No More Tweeting for Donny

Maybe they just followed marching orders from Michelle Obama.
View attachment 338527View attachment 338528
(1) I believe each company independently made their decisions in the aftermath of January 6. I'll continue to believe this until there is evidence they communicated to each other on the matter (this is an issue in the anti-trust claim).

(2) "banning this man from their social media platforms" = shutting down Parler?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
(1) I believe each company independently made their decisions in the aftermath of January 6. I'll continue to believe this until there is evidence they communicated to each other on the matter (this is an issue in the anti-trust claim).

(2) "banning this man from their social media platforms" = shutting down Parler?
Google, Twitter and Facebook have admitted under oath they communicate with each other on "security issues" and some of the members called out the programs used for it. Removing the competition from Google and Apple store and then the server services with Amazon who controls about 50% of the hosting requires strong inquiry and potentially antitrust.
 
Google, Twitter and Facebook have admitted under oath they communicate with each other on "security issues" and some of the members called out the programs used for it. Removing the competition from Google and Apple store and then the server services with Amazon who controls about 50% of the hosting requires strong inquiry and potentially antitrust.
Parler isn't the competition of the above, it's a customer.

I don't want to see Parler driven out of business, but you all are claiming stuff you have no proof of.
 
Parler isn't the competition of the above, it's a customer.

I don't want to see Parler driven out of business, but you all are claiming stuff you have no proof of.

In one way you are correct, they wanted to offer a place for free speech.
 
Google, Twitter and Facebook have admitted under oath they communicate with each other on "security issues" and some of the members called out the programs used for it. Removing the competition from Google and Apple store and then the server services with Amazon who controls about 50% of the hosting requires strong inquiry and potentially antitrust.

Not much of a leg to stand on if Parler is violating the ToS.

Didn't AWS give Parler time to submit a detailed explanation on how they were going to police the site against users continuing to threaten violence and insurrection?
 
Didn't AWS give Parler time to submit a detailed explanation on how they were going to police the site against users continuing to threaten violence and insurrection?
My question here is whether or not the contract gave Parler at least 30 days notice for termination.
 
(1) I believe each company independently made their decisions in the aftermath of January 6. I'll continue to believe this until there is evidence they communicated to each other on the matter (this is an issue in the anti-trust claim).

(2) "banning this man from their social media platforms" = shutting down Parler?
Regarding #2 let’s analyze the facts.

1) Michelle Obama calls for Trump to be banned by Silicon Valley on 1/7

2) Twitter suspends both the personal and official government accounts of Trump on 1/8

3) Twitter purges thousands of accounts from their platform on 1/8. I’ve seen the number 70,000 accounts cited, but not sure of the exact number. Apparently banning this man also means banning a large number of his supporters as well.

4) The “conservative” platform Parler was widely speculated as a potential landing spot for Trump on social media

5) Parler was experiencing record growth when Apple and Google removed the app from their stores.

1/8 Google bans Parler

Google bans Parler from Android app store

1/9 Apple removes Parler from App Store

Apple Suspends Parler From App Store Until ‘Dangerous And Harmful Content’ Resolved

1/11 Amazon ends hosting services

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

Apparently the powers that be in Silicon Valley have decided (or complied with the decision) that all content that fails to align with their own views will ultimately be on the chopping block (warnings, disclaimers, suspensions, bans, etc)

If you agree with what’s happening then you’re anti-freedom IMO
 
Cool, Twitter tweets saying I got banned from Parler. I certainly trust Twitter users.

Is twitter the enemy or are twitters users the enemy?

Suggesting Parler hasn't banned people is as laughable as Trump's minions trying to float that it was Antifa rioting in the Capitol.

Also, don't conflate a Constitutionally protected Right to free speech from reprisal from the government with being able to threaten violence on a private platform. There is no guarantee of "fee speech" for the latter.

EbjlQT_XQAEshbh
 
Is twitter the enemy or are twitters users the enemy?

Suggesting Parler hasn't banned people is as laughable as Trump's minions trying to float that it was Antifa rioting in the Capitol.

Also, don't conflate a Constitutionally protected Right to free speech from reprisal from the government with being able to threaten violence on a private platform. There is no guarantee of "fee speech" for the latter.

EbjlQT_XQAEshbh

Are you just dense or what? I am not trusting messages from a platform used by people that are on the side of tyrannical big tech.

I've not conflated anything. Point to it when you are able.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GSD82
Parler isn't the competition of the above, it's a customer.

I don't want to see Parler driven out of business, but you all are claiming stuff you have no proof of.
Twitters competition is Parler. If they communicate with Google, that enters the Google store removing them. Two companies, Apple and Amazon, who were not called for the hearing may be communicating with them too. Three of the five admitted to colluding with each other. It smells bad and should be looked into through antitrust. If twitter got the same treatment during the blm riots, would you have the same take?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Are you just dense or what? I am not trusting messages from a platform used by people that are on the side of tyrannical big tech.

I've not conflated anything. Point to it when you are able.

You really don't see why that is a ridiculous position do you?

Those comments were made long before Fat Donny and his henchman were booted from the platform. Unless your point is that anyone who's ever used it is lying POS, which would be a self defeating argument given that your hero made his living on it for the last five years. It's even funnier that given that hatred of "tyrannical big tech", Donny would sulk back on to twitter in a heartbeat if the ability presented itself.
 
Twitters competition is Parler. If they communicate with Google, that enters the Google store removing them. Two companies, Apple and Amazon, who were not called for the hearing may be communicating with them too. Three of the five admitted to colluding with each other. It smells bad and should be looked into through antitrust. If twitter got the same treatment during the blm riots, would you have the same take?

Twitter's competition is instagram and facebook. Parlers competition was the comments section below OAN's articles and 4chan message boards.
 
Regarding #2 let’s analyze the facts.

1) Michelle Obama calls for Trump to be banned by Silicon Valley on 1/7

2) Twitter suspends both the personal and official government accounts of Trump on 1/8

3) Twitter purges thousands of accounts from their platform on 1/8. I’ve seen the number 70,000 accounts cited, but not sure of the exact number. Apparently banning this man also means banning a large number of his supporters as well.

4) The “conservative” platform Parler was widely speculated as a potential landing spot for Trump on social media

5) Parler was experiencing record growth when Apple and Google removed the app from their stores.

1/8 Google bans Parler

Google bans Parler from Android app store

1/9 Apple removes Parler from App Store

Apple Suspends Parler From App Store Until ‘Dangerous And Harmful Content’ Resolved

1/11 Amazon ends hosting services

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

Apparently the powers that be in Silicon Valley have decided (or complied with the decision) that all content that fails to align with their own views will ultimately be on the chopping block (warnings, disclaimers, suspensions, bans, etc)

If you agree with what’s happening then you’re anti-freedom IMO
I said I oppose Parler being shut down. Everything else that has happened is consistent with a free marketplace. I'm no tech expert, but I believe if Parler had had a few weeks warning about Apple/Google/AWS decisions, it could have made alternative arrangements and kept running.

Twitters competition is Parler. If they communicate with Google, that enters the Google store removing them. Two companies, Apple and Amazon, who were not called for the hearing may be communicating with them too. Three of the five admitted to colluding with each other. It smells bad and should be looked into through antitrust. If twitter got the same treatment during the blm riots, would you have the same take?
Colluding? It's a computer network. Of course there have been agreements made between the major players to keep things running.
 
I said I oppose Parler being shut down. Everything else that has happened is consistent with a free marketplace. I'm no tech expert, but I believe if Parler had had a few weeks warning about Apple/Google/AWS decisions, it could have made alternative arrangements and kept running.


Colluding? It's a computer network. Of course there have been agreements made between the major players to keep things running.
So you don't see a problem with Twitter colluding with Amazon to shut down their competition? Especially when twitter is guilty of the exact same behavior that Parler is being accused of
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and AM64
I said I oppose Parler being shut down. Everything else that has happened is consistent with a free marketplace. I'm no tech expert, but I believe if Parler had had a few weeks warning about Apple/Google/AWS decisions, it could have made alternative arrangements and kept running.


Colluding? It's a computer network. Of course there have been agreements made between the major players to keep things running.
Lol
 
Regarding #2 let’s analyze the facts.

1) Michelle Obama calls for Trump to be banned by Silicon Valley on 1/7

2) Twitter suspends both the personal and official government accounts of Trump on 1/8

3) Twitter purges thousands of accounts from their platform on 1/8. I’ve seen the number 70,000 accounts cited, but not sure of the exact number. Apparently banning this man also means banning a large number of his supporters as well.

4) The “conservative” platform Parler was widely speculated as a potential landing spot for Trump on social media

5) Parler was experiencing record growth when Apple and Google removed the app from their stores.

1/8 Google bans Parler

Google bans Parler from Android app store

1/9 Apple removes Parler from App Store

Apple Suspends Parler From App Store Until ‘Dangerous And Harmful Content’ Resolved

1/11 Amazon ends hosting services

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

Apparently the powers that be in Silicon Valley have decided (or complied with the decision) that all content that fails to align with their own views will ultimately be on the chopping block (warnings, disclaimers, suspensions, bans, etc)

If you agree with what’s happening then you’re anti-freedom IMO

Just an idea like antifa
 
You really don't see why that is a ridiculous position do you?

Those comments were made long before Fat Donny and his henchman were booted from the platform. Unless your point is that anyone who's ever used it is lying POS, which would be a self defeating argument given that your hero made his living on it for the last five years. It's even funnier that given that hatred of "tyrannical big tech", Donny would sulk back on to twitter in a heartbeat if the ability presented itself.
It seems like the Right is against a private business doing what it wants to do. Taking a page from the Right with their constantly and never ending whatabouts, I don't remember them going to bat for Louis Farrakhan when he was banned from Facebook. It hard to keep up with the Right when it comes to what they stand for because it changes according to the situation. Their Supreme Lord and Emperor Donald Trump has been known to take both sides of a topic and proclaim he is right either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
People in the mob aren't absolved of their actions just because we hold Trump accountable for his.

I don't know what the right response to Trump is or even the right way to label his contribution to the capitol invasion, but there is no way that none of this is on him.

When you want to hold anyone on the left accountable for their calls for violence then I’ll start to give a **** about what trump said. Start with Maxine Waters
 

VN Store



Back
Top