551–560 of 880 posts
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
I’m going to lend your neighbours a huge sound system so they can use their free speech to play the darkest industrial techno outside your door at 4am. I’m obviously joking, but would it be okay for me to use my platform this way? If not, why not?
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
I seriously can't identify with this viewpoint. There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there, Google is just choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence. All the pearl-clutching over free speech is totally overblown.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's whataboutism and conflation. It's possible to believe that BLM-related vandalism and anarchism is bad and that an attack on congress is bad. But... sorry, a direct attack on a joint session of congress that forces the lawmakers and VP to be evacuated is WORSE than what happened in Portland. This country can tolerate another bunch of fires and broken statues outside the Portland Federal Courthouse. I don't thin…
It wasn't exactly an attack; it was a bunch of protesters, trespassing into the building during a very important session. Illegal and wrong, mind you, but hardly a terrorist attack that it's being painted as. A group of kooks and extremists who should have, and could have, been kept out by proper policing. The Capitol police really screwed up. Actually in a way it's good that it happened; exposed some major security…
It was exactly an attack
> it was a bunch of protesters, trespassing into the building during a very important session.
No, it was a large armed mob targeting legislators; as well as many of them stating that legislators were their targets (some saying that they would be back for them), this is clearly shown in the video of the context around Ashli Babbitt getting shot, where the violence of mob at the barricades entrance to the Speakers office escalates with shouts of “They're leaving” as the legislators and staffers visible through the windows depart through another exit, shortly before the officers being threatened on the same side of the barricades as the mob withdraw toward the tactical team advancing up the nearby stairs and the crowd begins breaking through the barricades.
> Not good that they shot an unarmed woman, though.
She was part of an armed, violent mob breaking through the last physical barrier keeping them from a large group of high government officials with only small number of armed security forces who could not possibly protect the officials from the mob in the event of a general breakthrough; even so, the security forces waited as long as they could before shooting to prevent a breakthrough (and if they'd had only a few more seconds it's likely that the arriving tactical team would have turned back that particular arm of the mob.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you must have a native mobile app, you can download it from alternative stores. Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Businesses don’t have any right to force other businesses to carry their products.
> Or Parlour can just distribute as a web app. Okay. Then hosting providers refuse to host. Payment processors refuse to process your payments for web services. Your domains are revoked. Your SSL certs are revoked. Where does this end? If they have the power to, and they've justified it this far, why wouldn't they keep going?
Yet you seem to advocate more government control. You see the dichotomy in your thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can the bans (being de-platformed) be more horrific than the actual violence that's occurred?
This is going to sound incredibly cold and callous, but the comparison needs to be made. One woman was shot. 4 others died for medical reasons. One was a heart attack. One was a police officer. Tragic deaths, to be sure. And the photos really do feel horrific. But do single digit casualties justify all this? Gang violence and crime kills way more people and police officers on a daily basis. Are we really setting the…
Shockingly when you flat out say that "They're only sending there criminals" (with regards to Mexico) it has affects on how some people view and thus tread Mexicans and/or brown skinned peoples. Repeatedly, examples similar to this have been expected by the left (myself included) to incite discrimination and violence to groups of people.
So this is, imo, the natural outcome of the President saying that the government is broken beyond belief and that it is a literal stolen election.
So, with all that said i don't entirely disagree with you - BUT, this is far from an isolated incident in my mind. This is repeated escalation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And to the people complaining about censorship, this is an app that was literally used to plan a violent attack on the capitol. Some things should be censored. Wait until you find out what the text messaging apps are used for. “This was used in an attack” is a bullshit excuse to banish something. WhatsApp and signal have enabled countless terrorist actions and they are still up.
>“This was used in an attack” is a bullshit excuse to banish something. Remember when the Christchurch shooter streamed his rampage on Facebook? Why hasn't Facebook been banned yet?
the double standard is really bizarre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threats haven’t been hypothetical all year. Dozens have died, 100s maimed, $2 billion in property damage. Kamala Harris said, > "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she added. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day." > "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and…
I won't bother with your bizarre argument, but you are flagrantly taking Harris' words out of context. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fac...
That's why this censorship ordeal is scary. Both sides deserve to be heard so people can listen, hear both sides, sift through the bullshit and decide for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If wal-mart stops selling a brand of ice cream, is that censorship? Is it censorship that wal-mart doesn't sell playboy in their store? If not, then why is the removal of an app from the app store censorship? The world wide web still exists. Parler is still on the internet. Seems like there should be some acknowledgement that there's a difference between refusing to actively participate in distributing content and ce…
I think a better analogy is saying, oh, you've banned newspapers, but who cares, you can still talk to people in person. Which is to say, it's true, & that's a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the censorship itself isn't bad. The most effective, most powerful communication medium that exists right now is native apps for social networks on smartphones. If 100% of that medium is controlled and censored by two com…
Except you can sideload on Android.
Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.
What is the alternative? Do you think that the government should nationalize private companies? Or perhaps they should dictate to them who should be their clients? If a company like Google doesn't want to do business with Parler, that is their right. That is free market. If the market didn't agree with it, the free market forces would make sure that Google dwindles and another company replaces them.
Social media companies are indeed large communication platforms. There are a lot of similarities, even if they aren't exactly the same.
Or do you believe that our existing laws that apply to phone companies are somehow a tyrannical infringement on their rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real censorship means that the government prosecutes you for speech, no matter where or how or to whom are you saying it. That was happening in parts of Europe from 1945 to 1990. This what is happening in USA right now is nowhere near that. It's just free market. If you're banned from a certain platform you can reach your audience in another way. No one is censoring your speech. It's just a certain company not wantin…
Censorship has a very simple definition, and it can be conducted by private companies. From Wikipedia: “Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.” “Real” censorship is just censorsh…
So when I see what is called censorship in US, it seems a bit funny and strange to me. I immediately think how people in my country during communism would be happy if only that was called censorship and if they had a possibility to use alternative channels to exercise free speech. But of course, I accept that this might be my biased eurocentric view of things and that from a different cultural perspective "real" means something else. Perhaps it will be like that even in Europe in a few years, who knows. We don't have much problems for now because we all use US social media and they don't really react to foreign languages, except a few universal "trigger" words like antivax. At least for smaller languages and countries (central and eastern europe)