821–830 of 880 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never. That’s my point. Why change the entire way we manage the internet based on one incident after decades of relatively little problems? How do we know the capitol thing wouldn’t have happened anyway?
How is removing a twitter clone from an app store changing the way we manage the internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know that five people died, right? Bombs were planted, property was stolen. All this to protest a legitimate election.
To protest a stolen election. You can spin it your way, and I'll spin it my way. You won't persuade me or 75m other people by just asserting that you're right and we're wrong. It doesn't work that way. Well, I take that back. It did work that way for 75 years in a place we used to call the USSR.
And no, before you copy/paste random twitter accounts, youtube conspiracy theorists, and "sworn" affidavits without corroborating material evidence: such "evidence" is not sufficient.
If it did then we'd have to believe that aliens are real, that lizard people are controlling the world, the earth is hollow, the moon is a space station, Nibiru is coming, and the pope worships satan.
That's the sort of theories your belief shares evidentiary quality with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.
Interesting, I didn't know that. So a business can actually deny a service depending on political affiliation. Of-course this can be challenged in the courts. Well, unless, it's protected by 230.
Political affiliation is a protected class in some states[0].
California[1], for example, also prohibits discrimination on gender identity, ancestry, sexual orientation, AIDS/HIV status, medical condition, political activities or affiliation, veteran status, or status as a stalking victim.
[0] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/discrimin...
[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's important to distinguish that "not deleting something" is NOT the same as amplifying it. Amplifying it would be pasting images and links to Parler all over the Google Play splash page and all over the Google Play website, sending emails to all its gmail users to download Parler, or inserting Parler ads into some % of its ad impressions. They aren't doing that. "Leave it alone" is not the same thing as amplificat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there People are calling for AWS to drop Parler, and Parler has already come out and said if this happens, then Parler itself is gone forever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence Then why not ban Twitter as well? I could show you hundreds of tweets from little known left-wing activists inciting violence during the BLM protests. This double standard tells us that the rationale given for banning Parler is just an excuse. The real reason is that executives in these companies are doing what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actions like these where one side fully suppresses the other - one set of standards for themselves and another set of standards applied to people they oppose - are exactly the kind of actions that lead to civil war. Comparing ~70 million Americans to paedophiles...
or comparing ~70 million Americans to Nazis
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.
Meaning I can post a sign "No Trump Voters Allowed" on my restaurant?
[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is accurate. Just because you have to go directly to the website doesn't mean it's censored. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, etc are not in the business of supporting outlier extremism in our society. Claiming censorship because they don't want to platform that stuff is ridiculous. Imagine a Jewish-owned store being forced to sell nazi paraphernalia because not selling it is censorship. The users of parler or gab ar…
Huh? Last time I checked, BLM app ( https://apps.apple.com/us/app/black-lives-matter/id955318790 ) is on Apple store and the group has, among other notable events, burning Kenosha done on their bucket list. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter et al have zero issues supporting violence as long it supports a given side. I don't buy the analogy ( mostly because most analogies are crap ). Normal people try thought experiments and…