Walkaway Banned from Facebook As Apple Threatens Parler

[BlueGin]

Apple isn't interested in pushing white supremacy.

You're an imbecile if you believe walkaway members are white supremacists. Whenever you turds are revealed to be goose stepping hypocrites, you immediately shout "racism." You're the lowest pieces of shit in the ces pool.

The founder is a gay man and two of the main people that travel with him is another gay man and a transgender woman. All three of which were attacked in Dallas by BLM while throwing bigoted slurs at them.
Progressives are the biggest racists around.

 

[Coyote]

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

That's a baldfaced lie.

You cannot in good faith tell me that conservatives dominate anything on social media or media in general. If true, Twitter and Facebook would not have just banned Trump from using their platforms.

I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.

If you think it is a lie, show me the data to prove otherwise.

Dominate as in they are by far the most numerous users.

Trump was banned for his behavior not his political viewpoint.

 

[Norman]

Then explain how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will?

You know, it's not really a matter of free speech anymore. It's about the double standard being practiced on the platforms. Allowing one view while limiting another. Claiming one form of speech to be undesirable while allowing speech you agree with to proliferate, ignoring the possibility it may incite the same violence as the speech you are censoring. If you advertise yourself as a platform that allows the free exchange of speech, actively censoring users of your platform flies against that assertion. It is bad business, it is also false advertising.

Free speech? According to you, there is no such thing.

So no explanation on how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will?

Well that was easy. Now to your next claim:

Double standard.....according to who?

Certainly not Twitter, who is the sole arbiter of its own TOS. Which Trump and everyone who has ever posted there has agreed to.

Can you explain to us how it is possible that socialism grants you access to the use of other people's wallets, properties and businesses.

No one is fooled, no one. The leftists have stood against every right of businesses and now supposedly - are concerned that they should be able to act as they please or it is the end. Again, anything for power, absolutely anything. That is the story of these psychopaths.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then explain how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will?

You know, it's not really a matter of free speech anymore. It's about the double standard being practiced on the platforms. Allowing one view while limiting another. Claiming one form of speech to be undesirable while allowing speech you agree with to proliferate, ignoring the possibility it may incite the same violence as the speech you are censoring. If you advertise yourself as a platform that allows the free exchange of speech, actively censoring users of your platform flies against that assertion. It is bad business, it is also false advertising.

Free speech? According to you, there is no such thing.

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

they're pretty much going after anyone telling them to stop going after them.

i had many friends have twitter ban their accounts. one hadn't posted in 3 weeks. man, wonder what 3rd world country she was after. oregon?

tell them to stop - they come after you.

try it.

I do not and won’t have Twitter (waste of time), but my friend does. I asked her post something decrying censorship 10 minutes ago. She is yet to be banned and it is still up.

She is not a prominent figure in our society, she is only a regular American citizen like you and I. They only go after people they know have influence, whose speech will change or alter viewpoints. Your friend's opinions have no discernible impact on anyone besides you and anyone else she interacts with.

 

[HappyJoy]

Then explain how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will?

You know, it's not really a matter of free speech anymore. It's about the double standard being practiced on the platforms. Allowing one view while limiting another. Claiming one form of speech to be undesirable while allowing speech you agree with to proliferate, ignoring the possibility it may incite the same violence as the speech you are censoring. If you advertise yourself as a platform that allows the free exchange of speech, actively censoring users of your platform flies against that assertion. It is bad business, it is also false advertising.

Free speech? According to you, there is no such thing.

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

they're pretty much going after anyone telling them to stop going after them.

i had many friends have twitter ban their accounts. one hadn't posted in 3 weeks. man, wonder what 3rd world country she was after. oregon?

tell them to stop - they come after you.

try it.

I do not and won’t have Twitter (waste of time), but my friend does. I asked her post something decrying censorship 10 minutes ago. She is yet to be banned and it is still up.

She is not a prominent figure in our society, she is only a regular American citizen like you and I. They only go after people they know have influence, whose speech will change or alter viewpoints. Your friend's opinions have no discernible impact anyone besides you and anyone else she interacts with.

Like Ted Nugent?

 

[Norman]

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

That's a baldfaced lie.

You cannot in good faith tell me that conservatives dominate anything on social media or media in general. If true, Twitter and Facebook would not have just banned Trump from using their platforms.

I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.

If you think it is a lie, show me the data to prove otherwise.

Dominate as in they are by far the most numerous users.

Trump was banned for his behavior not his political viewpoint.

One pretends to be for rights of businesses a other pretends to be delusional.

People who only want power will be conducting any dishonest move they see in their interest. No one is fooled.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

That's a baldfaced lie.

You cannot in good faith tell me that conservatives dominate anything on social media or media in general. If true, Twitter and Facebook would not have just banned Trump from using their platforms.

I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.

If you think it is a lie, show me the data to prove otherwise.

Dominate as in they are by far the most numerous users.

Trump was banned for his behavior not his political viewpoint.

An article from Politico is not ample proof of conservative dominance over popular media. How about --instead of making demands of me-- you provide you own empirical evidence to prove your case. You made the initial assertion, it is your obligation to prove it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then explain how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will?

You know, it's not really a matter of free speech anymore. It's about the double standard being practiced on the platforms. Allowing one view while limiting another. Claiming one form of speech to be undesirable while allowing speech you agree with to proliferate, ignoring the possibility it may incite the same violence as the speech you are censoring. If you advertise yourself as a platform that allows the free exchange of speech, actively censoring users of your platform flies against that assertion. It is bad business, it is also false advertising.

Free speech? According to you, there is no such thing.

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

they're pretty much going after anyone telling them to stop going after them.

i had many friends have twitter ban their accounts. one hadn't posted in 3 weeks. man, wonder what 3rd world country she was after. oregon?

tell them to stop - they come after you.

try it.

I do not and won’t have Twitter (waste of time), but my friend does. I asked her post something decrying censorship 10 minutes ago. She is yet to be banned and it is still up.

She is not a prominent figure in our society, she is only a regular American citizen like you and I. They only go after people they know have influence, whose speech will change or alter viewpoints. Your friend's opinions have no discernible impact on anyone besides you and anyone else she interacts with.

Like Ted Nugent?

Wot?

 

[Natural Citizen]

If people quit using all of the junk they wouldn't be in the powerful position they're in.

Do you really need an iphone or an android? Twitter? Fedbook?

The only reason they have the power they have is because people give it to them by using their junk.

The last iphone update they added in a bunch of emojis with men in wedding dresses and tranny flags, I said I'm done with this stupid shit. I donlt support anything they stand for.

I ordered a Plum. lol.

RAM 6 3G - Plum Mobile

Plum Mobile is a cell phone company with 40 years of experience in the communication industry. We specialize in unlocked feature phones, smartphones, rugged phones and tablets, which can all be used with any GSM carrier, both in the United States and internationally.

www.plum-mobile.com

No app stores, no google, no apple no none of that horse pucky.

If you don't invite them into your life they can't intrude into it.

 

[BlueGin]

They are pouring gasoline on the flames.

If all non-violent forms of expression are outlawed, the right will resort to violent forms of expression.

I saw this coming a year ago and now it's happening.

Burning crosses again?

The democrat party stopped burning crosses...now they simply destroy black and hispanic families in the cities they control...

They have to keep them poor and dependent.

 

[DukeU]

I'm not your mama, baby bird. Look it up.

 

[Norman]

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

That's a baldfaced lie.

You cannot in good faith tell me that conservatives dominate anything on social media or media in general. If true, Twitter and Facebook would not have just banned Trump from using their platforms.

I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.

If you think it is a lie, show me the data to prove otherwise.

Dominate as in they are by far the most numerous users.

Trump was banned for his behavior not his political viewpoint.

An article from Politico is not ample proof of conservative dominance over popular media. How about --instead of making demands of me-- you provide you own empirical evidence to prove your case. You made the initial assertion, it is your obligation to prove it.

She is not arguing in good faith so I would stop it there. Claiming conservatives have dominance when Trump was just banned by the Stalinists - that is the usual leftist inversion... like the claims that women are stronger than men. The usual leftist tactic of trying to move the focus of the discussion to "well maybe women are only as strong as men?", so that they can hopefully continue their batshit lying as some cucks are unable to point to them that they are 360 degrees from reality.

But we do not fall for it. Social media is OBVIOUSLY far left dominated. The whole IDEA of social media and controlling people by words is a far left idea. Right wingers are producers and believe in reality, not socially constructed bullshit designed to mooch of other people

 

[TemplarKormac]

So no explanation on how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will

I am rather convinced no explanation will satisfy you, only agreement with your worldview. You are the type of person who, if your opponent doesn't meet your precise argumentative demands, will claim victory.

You can't claim to be a platform that allows the unrestricted exchange of speech and then turns around and starts actively censoring it. You can't simply offer up your private property for free use by the public without acknowledging that there are those who would use it in a manner you don't agree with.

Don't want your property to be used or manipulated? Don't offer it for use. It's that simple. If we are to make the same demands of Twitter and Facebook that we do of cake bakers in Colorado.

 

[Coyote]

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

That's a baldfaced lie.

You cannot in good faith tell me that conservatives dominate anything on social media or media in general. If true, Twitter and Facebook would not have just banned Trump from using their platforms.

I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.

If you think it is a lie, show me the data to prove otherwise.

Dominate as in they are by far the most numerous users.

Trump was banned for his behavior not his political viewpoint.

An article from Politico is not ample proof of conservative dominance over popular media. How about --instead of making demands of me-- you provide you own empirical evidence to prove your case. You made the initial assertion, it is your obligation to prove it.

Umh, no. I provided an article to support my statement. You disagree, then substantiate your claim. It isn’t my job to do that.

And, please note, your prior post said this: “I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.”

Kind of sounds like you were making demands of me doesn‘t it?

 

[Orangecat]

Apple isn't interested in pushing white supremacy.

Neither is Parler, dumbass.

 

[Norman]

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

That's a baldfaced lie.

You cannot in good faith tell me that conservatives dominate anything on social media or media in general. If true, Twitter and Facebook would not have just banned Trump from using their platforms.

I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.

If you think it is a lie, show me the data to prove otherwise.

Dominate as in they are by far the most numerous users.

Trump was banned for his behavior not his political viewpoint.

An article from Politico is not ample proof of conservative dominance over popular media. How about --instead of making demands of me-- you provide you own empirical evidence to prove your case. You made the initial assertion, it is your obligation to prove it.

Umh, no. I provided an article to support my statement. You disagree, then substantiate your claim. It isn’t my job to do that.

And, please note, your prior post said this: “I am not a tutor or a handholder, you can easily look for examples of this behavior on Google.”

Kind of sounds like you were making demands of me doesn‘t it?

Haven't you guys provided articles proving that men can give birth?

That's worth less than a shit. Everyone can see the truth, go away liar.

Again, the whole idea of social media is left wing. That's exactly why the people running the platforms are far left Stalinists deficient on masculinity.

 

[HappyJoy]

Then explain how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will?

You know, it's not really a matter of free speech anymore. It's about the double standard being practiced on the platforms. Allowing one view while limiting another. Claiming one form of speech to be undesirable while allowing speech you agree with to proliferate, ignoring the possibility it may incite the same violence as the speech you are censoring. If you advertise yourself as a platform that allows the free exchange of speech, actively censoring users of your platform flies against that assertion. It is bad business, it is also false advertising.

Free speech? According to you, there is no such thing.

But what views are they banning? Conservatives dominate liberals on social media, so they can’t be banning conservatives simply because they are conservative.

they're pretty much going after anyone telling them to stop going after them.

i had many friends have twitter ban their accounts. one hadn't posted in 3 weeks. man, wonder what 3rd world country she was after. oregon?

tell them to stop - they come after you.

try it.

I do not and won’t have Twitter (waste of time), but my friend does. I asked her post something decrying censorship 10 minutes ago. She is yet to be banned and it is still up.

She is not a prominent figure in our society, she is only a regular American citizen like you and I. They only go after people they know have influence, whose speech will change or alter viewpoints. Your friend's opinions have no discernible impact on anyone besides you and anyone else she interacts with.

Like Ted Nugent?

Wot?

Ted Nugent is a prominent conservative, right?

 

[Skylar]

So no explanation on how 'free speech' grants you unlimited and unrestricted access to and use of someone else's private property against their will

I am rather convinced no explanation will satisfy you, only agreement with your worldview. You are the type of person who, if your opponent doesn't meet your precise argumentative demands, will claim victory.

So a paragraph on why you can't.

Got it.

You can't claim to be a platform that allows the unrestricted exchange of speech and then turns around and starts actively censoring it. You can't simply offer up your private property for free use by the public without acknowledging that there are those who would use it in a manner you don't agree with.

And where did Twitter claim that it had no restrictions on what could be posted there? Their TOS is very clear that there are restrictions.

So would you like to knock down another strawman? Or am being too strict with my 'precise argumentative demands' by quoting Twitter on its own restrictions rather than your imagination on the same?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Private businesses banning free speech for political purposes can be more dangerous than violating the first ammendment.

 

[iceberg]

..lk

they're banning anything they can't control.

as for insurection and crap on parler - do you really think they'd plan something like that on an open network? get the info, details, users and the like and let the law go after them. getting them out of the store isn't about security, it's about control.

Ya...they did..

'Burn down DC': Violence that erupted at Capitol was incited by pro-Trump mob on social media

Pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol as Congress prepared to formally declare Joe Biden president-elect fomented the violence on social media.

www.usatoday.com

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready.

Insurrectionists made no effort to hide their intentions, but law enforcement protecting Congress was caught flat-footed.

www.propublica.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-telegram-violence-dc-protests/

Which begs the question...why were the Capital Police so underprepared?

If you feel there should be no censorship on private platforms, shouldn’t ISIS be allowed to operate there?

Which begs the question, why did the capital police move the barrier to let them in then open the doors for them

You miis those questions.