So in lite of Twitter and fakebook and Google (privately owned companies) choosing to discriminate against any and all users of their service for any reason they see fit, will bakeries now have the same luxury?
Bakeries
Posts
Total:
39
-->
@sadolite
I hope not, I want to see Trump get to 400 pounds.
-->
@FLRW
No really, can bakeries tell anyone they want to fuck off and go somewhere else. And if not, why?
-->
@sadolite
So in lite of Twitter and fakebook and Google (privately owned companies) choosing to discriminate against any and all users of their service for any reason they see fit, will bakeries now have the same luxury?
no one is being discriminated against for who or what they are. They get banned for choosing to do terrible things. Like advocating violence for example.
A bakery choosing to refuse service because of the something the person cannot control (like their ethnicity or their sexual orientation) is extremely immoral and needs to be illegal.
So refusing service to someone advocating murder, totally fine. They chose to do something awful. Refusing service to someone for the color of their skin, very much not fine.
-->
@sadolite
So in lite of Twitter and fakebook and Google (privately owned companies) choosing to discriminate against any and all users of their service for any reason they see fit, will bakeries now have the same luxury?
I guess you've forgotten that Masterpiece bakery won that case in the Supreme Court three years ago. So whatever confectionary discrimination you were hoping to justify has judicial standing at least.
My family actually gave that bakery a lot of business in the 2000's- my brother's wedding cake, etc. They did a good job. Although I am gay, I did not really object much to Masterpiece's refusal and even bought another cake from them after all the publicity started but my people didn't appreciate being served that cake. There's plenty of conservatives to bolster business in that part of town but their main business model had been wedding cakes and even conservative families don't want to piss off anybody at a wedding.
Six months after winning the Supreme Court case, Masterpiece bakery went bankrupt- the place was a total ghost town.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your argument is completely flawed. You are grouping millions of people into one group by the actions of a tiny few. Entire web sites with millions of users are being shut down because of the actions, no not even the actions, but the words of a few. Facebook has millions upon millions of users who threaten violence on group pages on a daily bases. And it doesn't censor them or shut them down.
-->
@sadolite
Do you believe the government should force Amazon to host services of organizations it doesn't want to host, that it should force Google to populate its store with apps it doesn't want? Is the government then going to pay these companies the expense of forcing them to host these services or do they just have to eat that cost?
Also, there were less than a million of people on Parler, so cut the "millions of snowflakes" business.
-->
@sadolite
Entire web sites with millions of users are being shut down because of the actions, no not even the actions, but the words of a few.
nope. an app is being taken off an app store for violating the policies of that store. People are calling for the murder of government officials and that app allows it. They are being punished for their actions.
Facebook has millions upon millions of users who threaten violence on group pages on a daily bases. And it doesn't censor them or shut them down.
sounds like you are arguing for more censorship. I see nothing about that statement that would, in any way, make me think shutting down violent extremists is wrong.
It sounds like you are arguing that the federal government should force companies to cater to the whims of extremists. You really want the federal government to have the power to force them to do that?
-->
@oromagi
Such is liberal oppression.
Ahh the bakeries. A mountain made out of a mole hill to garner votes by riling up the conservative base by appealing to religion and hate. Don't be fooled. It's a zero-impact issue. You have no reason to go to the ballot box now. Just stay home.
-->
@sadolite
@drafterman
You're argument is completely flawed. You are grouping millions of people into one group by the actions of a tiny few.Also, there were less than a million of people on Parler, so cut the "millions of snowflakes" business.
Active User Base (Rough Estimate)
Parler Twitter
Launch
August 2018 July 2006
Dec. 2018
40,000+ (famous recognition)
May 2019
100,000
June 2019
200,000 (international recognition)
June 2020 [1] March 2008 [2]
1,000,000 active 1,000,000 total (200,000+ active)
July 2020 July 2008 [3]
2,000,000 total 2,000,000 total
Nov. 2020
4,000,000 (10,000,000 total) [4]
1. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html
-->
@Conway
Companies should be free to lose as much money as they wish by telling consumers to fuck off.
It's only fair after Trump lost a few billion telling establishment DC to fuck off.
-->
@drafterman
Do you believe govt should force bakeries to serve people who have political beliefs they don't like or believe or create depictions on cakes they find abhorrent and immoral?
-->
@sadolite
No.
-->
@drafterman
Well then, double standard or as I call it intellectual dullard.
-->
@sadolite
What double standard?
-->
@drafterman
Exactly LOL
-->
@Conway
Um you left a few websites and group pages off your list LOL
-->
@sadolite
What do you mean? I'm applying the same standard for Twitter as for bakeries.
-->
@drafterman
Far be it from me to contradict you.
-->
@sadolite
Far be it for you to clarify yourself or actually answer a question.
-->
@drafterman
I did, you think there is no double standard when say twitter, Facebook or google shuts down a group page or website because they don't like the content and that's OK but a bakery that refuses to make or promote content they don't like, that's not OK. Or are you saying both are OK or Both are not OK
-->
@HistoryBuff
an app is being taken off an app store for violating the policies of that store.
Can you list that policy?
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
-->
@ethang5
Can you list that policy?
I can refer you back to the statement from google and apple. Are you doubting that they have a policy that requires app's on their store to have moderation?
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
no. that would be unconstitutional you cannot legally discriminate on grounds of race. But we aren't talking about race, or even discrimination. Parlor allowed users to spread messages encouraging violence. They did not take sufficient steps to prevent these messages from being spread so they were taken off the app store. There is no discrimination here.
-->
@sadolite
I did, you think there is no double standard when say twitter, Facebook or google shuts down a group page or website because they don't like the content and that's OK but a bakery that refuses to make or promote content they don't like, that's not OK. Or are you saying both are OK or Both are not OK
I'm saying in both cases the government shouldn't force them to patronize people they don't like.
You got your head so far up the butt of LEFT V RIGHT DEM V GOP that you don't even bother to read what other people are saying.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Can you list that policy?
I can refer you back to the statement from google and apple.
Their statement listed no policy.
Are you doubting that they have a policy that requires app's on their store to have moderation?
They have no such policy. What they want is to decide Parler's moderation, on Parler's site.
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
no. that would be unconstitutional you cannot legally discriminate on grounds of race.
Is Apple using the Constitution as the basis for banning Parler? The discrimination here is that only Parler is suffering the sanctions when multiple others are winked at.
Butwe aren't talking about race, or even discrimination. Parlor allowed users to spread messages encouraging violence. They did not take sufficient steps to prevent these messages from being spread so they were taken off the app store. There is no discrimination here.
According to your liberal dogma. First, Apple carries users who spread messages encouraging violence. Have you ever listened to gangster rap on apple music? Their sanction of Parler is discriminatory.
Second, they are judging Parler on their own made up standard of "encouraging violence" that they don't apply to themselves or anyone else.
Third, Parler is clearly a threat to Twitter, and both Google and Twitter CEO's have similar leftist political beliefs.
There is discrimination here.
-->
@drafterman
I'm saying in both cases the government shouldn't force them to patronize people they don't like.
That is what you SAY you're saying. But Sado knows you're a leftist who champions liberal discrimination laws, and he smells a rat. Either you think businesses should be able to refuse service to blacks, or you think the government should force them to serve people they don't like.
Your forked tongue is the issue here.
-->
@ethang5
They have no such policy.
Google has alot of policies. Please read through all of them to confirm there is no such policy. https://play.google.com/intl/en-GB/about/developer-content-policy/
What they want is to decide Parler's moderation, on Parler's site.
No. They want to decide Parler's moderation on Google/apple's site. Parlor was available on their app stores. So Parlor's flagrant breach of basic rules reflects on them. When parlor failed to follow basic rules, they lost any right they had to be on the App Store.
And what if the policy of the store was that all apps on their platform must ban any users who marry inter-racially? Should that be ok?
of course not. it is illegal to discriminate based on race. But that is nothing like what happened.
Is Apple using the Constitution as the basis for banning Parler?
no. you raised the idea of discrimination on unconstitutional grounds, not apple.
The discrimination here is that only Parler is suffering the sanctions when multiple others are winked at.
so in your mind, discrimination is being punished for things you are guilty of? that strikes you as discrimination?
First, Apple carries users who spread messages encouraging violence. Have you ever listened to gangster rap on apple music? Their sanction of Parler is discriminatory.
there is a pretty major difference. No one can trace actual violence back to music on the apple store. We very much can trace violence back to the shit parlor is allowing. At least 5 people are dead, and parlor is very much involved in that.
Second, they are judging Parler on their own made up standard of "encouraging violence" that they don't apply to themselves or anyone else.
1) all standards are "made up". Where else would we get them?
2) please show me where apple encouraged the murder of members of government.
Third, Parler is clearly a threat to Twitter, and both Google and Twitter CEO's have similar leftist political beliefs.
you haven't established that Google or Twitter's CEO's have leftist beliefs. And Parler isn't really a threat other companies. They are a shitty little right wing echo chamber. The problem is that the echo chamber started amplifying calls to violence and parler was letting it happen.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You mean like when Facebook allows violent and derogatory content against conservatives? So Facebook should shut down then?