Amazon Shutting Down PARLER

Lots of moderator "errors". Twitter suspended new House Representative Lauren Boebert, but there was immediate a public outcry, then moderators changed their minds and re-instated her. There is no "public outcry" for the thousands of ordinary citizens who have their voices taken away, but individuals are "too small" to notice for anyone to loudly complain for each case. That is the real threat to civil liberties we are currently facing.

 

Wanna run off with me and start a new party? You've been singing my entire play list in this thread.

So-called "Libertarians," wanting government to take over the free market. LOL.

But, but... the barrier to entry is purchasing some space on a server!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh. The. Horror.

 

The World Economic Forum changed their web page recently. For a few months, their home page blatantly said they were using Covid as "an opportunity" to achieve their goals to move to a political-technocracy globalist government. We see what that means. It is not "safe" to go to a mom-and-pop small or medium business, but it is "safe" for everyone to crunch in to shop at a big box store like WalMart or Home Depot which will become government "approved" monopolies as soon as all the small independent owners are intentionally bankrupted.

It's not like they were hiding their "vision" for the standards under which they will "allow" us to live and what we will be "allowed" to think or not think and "allowed" to own or not own.

 

Why do people cry and whine about getting banned? If you don't respect the rules, then you deserve to get banned. It's really as simple as that. Some guy was yelling at a Trump rally, and Trump had him thrown out and said he wanted to punch him in the face. What happened to freedom of speech there? According to your view, everyone should be able to say anything they want anywhere they want.

If you want to have your voice heard, then find a way to be heard as opposed to demanding to use someone else's platform.

The victim mentality of Trump supporters is nauseating.

Gab us open, and Parler is re-opening, so they can go there and shout their lungs out there, and plot some murders while they are at it. And they can take their commie mindset with them where its a "civil right" to have full access to someone else's private property.

 

That turned out to be Facebook.

 

It was Parler. The complaint is that FB is moderating too much.

Not that it matters since you demand ALL platforms must be forced (by the government) to allow anything and everything.

 

Government has taken over the free market. Government is a monopoly which has been deciding for decades which companies are allowed to become monopolies. Lots of money changing hands at the top.

 

I have not made one single "demand". What I have done is to lay out a defense of civil liberties which requires an open platform for free speech. What Democrat leaders and Big Tech are doing is the equivalent of what has happened across college campuses where the Marxist fringe have successfully sold the idea that there should only be a tiny "Free Speech Zone" on campus and the majority of the public square should be a "Safe Space". Political indoctrination at its finest. The narrowing down of "acceptable" thought.

More and more words and ideas will become designated as "hate speech", disallowed and punishable by law. The language and "allowed thoughts" will eventually be so narrowed down and minimized that we will not be able to communicate at all.

 

Other peoples property is outside your civil liberties. How hard is that for the big government folks to grasp. Only a communist would do away with private property rights and argue that one man's property is everyone's property. I am guessing you don't really comprehend what you are asking for. You have been duped into supporting something you claim to oppose.

 

You said you voted for this guy. Did you ever actually listen to what he said and/or learn anything from him, or were you just in an awkward stage of your life?

You are the one supporting big government, and monopolies which unchecked and unrestrained will lead to communism and oppression.

 

Which specific person in government told Twitter to ban Trump's Twitter account? Specifics, please. Just spouting "gubmint did it," doesn't work for me.

 

I listened to him a lot.

You speak about monopolies, while talking about a multitude of separate companies which compete with each other, which clearly demonstrates you do not understand the meaning of the word.

You DO argue what communists would argue (everyone should have rights to other people's property). You even call it a civil right.

And no, the government did not create Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, or other companies who sell the same products.

It is becoming painfully obvious I am wasting my time, since you just keep repeating the same line over and over.

 

They find themselves in an awkward situation, because they try to apply the old and trusted tactic of trying to associate others with communists, but now they argue for communism (apparently without even realizing it). Or maybe they always had the mindset that everyone should have the right to other people's property and that the government exist to make that possible.

 

You are mincing words again. I having previously clarified that Big Tech is an oligarchy of companies. Referring to that oligarchic conglomeration as "a monopoly" within the tech industry is for simplicity. That should be clear in context of the entire discussion, and you are not that dumb to "get it".

I have not argued in the least that anyone should have any access to others' private property. Twitter and Facebook gained protection under Section 230 because of a commitment to serve as a public square. That is how the defined themselves up until the recent past. Public squares are considered available to all law-abiding people.

You are arguing the legalities of corporate structure to defend censorship. I am arguing the moral implications of censorship for the very negative impact that is has on civil liberties. You are arguing for massive restraint on the citizenry because a corporation "legally can" squash anybody from using their service. I am arguing for maximum civil liberties based on traditional values of equity. If member-partners of the oligarchy change their original self-definition of serving as a "public square" and quickly change their mission statement to becoming society's Marxist thought police virtually overnight, then they should not be allowed to have the power to shut off access to competitive rivals.

Well, the courts and bi-partisan support (Progressives, Libertarians and Nationalists) for anti-trust will sort this out, but that may take longer than the estimated one-year to build a smoothly operating free speech social media platform "from scratch".

 

@LoneStarGal

Section 230 doesn't prohibit online communities from having standards. They are absolutely allowed to have codes of conduct.

We can argue if standards are being applied equally; that's a valid discussion.

 

Twitter needs to update their mission statement.



New mission...

The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone Democrats, Marxists and Communists the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free censured, and corrupted, global conversation political propaganda.

--

Say I opened the most fabulous shoe store advertised as "A pair of shoes for every foot and every style" and that's what I offered for years, beating all the competition until I had monopoly power. Then one day I woke up and decided to only carry women's size 8.5 narrow-width stilettos. I essentially banned everyone who doesn't wear women's size 8.5 narrow-width stilettos by drastically changing my stated mission and business model. I would certainly expect a backlash from a lot of ticked off barefooted customers.

 

~ Twitter receives protection by government under Section 230. This needs to stop. That is the point . Apparently social media is afraid of this happening.

 

230 does not say that those under 230 can't have standards. This is a ridiculous line of reasoning, James.

Are the standards being applied evenly? That's a valid discussion.

 

They claim to have set up a neutral platform and then have politicized it resulting in economic harm and the suspension of free speech. Then they have conspired to shut down the competitive neutral platform. Why they think that this is a winning strategy is beyond me and anyone else. 2022 is coming up soon and there will be backlash which will result in Republicans taking back the House and Senate.

 

Good. Americans are served best by a split government.

 

Both Twitter and Facebook were used to communicate this. There’s no outrage concerning them. I wonder why?

 

~ And under Section 230 they are protected from civil litigation . All they have to do is claim something is " objectionable ". ´

 

Americans are best served by freedom of speech and the free flow of information and opinion. Democracy cannot exist without this. Big Tech is the enemy of democracy and the enemy of the American people.

 

It as 230 is written. They are using 230 to enable censorship of those they don’t agree with politically. And 230 prevents those harmed by this from legal recourse.

 

You have no constitutional right to other people's property.