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

[Jarhyn]

[A Hyperbolic Whinge]

Wow, "banning minds". Good to know Google, Apple, Amazon are throwing people into a train and shipping them off to camps where they can be exterminated!

Because that's what banning "minds" is. Last I knew all those folks still had their minds fully intact and functional, or at least as functional as their racist asses can manage.

They can and still do go on Faux Noise to complain in front of millions how they are "censored".

And they didn't even get banned off Parler. The entire platform did harm, instead, to their users by not regulating violent threats. If you want to whinge about something, there you go, in fact. That Parler itself is the rightful target of all civil action here, Parler and the VIOLENT THREATS THEY ENABLED

 

[WAB]

[A Hyperbolic Whinge]

Wow, "banning minds". Good to know Google, Apple, Amazon are throwing people into a train and shipping them off to camps where they can be exterminated!

Because that's what banning "minds" is. Last I knew all those folks still had their minds fully intact and functional, or at least as functional as their racist asses can manage.

They can and still do go on Faux Noise to complain in front of millions how they are "censored".

And they didn't even get banned off Parler. The entire platform did harm, instead, to their users by not regulating violent threats. If you want to whinge about something, there you go, in fact. That Parler itself is the rightful target of all civil action here, Parler and the VIOLENT THREATS THEY ENABLED

I'll side with the Hyperbolic Whinger for 800 please, Alex.

 

[Jarhyn]

[A Hyperbolic Whinge]

Wow, "banning minds". Good to know Google, Apple, Amazon are throwing people into a train and shipping them off to camps where they can be exterminated!

Because that's what banning "minds" is. Last I knew all those folks still had their minds fully intact and functional, or at least as functional as their racist asses can manage.

They can and still do go on Faux Noise to complain in front of millions how they are "censored".

And they didn't even get banned off Parler. The entire platform did harm, instead, to their users by not regulating violent threats. If you want to whinge about something, there you go, in fact. That Parler itself is the rightful target of all civil action here, Parler and the VIOLENT THREATS THEY ENABLED

I'll side with the Hyperbolic Whinger for 800 please, Alex.

The fact is, when the "cartel" that is "society" collectively and independently decide on the same course of action, then perhaps it is less a cartel than some person or persons being shitty. Obviously, I'm open to other interpretations, but the fact is, if every store in a city bans an individual because that individual has walked into every store holding a gun and waving it at the other customers, then that individual isn't the "victim" of a "cartel", they are the "victim" of "their own stupid behavior and threats"

 

[Bomb#20]

[A Hyperbolic Whinge]

Wow, "banning minds". Good to know Google, Apple, Amazon are throwing people into a train and shipping them off to camps where they can be exterminated!

Because that's what banning "minds" is. Last I knew all those folks still had their minds fully intact and functional, or at least as functional as their racist asses can manage.

Not "minds", "Minds". It's at https://www.minds.com. It's the name of a social media platform. You would have known that if you'd read the exchange back as far as post #89.

But the truth is, you didn't need to know it was a social media platform to know you were talking utter bollocks and making a complete fool of yourself. All you needed to know was that you had written 'Wow, "banning minds".', complete with the quotation marks, and that you had composed that sentence yourself without cutting and pasting the contents of those quotation marks from any post of mine. Don't do that. Don't make up words yourself and then put those words in other people's mouths in quotation marks.

 

[Jarhyn]

[A Hyperbolic Whinge]

Wow, "banning minds". Good to know Google, Apple, Amazon are throwing people into a train and shipping them off to camps where they can be exterminated!

Because that's what banning "minds" is. Last I knew all those folks still had their minds fully intact and functional, or at least as functional as their racist asses can manage.

Not "minds", "Minds". It's at https://www.minds.com. It's the name of a social media platform. You would have known that if you'd read the exchange back as far as post #89.

But the truth is, you didn't need to know it was a social media platform to know you were talking utter bollocks and making a complete fool of yourself. All you needed to know was that you had written 'Wow, "banning minds".', complete with the quotation marks, and that you had composed that sentence yourself without cutting and pasting the contents of those quotation marks from any post of mine. Don't do that. Don't make up words yourself and then put those words in other people's mouths in quotation marks.

Honestly? I'll do whatever the hell I damn well please and fuck you. I'll use quotation marks around hyperobolic-seeming whinges any day of the week to denote them as seeming hyperbolic whinges.

That said "minds" is as bigoted and fucked up as Parler. Which is to say, they STILL earned what happened to them. So what's your fucking point? That I was wrong about which "minds" didn't have their actual free speech right impinged? Whine more. Cry more.

I will admit, I was wrong about the extent of hyperbole you were engaging in. But it's still fucking Hyperbolic Whinge

 

[Bomb#20]

There is a lot more you don't realize.

Are you suggesting you really are a laissez-faire capitalist? The sentiment you expressed about insurance companies seems at odds with one you earlier expressed about bakeries.

The point of this being?

The point being that a line like "Didn't realize you are a closest socialist." that you threw at Trausti is a feeble argument. You appear to get that it's feeble when I throw a sample at you.

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.

Yes, and there may have been good business reasons back in the fifties for all the clothes shops in some deep-in-Dixie town to turn away black customers -- maybe accepting them would have meant losing all their bigger-spending white racist customers. Doesn't change the fact that when they all do the same thing it amounts to a cartel from the point of view of the buyers. Collusion isn't necessary for uniform action to be a problem that needs a solution. That's kind of what makes the cartel "de facto".

... If Big Tech wants to regulate content that's fine. But they shouldn't enjoy such liability protections.

... 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.

Not seeing where Trausti said the government should get their shareholders' dividends; and no doubt electric companies had legitimate business reasons for engaging in the practices that prompted governments to turn them into regulated public utilities.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you suggesting you really are a laissez-faire capitalist? The sentiment you expressed about insurance companies seems at odds with one you earlier expressed about bakeries.

You just shifted the goal posts from capitalist to laissez-faire capitalist.

The point being that a line like "Didn't realize you are a closest socialist." that you threw at Trausti is a feeble argument. You appear to get that it's feeble when I throw a sample at you.

I made an observation not an argument. Do try to keep up.

Yes, and there may have been good business reasons back in the fifties for all the clothes shops in some deep-in-Dixie town to turn away black customers -- maybe accepting them would have meant losing all their bigger-spending white racist customers.

"Whatboutism" about racism is extemely feeble analogy because people cannot control their race or skin color. Your tacit equivalence between the problem of bigotry/racism and inciting violence is ridiculous.

Doesn't change the fact that when they all do the same thing it amounts to a cartel from the point of view of the buyers. Collusion isn't necessary for uniform action to be a problem that needs a solution. That's kind of what makes the cartel "de facto".

It is immaterial that it may appear a cartel from the point of view of the buyers. Your argument is feeble.

Not seeing where Trausti said the government should get their shareholders' dividends; and no doubt electric companies had legitimate business reasons for engaging in the practices that prompted governments to turn them into regulated public utilities.

No one was talking about dividends and their distribution is immaterial. Telling these companies how they must use their private property is a de facto form of ownership by the government.

 

[ronburgundy]

no doubt electric companies had legitimate business reasons for engaging in the practices that prompted governments to turn them into regulated public utilities.

The Utility is the internet itself. A particular social media platform is to the utility of the internet what a bakery that uses electricity to provide a product is to the utility of the electric company. Social media platforms come and go and each provide a different product , proving that what they provide is not a basic essential. Only the internet taken as a whole is a constant basic product analogous to water, electricity, etc..

 

[scombrid]

https://www.facebook.com/misty.partainburris

A friend of mine keeps sharing posts from this facebook page. It a fire hose of disinformation. Just scrolled through a few posts to see what is the heart of the Republican Party these days. So much for censorship.

You know who I find to be the biggest 'censors'? These conservative pages and the youtube channels of the scammers, conspiracy theorists, and disinformation agents. Try and post debunks to their pages/videos/posts etc... They will block you in a heartbeat and will usually report you and cause trouble for your channel/profile.

Youtube has been all about that for years. Back in 2011 there was a channel called "Dutchsinse" run by Michael Yanitch. He claimed that the government was creating tornados using HAARP and NEXRAD weather surveillance radars. He got a LOT of clicks and was making a lot of ad revenue. Debunkers always got blocked and in a dispute youtube would delete the debunkers and let the conspiracy channel keep running because it was making them money. It takes a lot of bullshit for them to do anything. Dude said smoke from prescribed burns in Oklahoma and Arkansas was volcanic activity. Debunkers put burn plans and links to videos of the fires in the comments. He turned off the comments. People made video debunks. He got them shut down for "harrassment". He is a big Trumper like Alex Jones. You literally have to expose the platform to legal peril before they act. Which is fine. It is a public space. But the people bitching about "censorship" need to quit being such whingers when they always delete dissent from their pages/channels while they GISH GALLOP their way through the world.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

There is a lot more you don't realize.

Are you suggesting you really are a laissez-faire capitalist? The sentiment you expressed about insurance companies seems at odds with one you earlier expressed about bakeries.

You just shifted the goal posts from capitalist to laissez-faire capitalist.

Did I? Show your work.

Yes, and there may have been good business reasons back in the fifties for all the clothes shops in some deep-in-Dixie town to turn away black customers -- maybe accepting them would have meant losing all their bigger-spending white racist customers.

"Whatboutism" about racism is extemely feeble analogy because people cannot control their race or skin color. Your tacit equivalence between the problem of bigotry/racism and inciting violence is ridiculous.

Have you been taking style lessons from an Eliza program? What is it with you and keyword lookup? Using a historical example to explain the concept of a de facto cartel does not constitute whataboutism or tacit equivalence between anything and anything. It's just an explanation.

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

Not seeing where Trausti said the government should get their shareholders' dividends; and no doubt electric companies had legitimate business reasons for engaging in the practices that prompted governments to turn them into regulated public utilities.

No one was talking about dividends and their distribution is immaterial. Telling these companies how they must use their private property is a de facto form of ownership by the government.

That's ludicrous. The shareholders getting the profits is kind of a red flag that they're still the owners. Government telling companies how they must use their private property is a de facto form of utility regulation, not government ownership. By your inference rule, Minnesota has already been a communist state for a hundred and fifty years -- that's how long you've had a Public Utilities Commission.

If you seriously believe utility regulation qualifies as communism, please answer the following question:

Are you in favor of regulating power companies?

 

[ZiprHead]

Judge Refuses To Reinstate Parler After Amazon Shut It Down

U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein sided with Amazon, which argued that Parler would not take down posts that threatened public safety even in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that it is within Amazon's rights to punish the company over its refusal.

"The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest favors requiring AWS to host the incendiary speech that the record shows some of Parler's users have engaged in. At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case," Rothstein wrote on Thursday.

Too bad, so sad, boo hoo hoo.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

There is a lot more you don't realize.

Are you suggesting you really are a laissez-faire capitalist? The sentiment you expressed about insurance companies seems at odds with one you earlier expressed about bakeries.

You just shifted the goal posts from capitalist to laissez-faire capitalist.

Did I? Show your work.

My mistake. I am a capitalist which is not the same thing as a laisser faire capitalist.

t
Have you been taking style lessons from an Eliza program? What is it with you and keyword lookup? Using a historical example to explain the concept of a de facto cartel does not constitute whataboutism or tacit equivalence between anything and anything. It's just an explanation.

It was a feeble explanation.

That's ludicrous. The shareholders getting the profits is kind of a red flag that they're still the owners.

Um, there is nothing inconsistent with allowing people to receive dividends while something is government owned. It may be unconventional but it is not conceptually impossible.

Government telling companies how they must use their private property is a de facto form of utility regulation, not government ownership. By your inference rule, Minnesota has already been a communist state for a hundred and fifty years -- that's how long you've had a Public Utilities Commission.

Many conservatives, Republicans, now ex-President Trump and their dupes argue that gov't regulation is a form of socialism or communism. If my memory serves correct, Trausti is one of them. I am simply applying their standards to the analysis.

 

[Trausti]

Ask not for whom the bell tolls . . .

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1352399672594345985[/TWEET]

 

[Patooka]

If Andy Ngo says it, then it must be true.

 

[Trausti]

If Andy Ngo says it, then it must be true.

As these accounts are actually suspended (so easy to check, really), then what he says must be true. Well done.

 

[lpetrich]

Parler Tries to Survive With Help From Russian Company - The New York Times

That turnabout is thanks, in part, to a Russian company.

Parler has entered into business with DDoS-Guard, a Russian firm that routes internet traffic and protects websites from cyberattacks. With its help, visitors to Parler.com now find a basic webpage with a promise from Parler’s chief executive, John Matze, that “our return is inevitable.”

But the use of a Russian company is worrying some researchers who study the internet and Russia. If Parler routes its web traffic through DDoS-Guard when its full website returns, the experts said, Russian law could enable the Russian government to surveil Parler’s users.

...
Since then, other companies have rebuffed Parler. Mr. Matze said in a court filing on Monday that “at least six extremely large potential providers” refused to take Parler’s business because they feared cyberattacks or believed Parler hosted incitements to violence.

...
Many online observers and journalists have speculated that Parler will eventually be hosted by Epik, a company that has supported other websites that tech companies have rejected, including Gab, another social network popular in right-wing circles.

 Epik (company)

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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.

Threat of tortious liability is but one avenue of social remedy. I promise you that it was a lawyer or reputational risk executive who decided that the loss of revenue due to sponsorship and advertising was not worth providing billboard space to such frightfully hideous ideals. The problem lies in the reconciliation of the notion that it isn't government that is restricting speech in this scenario. It's capitalism. Removing tortious liability as a remedy is an attempt to protect speech and content providers from frivolous lawsuits. Should the government also require lifetime sponsorships and guaranteed revenue to protect speech?

aa

 

[laughing dog]

If Andy Ngo says it, then it must be true.

As these accounts are actually suspended (so easy to check, really), then what he says must be true. Well done.

Mr. Ngo made claims beyond the suspensions.

Does anyone see those suspensions driven by ideology or just another business decision (like the one to closee Trump's)?

 

[Trausti]

If Andy Ngo says it, then it must be true.

As these accounts are actually suspended (so easy to check, really), then what he says must be true. Well done.

Mr. Ngo made claims beyond the suspensions.

Does anyone see those suspensions driven by ideology or just another business decision (like the one to closee Trump's)?

The public forum is the public forum. If Antifa groups were suspended either for ideology or a pretext business decision, this makes Twitter a publisher. It should not enjoy statutory liability protection.

 

[ZiprHead]

Facebook accused of censorship after hundreds of US political pages purged

On Thursday, Facebook announced it had removed more than 800 political pages and accounts for “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and spamming.

This week, the people behind the pages Facebook purged for being inauthentic are angry. They feel they have been unfairly targeted for practices they say are common across the entire social network.

And those who have built their livelihoods around the power of Facebook to drive traffic to their websites are wondering what to do next.

The controversy highlights the challenges Facebook and other social media sites face when attempting to police the content their members freely provide.

In a related move, on Tuesday, the company announced a way for members to report inaccurate information designed to suppress voter turnout, such as providing the wrong dates or methods for voting. Facebook has been removing this form of misinformation since 2016.

As a private entity, Facebook can enforce its terms however it sees fit, says the ACLU attorney Vera Eidelman. But this can have serious free speech consequences, especially if the social network is selectively enforcing its terms based on the content of the pages.

“Drawing the line between ‘real’ and ‘inauthentic’ views is a difficult enterprise that could put everything from important political parody to genuine but outlandish views on the chopping block,” says Eidelman. “It could also chill individuals who only feel safe speaking out anonymously or pseudonymously.”

Matt Mountain, who operated six leftwing pages and shared content between them, says “99% of the people I worked with have backup accounts”. (“Matt Mountain” is a pseudonym; he declined to provide his legal name.) Each page had its own particular liberal niche, he explains.

“Lock Him Up was for people who liked funny stuff,” he says. “Proud Snowflake was for people interested in social justice issues. Angry Americans was full of economic stuff. When a post did really well on one page, and it fit the theme of one of the other pages, I’d share it across them.”

Facebook removed his pages a month ago. Until yesterday’s news, he thought his banishment was an isolated case.

“The problem with language like ‘inauthentic coordinated behavior’ is that everyone in this space coordinates,” says Chris Metcalf, who operated nine pages that were purged, including Reasonable People Unite, the Resistance, and Snowflakes. “We swap each other’s best-performing content. I shared content from many of the biggest, most reputable political pages, and they shared mine. But I’m not a bad actor. I’m a legitimate political activist.”

Brian Kolfage, another disabled veteran who administered the Right Wing News page as well as three other conservative pages that were removed, says his organization worked closely with Facebook. He shared copies of emails with a Facebook executive, in which he tried to set up a meeting to talk about how his pages could adhere to the network’s evolving policies regarding political content.

The meeting was abruptly cancelled. A week later his pages were gone.

“I’ve talked with Facebook maybe 50 times in the last few months,” he says. “Not once did they ever say we broke any rules or did something wrong. If they had an issue, they could have brought it up. We had a really close working relationship. That’s why this whole thing is a complete shock.”

Lynn found out Reverb’s page was gone after reading about it in the Washington Post.

“They know who I am, I have a profile on their services, it’s my real name,” he says. “All they needed to do was reach out. I would have taken Mark Zuckerberg’s phone call. But I guess they’ve decided that they just don’t want to.”

Metcalf says he has no problem with Facebook taking down pages peddling disinformation and conspiracy theories, but that his don’t fit that description.