a socialist nation, yet.

Sorry you are a analog person in a digital age, maybe you can get in your buggy and take the dirigible to Washington to have your voice heard.

Do you even realize you're parroting all the same arguments offered up by statist liberals whenever they want to expand state power over business?

Anyway, have you been tracking the buzz from Dems in Congress? They're right there with you - eager to sink their regulatory teeth into social(ist) media. You're going to get your way, and freedom will suffer for your efforts.

And if you get your way you get to be 3 places ahead in line into the camps.

I'm not arguing for authoritarian state control of social media. YOU are.

Regulation of a utility, nothing more or less.

Sure, sure. Just a little "regulation". A utility! A monopoly! Public accommodation... all the same angles, all the same excuses and all the same conceits.

If you can beat them, and instead you join them. You ARE them.

You didn't answer my question about power companies.

Because I don't accept your excuse that websites are like power companies. They're not public utilities. That's just an excuse you are leaning on because you want to control them. Just like every fucking liberal who wants to co-opt the power of private wealth with government. You are honestly up against the same wall they are. In a free market, private wealth has more power to control society than government. That's the fact that liberals just can't accept. It gnaws at them and disrupts their fantasy that they can use the government to control their neighbors.

Enjoy your hole in the gulag, you absolutist asshole.

You think teaming up with them will keep you out of the gulag? Think again.

 

[martybegan]

You didn't answer my question about power companies.

Power companies are natural monopolies. People can only really access one power company due to the physical limitations and cost of running redundant infrastructure. There cannot be a natural monopoly on the internet. It’s literally the opposite set of circumstances since your access to websites is not limited by ISPs.

Discourse only works if all sides are allowed equal access. If people are going to use social media as the major way to express views, and people watching those views and accessing those views assume social media positions extrapolate to the body politic, then artificially limiting one side's views skews the perception of dominance to the other side.

 

[martybegan]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure, sure. Just a little "regulation". A utility! A monopoly! Public accommodation... all the same angles, all the same excuses and all the same conceits.

Before these issues get confused, there very well could be anti-competitive and illegal actions on the part of social media companies. In fact, given the cutthroat nature of the business I’d be be a little surprised if there weren’t.

But that has nothing to do with kicking nutters off their platform.

 

[martybegan]

Sorry, but a wedding cake isn't a nessasary thing like being able to access the most common form of political discourse.

And being on Twitter is necessary?

Seems we had political discourse for a few hundred years before Twitter.

Social media is where the discussion is happening now. Shutting off half the population from it is no different then a mob keeping them out of the public square.

Public square, my ass. You can't just go around declaring businesses to be public property. We're not a socialist nation, yet.

Sorry you are a analog person in a digital age, maybe you can get in your buggy and take the dirigible to Washington to have your voice heard.

Do you even realize you're parroting all the same arguments offered up by statist liberals whenever they want to expand state power over business?

Anyway, have you been tracking the buzz from Dems in Congress? They're right there with you - eager to sink their regulatory teeth into social(ist) media. You're going to get your way, and freedom will suffer for your efforts.

And if you get your way you get to be 3 places ahead in line into the camps.

I'm not arguing for authoritarian state control of social media. YOU are.

Regulation of a utility, nothing more or less.

Sure, sure. Just a little "regulation". A utility! A monopoly! Public accommodation... all the same angles, all the same excuses and all the same conceits.

If you can beat them, and instead you join them. You ARE them.

You didn't answer my question about power companies.

Because I don't accept your excuse that websites are like power companies. They're not public utilities. That's just an excuse you are leaning on because you want to control them. Just like every fucking liberal who wants to co-opt the power of private wealth with government. You are honestly up against the same wall they are. In a free market, private wealth has more power to control society than government. That's the fact that liberals just can't accept. It gnaws at them and disrupts their fantasy that they can use the government to control their neighbors.

Enjoy your hole in the gulag, you absolutist asshole.

You think teaming up with them will keep you out of the gulag? Think again.

Fighting them might keep us all out of the gulag.

This is fighting them using existing tools, nothing more. the FCC has regulatory power based on the bandwidths used by the companies in question.

 

[colfax_m]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

Nope. But QAnon has now become a conspiracy theory that has demonstrable danger to society.

None of you guys complained when they kicked off Holocaust deniers.

If people who say we didn’t land on the moon were rioting they’d be kicked off too.

 

[colfax_m]

You didn't answer my question about power companies.

Power companies are natural monopolies. People can only really access one power company due to the physical limitations and cost of running redundant infrastructure. There cannot be a natural monopoly on the internet. It’s literally the opposite set of circumstances since your access to websites is not limited by ISPs.

Discourse only works if all sides are allowed equal access. If people are going to use social media as the major way to express views, and people watching those views and accessing those views assume social media positions extrapolate to the body politic, then artificially limiting one side's views skews the perception of dominance to the other side.

There never has been equal access to public platforms. Life isn’t fair.

You want to be heard, there’s many places you can go including setting up your own platform on the internet.

 

[martybegan]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

Nope. But QAnon has now become a conspiracy theory that has demonstrable danger to society.

None of you guys complained when they kicked off Holocaust deniers.

If people who say we didn’t land on the moon were rioting they’d be kicked off too.

"demonstrable danger to society", the excuse of all tyrants to squash something they don't like.

Actually I do disagree with kicking them off, they should be able to spout their idiocy for all to see.

Again, All Qanon people are rioting?

As I said in another post, since BLM groups rioted back in the summer, should we Ban the NAACP as well just to be safe?

 

[martybegan]

You didn't answer my question about power companies.

Power companies are natural monopolies. People can only really access one power company due to the physical limitations and cost of running redundant infrastructure. There cannot be a natural monopoly on the internet. It’s literally the opposite set of circumstances since your access to websites is not limited by ISPs.

Discourse only works if all sides are allowed equal access. If people are going to use social media as the major way to express views, and people watching those views and accessing those views assume social media positions extrapolate to the body politic, then artificially limiting one side's views skews the perception of dominance to the other side.

There never has been equal access to public platforms. Life isn’t fair.

You want to be heard, there’s many places you can go including setting up your own platform on the internet.

Which Parler did, and was shut down for it.

What you want is a one sided Social media, so you can point to the filtered content and say "Hey, everyone agrees with MEEEEEEE, so position X is unpopular and thus stupid"

 

[colfax_m]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

Nope. But QAnon has now become a conspiracy theory that has demonstrable danger to society.

None of you guys complained when they kicked off Holocaust deniers.

If people who say we didn’t land on the moon were rioting they’d be kicked off too.

"demonstrable danger to society", the excuse of all tyrants to squash something they don't like.

Actually I do disagree with kicking them off, they should be able to spout their idiocy for all to see.

Again, All Qanon people are rioting?

As I said in another post, since BLM groups rioted back in the summer, should we Ban the NAACP as well just to be safe?

It isn’t a tyrant that’s squashing anything, just a company deciding that they have no intention on facilitating a dangerous conspiracy theory.

The fact that you have a problem with this demonstrates how delusional you are.

Are you denying that there are many places on the internet one can engage with QAnon?

 

[martybegan]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

Nope. But QAnon has now become a conspiracy theory that has demonstrable danger to society.

None of you guys complained when they kicked off Holocaust deniers.

If people who say we didn’t land on the moon were rioting they’d be kicked off too.

"demonstrable danger to society", the excuse of all tyrants to squash something they don't like.

Actually I do disagree with kicking them off, they should be able to spout their idiocy for all to see.

Again, All Qanon people are rioting?

As I said in another post, since BLM groups rioted back in the summer, should we Ban the NAACP as well just to be safe?

It isn’t a tyrant that’s squashing anything, just a company deciding that they have no intention on facilitating a dangerous conspiracy theory.

The fact that you have a problem with this demonstrates how delusional you are.

Are you denying that there are many places on the internet one can engage with QAnon?

The fact I have a problem with this shows I believe in free speech, even when the speech is idiotic.

The issue is by de platforming a viewpoint from the biggest platforms, it gives the illusion that only the opposite opinion exists, which is of course what leftist cucks like you want.

 

[colfax_m]

Which Parler did, and was shut down for it.

They signed a contract with Amazon that they broke. Amazon gave them plenty of opportunity and warning to come into compliance but it never happened.

If Parler didn’t want to be bound by a contract they wouldn’t honor, they should have built their own servers which no one is preventing them from doing.

 

[colfax_m]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

Nope. But QAnon has now become a conspiracy theory that has demonstrable danger to society.

None of you guys complained when they kicked off Holocaust deniers.

If people who say we didn’t land on the moon were rioting they’d be kicked off too.

"demonstrable danger to society", the excuse of all tyrants to squash something they don't like.

Actually I do disagree with kicking them off, they should be able to spout their idiocy for all to see.

Again, All Qanon people are rioting?

As I said in another post, since BLM groups rioted back in the summer, should we Ban the NAACP as well just to be safe?

It isn’t a tyrant that’s squashing anything, just a company deciding that they have no intention on facilitating a dangerous conspiracy theory.

The fact that you have a problem with this demonstrates how delusional you are.

Are you denying that there are many places on the internet one can engage with QAnon?

The fact I have a problem with this shows I believe in free speech, even when the speech is idiotic.

The issue is by de platforming a viewpoint from the biggest platforms, it gives the illusion that only the opposite opinion exists, which is of course what leftist cucks like you want.

Twitter has freedom too, but you don’t seem interested in that. Your freedom of speech ends where Twitters freedom of speech and association starts.

You think Twitter kicks off all conservatives or just the fringe nutters like QAnon?

Here’s the secret. You don’t want freedom of speech, if you were only interested in being able to speak, you’d acknowledge there are many places that you can speak on the internet.

No. The real thing you want is an audience. That’s why Twitter is so important, because you want to speak to the biggest audience.

You can speak, but you don’t have a right to an audience.

 

[martybegan]

Which Parler did, and was shut down for it.

They signed a contract with Amazon that they broke. Amazon gave them plenty of opportunity and warning to come into compliance but it never happened.

If Parler didn’t want to be bound by a contract they wouldn’t honor, they should have built their own servers which no one is preventing them from doing.

I'm sure plenty of sites hosted by Amazon break their terms, but since Parler is the debbil they get singled out.

Get your own servers, then the server companies won't sell to them, then the access companies won't take them on as a client, then the banks won't loan them the money, it just goes on and on until they give up or they run out of options.

Amazon servers host midget scat fisting porn, but Qanon theories are taboo?

 

[martybegan]

It's not just violence being banned, it's saying the election was stolen, or posting Qanon stuff. So that is "violence" now?

Are you denying that QAnon wasn’t driving the Capitol Hill riot?

So every single person who is into QAnon was at the protest and actually went inside the captiol?

Nope. But QAnon has now become a conspiracy theory that has demonstrable danger to society.

None of you guys complained when they kicked off Holocaust deniers.

If people who say we didn’t land on the moon were rioting they’d be kicked off too.

"demonstrable danger to society", the excuse of all tyrants to squash something they don't like.

Actually I do disagree with kicking them off, they should be able to spout their idiocy for all to see.

Again, All Qanon people are rioting?

As I said in another post, since BLM groups rioted back in the summer, should we Ban the NAACP as well just to be safe?

It isn’t a tyrant that’s squashing anything, just a company deciding that they have no intention on facilitating a dangerous conspiracy theory.

The fact that you have a problem with this demonstrates how delusional you are.

Are you denying that there are many places on the internet one can engage with QAnon?

The fact I have a problem with this shows I believe in free speech, even when the speech is idiotic.

The issue is by de platforming a viewpoint from the biggest platforms, it gives the illusion that only the opposite opinion exists, which is of course what leftist cucks like you want.

Twitter has freedom too, but you don’t seem interested in that. Your freedom of speech ends where Twitters freedom of speech and association starts.

You think Twitter kicks off all conservatives or just the fringe nutters like QAnon?

Here’s the secret. You don’t want freedom of speech, if you were only interested in being able to speak, you’d acknowledge there are many places that you can speak on the internet.

No. The real thing you want is an audience. That’s why Twitter is so important, because you want to speak to the biggest audience.

You can speak, but you don’t have a right to an audience.

And what you want to do is deny opposing viewpoints an audience, that makes you the bad guy.

It's amazing that you want companies like twitter and facebook to decide who gets the audience and who doesn't.

Actually it's not amazing, because they are doing your dirty work for you and you get to pretend your hands are clean.

That makes you a censor and a gutless one at that.

 

[colfax_m]

Which Parler did, and was shut down for it.

They signed a contract with Amazon that they broke. Amazon gave them plenty of opportunity and warning to come into compliance but it never happened.

If Parler didn’t want to be bound by a contract they wouldn’t honor, they should have built their own servers which no one is preventing them from doing.

I'm sure plenty of sites hosted by Amazon break their terms, but since Parler is the debbil they get singled out.

Get your own servers, then the server companies won't sell to them, then the access companies won't take them on as a client, then the banks won't loan them the money, it just goes on and on until they give up or they run out of options.

Amazon servers host midget scat fisting porn, but Qanon theories are taboo?

“Other people get away with it” isn’t an argument that stands up in any court of law and moreover you’re making a statement you have no way of actually knowing if it’s true, you’re just making shit up to suit your beliefs.

Call me when they can’t buy hardware of can’t get internet access.

As for banks not lending them money, Jesus, how pathetic could you be? You are now inventing a right to LITERALLY other people’s money for your political purposes.

 

[martybegan]

Which Parler did, and was shut down for it.

They signed a contract with Amazon that they broke. Amazon gave them plenty of opportunity and warning to come into compliance but it never happened.

If Parler didn’t want to be bound by a contract they wouldn’t honor, they should have built their own servers which no one is preventing them from doing.

I'm sure plenty of sites hosted by Amazon break their terms, but since Parler is the debbil they get singled out.

Get your own servers, then the server companies won't sell to them, then the access companies won't take them on as a client, then the banks won't loan them the money, it just goes on and on until they give up or they run out of options.

Amazon servers host midget scat fisting porn, but Qanon theories are taboo?

“Other people get away with it” isn’t an argument that stands up in any court of law and moreover you’re making a statement you have no way of actually knowing if it’s true, you’re just making shit up to suit your beliefs.

Call me when they can’t buy hardware of can’t get internet access.

As for banks not lending them money, Jesus, how pathetic could you be? You are now inventing a right to LITERALLY other people’s money for your political purposes.

How about not letting them open an account? or credit card companies denying them access for sales?

When they can't buy hardware it will be to late, this shit has to stop now.

 

[colfax_m]

How about not letting them open an account? or credit card companies denying them access for sales?

Would you do business with a platform where people openly and vocally call for violence with no repercussions?

 

[martybegan]

How about not letting them open an account? or credit card companies denying them access for sales?

Would you do business with a platform where people openly and vocally call for violence with no repercussions?

People plan murder over facebook via groups, stop facebook?

And it's gone from banning the people who call for violence to banning anyone who supports the same views as the people calling for violence, but only for right wing views.

 

[colfax_m]

People plan murder over facebook via groups, stop facebook?

The difference is that Facebook attempts to moderate and take that stuff down when they find it.

Parler doesn’t. It very vocally advertises that it doesn’t. That’s why it exists in the first place. For people that were kicked off other platforms.