Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 167
#121
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ethang5
..b.parlor's platform is on Apple's platform. 
In Apple's case, but this is not true for Google or Twitter.
Parlor was on the google play store. So they were on google's platform and breaking Google's rules. Did Twitter ban Parlor? I'm not sure that makes any sense. 

Parlor had to agree to Apple's terms of service in order to be on their app store. they violated those terms of service and got kicked out. It is very simple. 
It's very hypocritical. Apple did not sanction others doing the same thing or worse.
I agree. They should have cracked down on this bullshit a long time ago. But they really, really didn't want to have to get involved. They don't want to be stuck in the middle of politics. They try to avoid actually having to crack down on anything. It is only the overwhelming severity of what parlor and the loonies on the right are doing that is forcing them to take action. 

She spent years convincing millions of people that trump was an illigetimate president 
I have no idea what she did for years. So if she was spreading lies that is a problem. But she is a comedian, not the sitting president of the united states. They have very, very different levels of responsibility. Not to mention, trump took an oath to uphold the constitution (which he very much broke). Comedians do not. 

Trump did spend months convincing people of delusional conspiracies.
This is your opinion, not fact.
no, it is very much fact. Dozens of court cases, investigations by multiple law enforcement agencies and by every contested state. Every single time the outcome has been the same, no significant amounts of fraud. Yet the president continues to lie about it. 

And the MSM is guilty of this every day. Remember Russia, Russia, Russia? Or quid pro quo? Or collusion? Delusional conspiracies all.
i agree that not all the reporting was accurate. But much of it was. Trump and his campaign did communicate with the russians and lie about it. There was a quid pro quo with Ukraine. These things happened. That is indisputable by anyone fully connected to reality. 

Your spin is not what happened. Griffin was on SNL, she was not alone, and she was a constant abuser of Trump, from the day he announced his run for the presidency. 78 million American citizens disagree with your opinion of lies and conspiracy theories.
it's not a crime to make fun of or criticize a politician. It is a large part of the job of a comedian. It most certainly is a crime for a president to organize an armed attack on democracy and the US government. 

#122
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL

Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Jewish customers. Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Black customers. Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers.
All of this is already illegal. And it is, in no way, analogous to what happened to parlor. 

U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [LINK]

CREED.
lol, no one is being punished for their creed. Parlor is being punished for breaching the terms of service with other companies. That has nothing to do with creed. People are spreading insane lies, calling for murder, terrorism and treason and parlor allows it. There is absolutely no way that this a protected class. 

If you want to capriciously select your customers, start a PRIVATE CLUB.
every business has the right to select their customers. That is how a free market works. They are free to do business with whoever they want. The only restrictions on this is that they cannot refuse service based on one of the protected classes. And since that has not happened, everything is working exactly the way conservatives are argued it should. 
#123
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
it's not a crime to make fun of or criticize a politician.
Imagine if you will, thousands of people silently and peacefully standing outside the white house, each one holding a severed obama head in the air.

Is this free-speech?
#124
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Imagine if you will, thousands of people silently and peacefully standing outside the white house, each one holding a severed obama head in the air.

Is this free-speech?
isolated from all other context, then yes. But I can't imagine such a thing is likely without the context being more incriminating. The context is extremely important. And the context in this case is lots of people calling for murder, sedition and treason on parler. That very clearly breaches the terms of service of these tech companies. 
#125
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
And the context in this case is lots of people calling for murder, sedition and treason on parler. That very clearly breaches the terms of service of these tech companies. 
People have said the same kinds of things on twitter and facebook and youtube. [**]

Violating "terms of service" means practically nothing.

Any company can change or re-interpret their "terms of service" at any time.

(IFF) any SPECIFIC person wrote ILLEGAL words (THEN) that SPECIFIC person should be arrested

NOT EVERYONE USING PARLER IS EVIL.

YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY IS "THE BROAD BRUSH".
#126
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Jewish customers. Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to Black customers. Imagine a world where a business (that is open to the public) can choose to refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers.
All of this is already illegal. And it is, in no way, analogous to what happened to parlor. 
I wasn't sure you were aware of this when you said, "that's how the free-market works".

Parler is being de-platformed (refused service) specifically because of their "sincerely held belief" (CREED) that free-speech should be sacrosanct (a.k.a. "moderation philosophy").
#127
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
People have said the same kinds of things on twitter and facebook and youtube. [**]
we are talking about the google play store, not facebook. Facebook didn't ban parlor. 

Violating "terms of service" means practically nothing.
very much not true. It's basically breaking a contract. Companies regularly choose not to enforce punishment on that breach of contract, but that doesn't mean breaking it means nothing. These companies don't want to have to ban anyone. they really really don't. These companies make their money by having as many people as possible on their platform. That is why the look the other way as much as they can. The trump cultists and Qanon lunatics have just gone so far off the deep end that these companies have been forced to do something. 

Any company can change or re-interpret their "terms of service" at any time.
true. how is that relevant though?

NOT EVERYONE USING PARLER IS EVIL.
no one has ever said that they are. Please stop with the straw man arguments. but alot of people on Parlor are calling for murders, treason, sedition etc. Parlor chooses to allow this to happen, which is a breach of the terms and conditions they have with google, apple etc. 

YOUR LOGICAL FALLACY IS "THE BROAD BRUSH".
nope. I have made no argument at all about all the people using parlor. I will break down my points and you tell me which, if any, you disagree with. 

1) People on parlor are calling for murder and treason.
2) Parlor allows this to happen on their platform.
3) Google, apple etc choose not to do business with a company that promotes treason as it is bad for their business. And because we live in a free market economy, they are free to do business with, or not, any company they want. 

Is there anything in there you disagree with?


#128
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Parler is being de-platformed (refused service) specifically because of their "sincerely held belief" (CREED) that free-speech should be sacrosanct (a.k.a. "moderation philosophy").
That is an idiotic belief that has literally never been true. Free speech is not sacrosanct. It never has been and never will be. You can be punished for your speech at literally any time. And this belief stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech. So I will explain. 

The concept of free speech only applies to the government punishing you. IE you can't be arrested for using your free speech. But any business, any individual can choose to punish you for the things you say whenever they want. For example if you say something racist to your boss, they can fire you. If you say something offensive in a business, they can toss your ass out and ban you from their store. You are literally never free from consequences of the things you say.

You are free to say things if you want. But other people can choose not to associate with you or do business with you as a result of it. Free speech just means the government can't arrest you for it. So you see? It has no bearing on this conversation since the government isn't even involved. 
#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is an idiotic belief that has literally never been true.
That's the beauty of it.

A "sincerely held belief" doesn't need to be "true".

Is "christianity" "true"?

Is "islam" "true"?

What about "scientology"?

Is "hinduism" "true"?

How about "transgenderism"?

True or False?
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
The LEGAL DOMAIN of free speech only applies to the government punishing you.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREE-SPEECH APPLIES TO EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, DON'T BURN OR BAN BOOKS.
#131
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Free speech just means the government can't arrest you for it.
I thought you were the one suggesting that some individuals on PARLER were guilty of the crime of "sedition".

Isn't that a crime of SPEECH?
#132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Any company can change or re-interpret their "terms of service" at any time.
true. how is that relevant though?
This invalidates the very core concept of a CONTRACT.
#133
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
NOT EVERYONE USING PARLER IS EVIL.
no one has ever said that they are. Please stop with the straw man arguments. but alot of people on Parlor are calling for murders, treason, sedition etc. Parlor chooses to allow this to happen, which is a breach of the terms and conditions they have with google, apple etc. 
I'm glad you don't think everyone on PARLER is evil.

I couldn't tell.

You seem to be very enthusiastically in favor of the (wholesale) ban.

Also, PARLER didn't "choose to allow this to happen, which is a breach of the terms and conditions they have with google, apple etc".

PARLER'S official response to AMAZON was that they had a backlog of flagged posts and they were adding more moderators to address this backlog.
#134
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the beauty of it. A "sincerely held belief" doesn't need to be "true".
it still needs to be legal. IE you can have a sincerely held belief that you need to eat people, it's still a crime. You can sincerely believe you have the right to say whatever you want without consequences. But the law says otherwise.

You have freedom to say whatever you want (within legal limits). And the government cannot punish you for it. But others have the legal right to punish you for it if they want to. It doesn't matter what you believe, that is how a free society works. 

The LEGAL DOMAIN of free speech only applies to the government punishing you. THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREE-SPEECH APPLIES TO EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, DON'T BURN OR BAN BOOKS.
Books get banned by private groups all the time. School boards for example ban books that children shouldn't be reading. So your philosophy can be whatever you want, but groups have the right to ban books if they feel like it. 

Any company can change or re-interpret their "terms of service" at any time.
true. how is that relevant though?
This invalidates the very core concept of a CONTRACT.
not at all. Lots of contracts get violated. That usually doesn't require one side to punish the other. They have the option to enforce the contract, but they usually don't have to. 

For example, a building company builds something wrong. Contractually you can sue them for it. But they volunteer to fix the issue for free. The company contracting them has the choice of whether to sue or not. 

You seem to be very enthusiastically in favor of the (wholesale) ban.
of course. Parlor is responsible for spreading lies and fomenting criminal activity. 

Also, PARLER didn't "choose to allow this to happen, which is a breach of the terms and conditions they have with google, apple etc".
Yes, yes they did. They could have taken strong action to prevent this stuff from spreading. they didn't. 

PARLER'S official response to AMAZON was that they had a backlog of flagged posts and they were adding more moderators to address this backlog.
ok. so you are acknowledging they broke the terms of service but that they made claims that at some point they might stop breaking them. So what? If a drunk driver runs over children then says he might take action to stop drinking and running over children in the future, do we just let him go about it?

Parlor has been letting this shit run rampant for months. Them saying that they might do something about it in the future:

1) there's no guarantee they would actually do that
2) they've already been breaking the rules for months and spreading sedition and lies. 

So why should google, apple or anyone else give a shit what parlor says they might do in the future?

#135
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
You seem to be very enthusiastically in favor of the (wholesale) ban.
of course. Parlor is responsible for spreading lies and fomenting criminal activity. 
PARLER is NOT legally "responsible" for USER GENERATED CONTENT.
#136
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
IE you can have a sincerely held belief that you need to eat people, it's still a crime.
Talking about it and believing it are NOT "still a crime".

I mean, don't the Catholics believe in Transubstantiation? [**]
#137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
might take action to stop drinking and running over children in the future,
Well, you'll be happy to know they're all moving to GAB now. [**]
#138
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
I think we may be conflating TWO proposals,

Can PARLER be legally banned by "big tech"? - - the answer seems to be "YES".

Now, the statement in the OP is,

Parler, the conservative version of twitter, should have been banned by big tech
Should PARLER be banned by "big tech"?

My guess is that you're going to lean towards "YES".

I, on the other hand, lean towards "NO".
#139
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
PARLER is NOT legally "responsible" for USER GENERATED CONTENT.
no one here ever mentioned being legally responsible. I have never claimed they are. However if Parlor chooses to do business in a way that Google, Apple etc. do not like, they are fully within their rights to stop doing business with Parlor. That is a free market. 

Talking about it and believing it are NOT "still a crime".
This part of the conversation is a bit off track since we are talking about private businesses and their choices. 

Well, you'll be happy to know they're all moving to GAB now. [**]
well, the further they can be driven out of sane society the better. You can never make delusional people accept reality. But if they choose to be quarantined in a part of the internet where normal people are unlikely to go by accident, at least it reduces the spread of their insane conspiracies. 

Can PARLER be legally banned by "big tech"? - - the answer seems to be "YES".
the answer is indisputably yes. A free market system means they don't have to do business with parlor if they don't want to. 

Should PARLER be banned by "big tech"? My guess is that you're going to lean towards "YES". I, on the other hand, lean towards "NO".
why? These companies are businesses. Their purpose is to make profit. Having Nazis and terrorists plotting death and destruction on their platform is bad for business. They are taking the action that is best for their business. Isn't that what the right has been arguing should happen? 
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
You can never make delusional people accept reality.
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
They are taking the action that is best for their business.
Discrimination based on religious viewpoints is functionally indistinguishable from discrimination based on political viewpoints.
#142
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You can never make delusional people accept reality.
For a person who has full fledged rejected reality, there is not much, if anything we can do for them. A large chunk of trump cultists simply choose to substitute reality for whatever he says. Even if they can see that he is lying, they choose to believe it anyway. For those kinds of people, we are better off if they are using some app on the fringe of the internet. They will still be crazy, but their insanity will have more trouble leaking into the wider population. 

They are taking the action that is best for their business.
Discrimination based on religious viewpoints is functionally indistinguishable from discrimination based on political viewpoints.
They aren't particularly similar. 

But you completely skipped my question. Why should one company be forced to do business with another company if they don't want to? Especially when doing business with them could cause serious damage to them?

You are now talking about the government ordering companies to do business. That is called central planning of an economy. It is the exact opposite of a free market economy. 
#143
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
But you completely skipped my question. Why should one company be forced to do business with another company if they don't want to?
I already answered that "question".

It's called "anti-discrimination laws".

nOT "CENTRAL PLANNING".

A business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC is not supposed to be able to discriminate against people just because they hold beliefs that you disagree with.

A business can make "rules" of course.

But those rules must be uniformly enforced, quantifiable, and PROCRUSTEAN.
#144
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
For a person who has full fledged rejected reality, there is not much,
Musician Daryl Davis has an unusual hobby. He's played all over the world with legends like Chuck Berry and Little Richard, but it's what Daryl does in his free time that sets him apart. Daryl likes to meet and befriend members of the Ku Klux Klan -- something few black men can say. In his travels, he's collected robes and other artifacts from friends who have left the Klan, building a collection piece by piece, story by story, in hopes of eventually opening a "Museum of the Klan." [**]
#145
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called "anti-discrimination laws". nOT "CENTRAL PLANNING".
That is exactly what you are advocating. You want the government to be able to order a company to do business with another company. To be very clear, no one is being discriminated against. No one is saying you can't have right wing political ideas. They are saying you can't advocate crimes and conspiracy theories on someone else's platform. That isn't discrimination. 

A business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC is not supposed to be able to discriminate against people just because they hold beliefs that you disagree with.
no one is being discriminated against for their beliefs. A software is being removed from a platform because they are breaking the terms and conditions they agreed to when they got on that platform. 

A business can make "rules" of course. But those rules must be uniformly enforced, quantifiable, and PROCRUSTEAN.
no, they really don't. A private business can set whatever rules they want (within what is permissible by law). And they can enforce them, or not, as they see fit. If you don't like the way they enforce their rules, use another business. That is the free market.

If parlor wants to allow people to spread disproven conspiracy theories and advocate for treason, then they can do that. But if they choose to do that, other companies don't have to do business with them. 

#146
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
At what point does a "conspiracy theory" become a crime?
#147
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
At what point does a "conspiracy theory" become a crime?
well, presumably when it causes people to commit a crime (like attacking the capitol). But we aren't talking about criminal behavior in this thread. We are talking about one company having the freedom to do business, or not, with another company. There doesn't need to be a single crime involved for google to decide they don't want to do business with parlor. They can choose, for any reason not protected by the constitution, to stop doing business with them at any time. 

#148
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Which side of the argument wants to censure? The left, whether you call yourselves liberal, progressive, socialist... whatever.

But, none of you will articulate why you feel the need to not just censure, but to completely ban? In the absence of a reasonable argument, what must I conclude?

Of what are you afraid? It is fear, because you cannot offer a rational explanation. Is it that you disagree? Are you afraid that conservative influencers have a message you cannot combat directly but by censure? Tough shyte. Disagree. Abandon censure with a better argument. That's what rational, civilized people do





#149
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
well, presumably when it causes people to commit a crime (like attacking the capitol).
I'm pretty certain it's NEVER A CRIME to publicly discuss a THEORY, no matter how "insane" it seems.

Is Trump working as a Russian Operative?  Well, that's one theory.

How does an insane theory magically stop being a "conspiracy theory" when someone decides it's ok to broadcast on "the news"?

Each individual criminal is responsible for their own actions.

A THEORY cannot be dragged into a court of law.
#150
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
They can choose, for any reason not protected by the constitution, to stop doing business with them at any time. 
Yes.  Nobody is disagreeing with you on this particular point.