Parler is BACK!!!

[dirtypool]

Do you see any difference between being able to say it on Facebook versus to yourself in the mirror?

im sorry you have allowed facebook and twitter to be so invasive in your life that you think they are the gatekeepers to free speech

EDIT TO ADD: it looks like Parler has found anlther home per the point of this thread, so whats the free speech issue?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Hopefully this lessons some of the fever-pitch paranoia that's going around.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Yes, politicians with regulatory oversight leaning on companies to 'de-platform' viewpoints they disagree with is a freedom of speech issue.

If you're Amazon and want the politicians who can decide your companies fate not angry at you, what do you do?

I think this is a situation where the big guys actually have the most to lose, and are thus the most likely to go along with 'soft' censorship.

View embedded media

Are you convinced of this cause and effect? Is it possible that some other noteworthy event also occurred? Perhaps it's merely a coincidence? Didn't Dems already chair House committees?

What leaning do you think Democrats have done?

 

[haw-key]

It absolutely can be, if used correctly.

Agreed. Problem is, it isn’t.

Make people post under their real name, under verified accounts, and allow for liability and libel suits. The same sort of rules that apply to you.

 

[seminole97]

im sorry you have allowed facebook and twitter to be so invasive in your life that you think they are the gatekeepers to free speech

I asked you "Do you see any difference between being able to say it on Facebook versus to yourself in the mirror?"

I've never created a Facebook profile, or Twitter handle.

But I do recognize that when politicians lean on those platforms to "de-platform" viewpoints the politicians don't like, that is a free speech issue.

it looks like Parler has found anlther home per the point of this thread, so whats the free speech issue?

Politicians leaning on companies to force companies like Parler to 'find another home'.

Politician: "It's deplorable that Company X allows average citizens to say things I don't like. Company X should be broken up and I'm drafting legislation to accomplish it."

Company X de-platforms viewpoint Politician doesn't like in the hopes of avoiding expensive lobbying and litigation to preserve the company.

dirtypool: "What's the problem with this?"

 

[seminole97]

Are you convinced of this cause and effect? Is it possible that some other noteworthy event also occurred? Perhaps it's merely a coincidence? Didn't Dems already chair House committees?

She's bragging about it and you want me to convince you?
I don't think I could.

 

[tumorboy]

Is anyone here actually on Parler? Until recently I had never heard of it and was fine with that.

Depends if Steve Deace posts here. He might considering some of the crap I've read here.

 

[grapplefann]

Parler finds refuge with right-leaning webhosting service

Parler finds refuge with right-leaning webhosting service

A handful of Big Tech companies moved to take down social media platform Parler over the weekend, but it appears to have found a new company to help try to keep its website running. On Monday, Parler registered its domain and server to be hosted by Epik, an internet webhosting company known for...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

And only would-be facists will post there. Goodbye.

 

[ThorneStockton]

She's bragging about it and you want me to convince you?
I don't think I could.

I don't need you to convince me, I asked if you were convinced - which you clearly are - I prefer evidence and logic before I believe something with a high degree of certainty. That said, I don't think Jennifer Palmieri is the arbiter of the truth.

Is this true too, that the senators defiled democracy? She's making the claim!

 

[seminole97]

I don't need you to convince me, I asked if you were convinced - which you clearly are - I prefer evidence and logic before I believe something with a high degree of certainty.

Do you see the logic in companies doing what they think politicians want them to do in return for favorable treatment?
I take that straightforward logic and I pair it with a member of the Establishment crowing about what the companies have done the moment their Congressional oversight changes and take it to the reasonable conclusion.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Do you see the logic in companies doing what they think politicians want them to do in return for favorable treatment?
I take that straightforward logic and I pair it with a member of the Establishment crowing about what the companies have done the moment their Congressional oversight changes and take it to the reasonable conclusion.

I do see that logic. But a single tweet from someone I've never heard of doesn't convince me of something with some high degree of certainty.

Especially when the logic already applied to the Democrats already controlling the House. Especially when there was a separate historical event that also occurred that could explain each tech company's respective motivations. Did the Democrats winning control of the Senate have some degree of impact on how tech companies police the right wing? Maybe?

You can have the comfort of being certain by way of Jennifer's Tweet. I'll remain skeptical until shown otherwise.

 

[dirtypool]

I asked you "Do you see any difference between being able to say it on Facebook versus to yourself in the mirror?"

I've never created a Facebook profile, or Twitter handle.

But I do recognize that when politicians lean on those platforms to "de-platform" viewpoints the politicians don't like, that is a free speech issue.



Politicians leaning on companies to force companies like Parler to 'find another home'.

Politician: "It's deplorable that Company X allows average citizens to say things I don't like. Company X should be broken up and I'm drafting legislation to accomplish it."

Company X de-platforms viewpoint Politician doesn't like in the hopes of avoiding expensive lobbying and litigation to preserve the company.

dirtypool: "What's the problem with this?"

i guess i dont equate not posting on facebook or twitter to mean the only option is to talk in a mirror, making whatever you have to say afterthat meaningless

 

[seminole97]

i guess i dont equate not posting on facebook or twitter means the only option is to talk in a mirror, making whatever you have to say afterthat meaningless

So what is the option to facebook or twitter?

 

[seminole97]

I do see that logic. But a single tweet from someone I've never heard of doesn't convince me of something with some high degree of certainty.

Especially when the logic already applied to the Democrats already controlling the House. Especially when there was a separate historical event that also occurred that could explain each tech company's respective motivations. Did the Democrats winning control of the Senate have some degree of impact on how tech companies police the right wing? Maybe?

You can have the comfort of being certain by way of Jennifer's Tweet. I'll remain skeptical until shown otherwise.

Read more about and it let me know your thoughts, I'm curious: link

 

[dirtypool]

So what is the option to facebook or twitter?

create your own social media platform for all i care. Facebook and twitter is not the end all of communicating
its not a free speech problem you are arguing, its an oligopoly problem

 

[z_ape]

im sorry you have allowed facebook and twitter to be so invasive in your life that you think they are the gatekeepers to free speech

EDIT TO ADD: it looks like Parler has found anlther home per the point of this thread, so whats the free speech issue?

Nobody wants a world in which corporate entities regularly deny service based upon the consumer's politics.

 

[ThorneStockton]

Read more about and it let me know your thoughts, I'm curious: link

Glenn didn't present any additional evidence beyond the smoking gun tweet either. Oh, besides that big tech employees contributed more money to Biden than Trump.

At least Glenn only thinks it's partially related to the Democrats winning: "And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries. "

Although, just because Glenn says that Silicon Valley giants are eager to please the Democrats, it doesn't make it true. More compelling evidence would help.

That said, I enjoyed the column, although it's dripping with bitterness and liberal loathing. To the point where it's difficult to take seriously as something credible rather than something emotional, even though the matter at hand deserves thoughtful attention.

 

[seminole97]

create your own social media platform for all i care.

Which Parler did, and then the tech giants conspired to remove them from the internet.
So then what?

Facebook and twitter is not the end all of communicating its not a free speech problem you are arguing, its an oligopoly problem

Let's disentangle a few things.
Free speech is a concept that exists outside of first amendment protections.
So Company X censoring a viewpoint is a free speech issue, even if it isn't a scenario covered by the protections of the first amendment.

The first amendment isn't the alpha and omega of free speech, it just attempts to limit Congress from suppressing our speech.
When members of Congress, realizing they can't directly forbid the viewpoints they don't like because of the Bill of Rights, use other available pressure points (regulatory oversight) to try and get private parties to forbid viewpoints they don't like, that is a first amendment issue.
And that is happening.

 

[seminole97]

Glenn didn't present any additional evidence beyond the smoking gun tweet either. Oh, besides that big tech employees contributed more money to Biden than Trump.

What form do you expect the 'evidence' to take? Aside from politicians making the requests and the companies responding to the requests and the Establishment boasting about it online?

At least Glenn only thinks it's partially related to the Democrats winning: "And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries. "

I imagine crushing competitors is another part.
As Glenn mentions in the article, Parler was intended as a platform that wouldn't do the kind of data collection and perception shaping that services like Twitter and Facebook monetize.
If you're not going to shut down that competitor the best thing would be to convince everyone that only Nazis want to use a social media platform that doesn't attempt to track as many aspects of your life as technically possible.

Although, just because Glenn says that Silicon Valley giants are eager to please the Democrats, it doesn't make it true. More compelling evidence would help.

Aside from the balance of political donations and their willingness to de-platform viewpoints that Democrats don't like, what evidence are you looking for? Do you think the tech CEOs signed a letter in blood and video taped a ceremony where they pledge fealty to their Democratic Overlords?
Seriously, what are you looking for to be more convinced?

That said, I enjoyed the column, although it's dripping with bitterness and liberal loathing. To the point where it's difficult to take seriously as something credible rather than something emotional, even though the matter at hand deserves thoughtful attention.

Glenn is quite liberal, but he loathes authoritarianism (which comes in all flavors) and hypocrisy.

 

[torbee]

Agreed. Problem is, it isn’t.

Make people post under their real name, under verified accounts, and allow for liability and libel suits. The same sort of rules that apply to you.

I’d be ok with that.

 

[PurdueClassof02]

Parler lived in a neighborhood with an HOA and they didn't trim their trees. They had to move neighborhoods and are now living with The Daily Stormer, Gab and 8Chan. They never fit in with AWS, needed to move to a low rent part of town which is better for all parties.

 

[dirtypool]

Which Parler did, and then the tech giants conspired to remove them from the internet.
So then what?



Let's disentangle a few things.
Free speech is a concept that exists outside of first amendment protections.
So Company X censoring a viewpoint is a free speech issue, even if it isn't a scenario covered by the protections of the first amendment.

The first amendment isn't the alpha and omega of free speech, it just attempts to limit Congress from suppressing our speech.
When members of Congress, realizing they can't directly forbid the viewpoints they don't like because of the Bill of Rights, use other available pressure points (regulatory oversight) to try and get private parties to forbid viewpoints they don't like, that is a first amendment issue.
And that is happening.

so parler got snuffed out by the competition. Sounds pretty capitalist to me. Parler may need to get bigger bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

as far as i am concerned, Trump shouldve been booted a long time ago for violating ToS. Did you have a problem with a company not kicking trump off for violating ToS with all the insane ramblings he did the last few years (likely afraid of what Trump would do to them because republicans were in charge)?

 

[Hawk It Up]

Nobody wants a world in which corporate entities regularly deny service based upon the consumer's politics.

Want it? No, probably not.

But the power of the consumer is pretty strong.

Lets say I walk into a restaurant and I see a couple of people who were caught on film in the middle of that riot.

And I decide, hey, this place must support that, because he hires people like that, and he knows who they are and their views and walk out.

Lets say, 1/2 the lunch crowd does it too.

Is the owner within his right to fire them? Absolutely it is. Actions of his employees are going to put him out of business if he doesn’t.

 

[z_ape]

Want it? No, probably not.

But the power of the consumer is pretty strong.

Lets say I walk into a restaurant and I see a couple of people who were caught on film in the middle of that riot.

And I decide, hey, this place must support that, because he hires people like that, and he knows who they are and their views and walk out.

Lets say, 1/2 the lunch crowd does it too.

Is the owner within his right to fire them? Absolutely it is. Actions of his employees are going to put him out of business if he doesn’t.

I'll say flat out that of course some consumer pressure is good. You want consumer pressure.

But it's not all good.

You don't want partisan politics widely practiced at the corporate level.

I don't think that'll be good for society.

The genesis for conservative concern over actions like those taken against Parler -- which I believe I mostly agree with -- is what I just spoke to.

 

[haw-key]

Twitter seems a bit duplicitous. On one hand they are sure to have enjoyed, for 6 years or so, the Trump brand. The tweet traffic. The media attention to their platform etc. but then on the other hand, now that he is done, they want to ban him, seemingly to earn street cred so to speak, with a segment of our population, now that they are sure to no longer benefit from his use of their platform. I can’t stand Dorsey.

 

[Hawk It Up]

I'll say flat out that of course some consumer pressure is good. You want consumer pressure.

But it's not all good.

You don't want partisan politics widely practiced at the corporate level.

I don't think that'll be good for society.

The genesis for conservative concern over actions like those taken against Parler -- which I believe I mostly agree with -- is what I just spoke to.

This situation isn’t partisan politics. Republicans are trying to make it that, but it isn’t.

Parlor provides a place for people to go say things (write things, whatever) that are illegal to say. And if we had a functioning DOJ, they would have been raided and had data seized. That it takes a ‘hacker’ (term used loosely) to do it is extremely telling of the current DOJ.

 

[ThorneStockton]

What form do you expect the 'evidence' to take? Aside from politicians making the requests and the companies responding to the requests and the Establishment boasting about it online?



I imagine crushing competitors is another part.
As Glenn mentions in the article, Parler was intended as a platform that wouldn't do the kind of data collection and perception shaping that services like Twitter and Facebook monetize.
If you're not going to shut down that competitor the best thing would be to convince everyone that only Nazis want to use a social media platform that doesn't attempt to track as many aspects of your life as technically possible.



Aside from the balance of political donations and their willingness to de-platform viewpoints that Democrats don't like, what evidence are you looking for? Do you think the tech CEOs signed a letter in blood and video taped a ceremony where they pledge fealty to their Democratic Overlords?
Seriously, what are you looking for to be more convinced?



Glenn is quite liberal, but he loathes authoritarianism (which comes in all flavors) and hypocrisy.

I appreciate the time and effort required to make this post. Although, I suspect it was done to convince yourself, rather than intended for me. There's no reason to be embarrassed for believing something despite a lack of evidence. People do it all the time. We sometimes just call it a "gut feeling".

One thing that is worth keeping in mind as you concoct your theories or reach conclusions is the concept of confirmation bias.

This was an enjoyable exchange, thanks for answering my original question.

 

[Rifler]

So what is the option to facebook or twitter?

Phone, text & email...

 

[z_ape]

Twitter seems a bit duplicitous. On one hand they are sure to have enjoyed, for 6 years or so, the Trump brand. The tweet traffic. The media attention to their platform etc. but then on the other hand, now that he is done, they want to ban him, seemingly to earn street cred so to speak, with a segment of our population, now that they are sure to no longer benefit from his use of their platform. I can’t stand Dorsey.

Well why'd they ban Trump? They seemed to ban him because of what happened on the Capitol. It's reasonable to believe he'd absolutely still be with us if that didn't happened.

I don't think that's hard to put together.

 

[Hawk It Up]

Phone, text & email...

So, FB & Twitter are services you have a ‘right’ to? Is that what he’s saying? I’d ask myself, but, ya know, he’s on my do not list.

 

[ThorneStockton]

What form do you expect the 'evidence' to take? Aside from politicians making the requests and the companies responding to the requests and the Establishment boasting about it online?



I imagine crushing competitors is another part.
As Glenn mentions in the article, Parler was intended as a platform that wouldn't do the kind of data collection and perception shaping that services like Twitter and Facebook monetize.
If you're not going to shut down that competitor the best thing would be to convince everyone that only Nazis want to use a social media platform that doesn't attempt to track as many aspects of your life as technically possible.



Aside from the balance of political donations and their willingness to de-platform viewpoints that Democrats don't like, what evidence are you looking for? Do you think the tech CEOs signed a letter in blood and video taped a ceremony where they pledge fealty to their Democratic Overlords?
Seriously, what are you looking for to be more convinced?



Glenn is quite liberal, but he loathes authoritarianism (which comes in all flavors) and hypocrisy.

Also, to reciprocate with some effort. Evidence that I would find more compelling:

Testimony/quotes from the involved parties that describe the arrangement/understanding. I'm thinking of management/high level employees at Big Tech, then similar level of people among the Democrat machine. Documents that describe the arrangement/understanding.

If that can't be done, perhaps quotes/perspective from uninvolved parties but whom have been in a similar position at Big Tech or in Government who could explain how the sausage is made. Who would be involved in decision like this, what would be their thought process, etc.

The type of things that are common in investigative reporting as opposed to emotional rants.

If that type of evidence can't be obtained, some level of analysis that shows why every other plausible explanation doesn't have merit might help.

Why can't it be because Parler really is reprehensible place for violence and something reputable companies no longer wish to be associated with? Why is it that holding the Senate for the Dems is what did Parler in rather than holding the House? Etc.

If the other plausible theories can be debunked, perhaps then, the only remaining plausible explanation is that Big Tech is policing right wing discourse because the Dems won the senate.

Those are the types of things I would find more compelling than an observational tweet from someone I've never heard of.

 

[Chishawk1425]

 

[Rifler]

So, FB & Twitter are services you have a ‘right’ to? Is that what he’s saying? I’d ask myself, but, ya know, he’s on my do not list.

I'm saying that services like Facebook and Twitter are more trouble than they're worth and most people would be better off without them...

 

[BelemNole]

Can you read posts without creating an account? I like to know what the other side is up to but prefer to stay off watch lists

Well, it's gone. But before that if you wanted to know what the crazies were saying you could just follow https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/

 

[BelemNole]

There are lots of other options than facebook. People under 30 don't use facebook at all.

Here's a thought - dont' let your platform be the gathering point for an insurrection if you can't handle the consequences.

 

[RileyHawk]

I asked you "Do you see any difference between being able to say it on Facebook versus to yourself in the mirror?"

I've never created a Facebook profile, or Twitter handle.

But I do recognize that when politicians lean on those platforms to "de-platform" viewpoints the politicians don't like, that is a free speech issue.



Politicians leaning on companies to force companies like Parler to 'find another home'.

Politician: "It's deplorable that Company X allows average citizens to say things I don't like. Company X should be broken up and I'm drafting legislation to accomplish it."

Company X de-platforms viewpoint Politician doesn't like in the hopes of avoiding expensive lobbying and litigation to preserve the company.

dirtypool: "What's the problem with this?"

This sounds a lot like "the vote is rigged". Accusation with no evidence.

 

[RileyHawk]

So what is the option to facebook or twitter?

What was it before FB or Twitter? JFC this is such a lame argument.

 

[RileyHawk]

Nobody wants a world in which corporate entities regularly deny service based upon the consumer's politics.

If that's the case then those corporate entities will either change or go out of business.

 

[z_ape]

If that's the case then those corporate entities will either change or go out of business.

Spoken like a true libertarian.

 

[RileyHawk]

Glenn didn't present any additional evidence beyond the smoking gun tweet either. Oh, besides that big tech employees contributed more money to Biden than Trump.

At least Glenn only thinks it's partially related to the Democrats winning: "And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries. "

Although, just because Glenn says that Silicon Valley giants are eager to please the Democrats, it doesn't make it true. More compelling evidence would help.

That said, I enjoyed the column, although it's dripping with bitterness and liberal loathing. To the point where it's difficult to take seriously as something credible rather than something emotional, even though the matter at hand deserves thoughtful attention.

Or, maybe, just maybe, these corporate execs agree with the Democrats in these cases.