Apple, Amazon, Google ban social media platform Parler in wake of US Capitol riots

[WAB]

Those types of corporations own congress already.

You cannot own a politician. You can only rent them.

A politician is an arse upon
which everyone has sat except a man

- e.e. cummings


[be vewy vewy careful when searching for 'cummings' on google.]

 

[Jarhyn]

[be vewy vewy careful when searching for 'cummings' on google.]

obviously. I ALWAYS make sure to at least include a few other terms to clarify so that I don't end up with any quotes like this one.

 

[WAB]

[be vewy vewy careful when searching for 'cummings' on google.]

obviously. I ALWAYS make sure to at least include a few other terms to clarify so that I don't end up with any quotes like this one.

What's wrong with the quote? I mean, it's not exactly factual. It's a HUGE generalization, something I have been saying people shouldn't do. But that is mainly for the case of reasoned discussion. By quoting from a poem, I am not declaring that I agree with the sentiment it proposes. And in fact, I do NOT agree with it. However, I DO believe that a great many politicians are in that line of work because they crave power, not necessarily fame, and certainly not great piles of money.

Ah...yes, the word 'man' is offensive nowadays...so there's that.

 

[Jarhyn]

[be vewy vewy careful when searching for 'cummings' on google.]

obviously. I ALWAYS make sure to at least include a few other terms to clarify so that I don't end up with any quotes like this one.

What's wrong with the quote? I mean, it's not exactly factual. It's a HUGE generalization, something I have been saying people shouldn't do. But that is mainly for the case of reasoned discussion. By quoting from a poem, I am not declaring that I agree with the sentiment it proposes. And in fact, I do NOT agree with it. However, I DO believe that a great many politicians are in that line of work because they crave power, not necessarily fame, and certainly not great piles of money.

Ah...yes, the word 'man' is offensive nowadays...so there's that.

Reread my post. I was making a joke about the fact that maybe I care more about looking up porn than quotes.,Not to impugn EEC.

Most politicians are just whores with extra steps, though I don't need a poem to inform me of it. Again, not to impugn EEC.

 

[WAB]

What's wrong with the quote? I mean, it's not exactly factual. It's a HUGE generalization, something I have been saying people shouldn't do. But that is mainly for the case of reasoned discussion. By quoting from a poem, I am not declaring that I agree with the sentiment it proposes. And in fact, I do NOT agree with it. However, I DO believe that a great many politicians are in that line of work because they crave power, not necessarily fame, and certainly not great piles of money.

Ah...yes, the word 'man' is offensive nowadays...so there's that.

Reread my post. I was making a joke about the fact that maybe I care more about looking up porn than quotes.,Not to impugn EEC.

Most politicians are just whores with extra steps, though I don't need a poem to inform me of it. Again, not to impugn EEC.

Ah...apologies for that. Nonetheless, I will say that I don't need a poem to inform me of anything either.

Which provides a good reason to say (not to you, Jarhyn, but to all, or just anyone who might be reading this) that it's probably not a good idea to assume that one holds a shitty, stupid political view merely because they are:

• stupid
• a shitty person (vague? Alright, a douchebag)
• a follower (example: a "right wing authoritatian follower"
• someone who cannot, or does not, think for themselves

 

[Jarhyn]

What's wrong with the quote? I mean, it's not exactly factual. It's a HUGE generalization, something I have been saying people shouldn't do. But that is mainly for the case of reasoned discussion. By quoting from a poem, I am not declaring that I agree with the sentiment it proposes. And in fact, I do NOT agree with it. However, I DO believe that a great many politicians are in that line of work because they crave power, not necessarily fame, and certainly not great piles of money.

Ah...yes, the word 'man' is offensive nowadays...so there's that.

Reread my post. I was making a joke about the fact that maybe I care more about looking up porn than quotes.,Not to impugn EEC.

Most politicians are just whores with extra steps, though I don't need a poem to inform me of it. Again, not to impugn EEC.

Ah...apologies for that. Nonetheless, I will say that I don't need a poem to inform me of anything either.

Which provides a good reason to say (not to you, Jarhyn, but to all, or just anyone who might be reading this) that it's probably not a good idea to assume that one holds a shitty, stupid political view merely because they are:

• stupid
• a shitty person (vague? Alright, a douchebag)
• a follower (example: a "right wing authoritatian follower"
• someone who cannot, or does not, think for themselves

Agreed on all points except "right wing authoritarian follower". That is already, trivially, a "shitty, stupid political view".

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[lpetrich]

Parler CEO John Matze, family forced into hiding over death threats, security breaches: court filing | Fox News - "The social media app, favored by Trump supporters and far-right extremists, launched an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon"

ETA:
AOC, Omar and Twitter Sued for $88 Million for 'Overbearing Pain and Suffering' Due to Trump Ban

In the complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in California on Tuesday, Erik Estavillo argued that he and every "follower that was, without a doubt, emotionally and mentally damaged as a result of the Presidents' ban" is entitled to $88.7 million each.

Estavillo, who is representing himself, is also seeking the reinstatement of Trump's account and a retaliatory Twitter ban on Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, who, he argues, promote "Eastern communist philosophies."

I think that this lawsuit should be quickly thrown out of court.

IO tweeted in response, "Bless their heart."

 

[Trausti]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

 

[Patooka]

It's like that poem. At first they went after the nazis and I said nothing because seriously, fuck nazis.

Then I had a good night's sleep because, and I can't believe this needs repeating, fuck nazis.

 

[Trausti]

It's like that poem. At first they went after the nazis and I said nothing because seriously, fuck nazis.

Then I had a good night's sleep because, and I can't believe this needs repeating, fuck nazis.

And then TFT. Fuck those atheists.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's like that poem. At first they went after the nazis and I said nothing because seriously, fuck nazis.

Then I had a good night's sleep because, and I can't believe this needs repeating, fuck nazis.

Like, the whole poem was that we need to come for the Nazis before they dismantle the coalition of "the weak" in favor of making might have leverage over right.

 

[laughing dog]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

So, those companies are not permitted to use their private property (their platforms which they created, maintain and own) as they wish? Didn't realize you are a closest socialist.

 

[Jarhyn]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

So, those companies are not permitted to use their private property (their platforms which they created, maintain and own) as they wish? Didn't realize you are a closest socialist.

No. Still not a socialist. That's more communism. Then, Trausti has never managed to demonstrate that they know the difference.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Bomb#20]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

So, those companies are not permitted to use their private property (their platforms which they created, maintain and own) as they wish? Didn't realize you are a closest socialist.

This, from the guy who wrote "As for insurers dropping clients for bogus reasons - hey, if they want to lose money and customers, that is their privilege.". Didn't realize you're a closet laissez-faire capitalist.

It's actually okay for people to make arguments that rely on an opponent's premise even if they don't agree with the premise. Capitalists do it; socialists do it; I do it; you do it; Trausti does it. There's always more than one way to reach a given conclusion, so if one argument works for me while a different argument should work for you given your premises, what's the problem?

The significant issue with respect to Big Tech censorship coming for Minds isn't whether anybody should object to Google using its private property as it wishes per se, but whether anybody should object if this goes on to become "Apple, Amazon, Google" banning Minds, the way they banned Parler. When companies all act together, they're acting as a de facto cartel rather than as capitalistic competitors. That cartels are objectionable is something all of us should be able to agree on.

 

[Trausti]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

So, those companies are not permitted to use their private property (their platforms which they created, maintain and own) as they wish? Didn't realize you are a closest socialist.

Unlike newspapers, these tech companies enjoy federal statutory protection against lawsuits for content on their systems. The premise is that they are the modern public square; in the public square anyone should be allowed their soap box. If Big Tech wants to regulate content that's fine. But they shouldn't enjoy such liability protections.

 

[ronburgundy]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

So, those companies are not permitted to use their private property (their platforms which they created, maintain and own) as they wish? Didn't realize you are a closest socialist.

Unlike newspapers, these tech companies enjoy federal statutory protection against lawsuits for content on their systems. The premise is that they are the modern public square; in the public square anyone should be allowed their soap box. If Big Tech wants to regulate content that's fine. But they shouldn't enjoy such liability protections.

That's completely nonsensical. That is equal to saying that if law says you are not held responsible for someone burying a murder victim on your land, then you should be forced to allow people to rape children in your bedroom.

Companies in general are almost never held liable for how people abuse their product to harm others. Does that mean that all companies should be prohibited from ever refusing service to individuals for any reason?

The law simply recognizes the objective fact that social media platforms are logically more similar to a company that sells printers and paper than to a company that sells "news" under the guise the information it's employees create is factually accurate.

 

[laughing dog]

And now Big Tech censorship comes for Minds.

So, those companies are not permitted to use their private property (their platforms which they created, maintain and own) as they wish? Didn't realize you are a closest socialist.

Unlike newspapers, these tech companies enjoy federal statutory protection against lawsuits for content on their systems. The premise is that they are the modern public square; in the public square anyone should be allowed their soap box. If Big Tech wants to regulate content that's fine. But they shouldn't enjoy such liability protections.

One cannot use the public square now to incite violence. And plenty of industries are not now liable for the "speech" their products convey: paper makers, computer manufacturers, telephone or pen makers.

Nor does your conclusion follow from your premise. Why should protection from lawsuits for content mean that owners of private property be excluded from maintaining their property as they see fit? Just because they cannot be sued doesn't mean they do not have legitimate business reasons for excluding content.

So, you really are preaching communism - public ownership of private property.

 

[laughing dog]

This, from the guy who wrote "As for insurers dropping clients for bogus reasons - hey, if they want to lose money and customers, that is their privilege.". Didn't realize you're a closet laissez-faire capitalist.

There is a lot more you don't realize.

It's actually okay for people to make arguments that rely on an opponent's premise even if they don't agree with the premise. Capitalists do it; socialists do it; I do it; you do it; Trausti does it. There's always more than one way to reach a given conclusion, so if one argument works for me while a different argument should work for you given your premises, what's the problem?

The point of this being?

The significant issue with respect to Big Tech censorship coming for Minds isn't whether anybody should object to Google using its private property as it wishes per se, but whether anybody should object if this goes on to become "Apple, Amazon, Google" banning Minds, the way they banned Parler. When companies all act together, they're acting as a de facto cartel rather than as capitalistic competitors. That cartels are objectionable is something all of us should be able to agree on.

Well, if you can show that they all conspired to come to that outcome, you'd have a point. Without that, you don't. After all, there may be good business reasons for all 3 to reach that same outcome.