Parler given 24 hours to clean up its act or be banned by Apple

[winn dixie]

facebook does not require a credit card last time i checked. all they require is a number to text the confirmation code of your new account along with an email.

These social media sites must be made to govern equally. Which they do not!

That is suppression of the first!

[Kinkster90210]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Youre word playing, but correct in YOUR example of violence! Newspapers and tv networks are privately owned but must give equal opportunity to candidates on both sides and etc. facey and twitty violated that! Your argument otherwise has no sand.!

Newspapers are NOT required to give equal opportunity to candidates of both sides. Where did you get that idea? The NYT staff had a meltdown because the paper published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that the snowflakes didn't like. They were CORRECT that the NYT did not have to publish Cotton's piece, even if they were wrong on the merits.

And you changed the subject. We aren't talking about candidates in an election. We are talking about an app (Parler) being banned from the Apple platform because of ALLEGED conspiracies to commit violence. There are no first amendment protections for that - if true.

Cite some case law that says a private business is required to host speakers who are engaged in threats of violence or plots to commit violence.


I doubt you can.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

Newspapers are NOT required to give equal opportunity to candidates of both sides. Where did you get that idea? The NYT staff had a meltdown because the paper published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that the snowflakes didn't like. They were CORRECT that the NYT did not have to publish Cotton's piece, even if they were wrong on the merits.

And you changed the subject. We aren't talking about candidates in an election. We are talking about an app (Parler) being banned from the Apple platform because of ALLEGED conspiracies to commit violence. There are no first amendment protections for that - if true.

Cite some case law that says a private business is required to host speakers who are engaged in threats of violence or plots to commit violence.


I doubt you can.

I have not posted about violent posting! That should be regulated! But fairly! The antheifa posts this summer were allowed but anyone denouncing them were quickly shadow banned or just removed.
That is suppression

[Kinkster90210]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

I have not posted about violent posting! That should be regulated! But fairly! The antheifa posts this summer were allowed but anyone denouncing them were quickly shadow banned or just removed.
That is suppression

But it's not a first amendment violation and that was your previous point. You said incorrectly the platforms could not kick out Parler because of freedom of speech.

You are slowly trying to back out of the wrong assertions you made above, Loser Dixie.

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

But it's not a first amendment violation and that was your previous point. You said incorrectly the platforms could not kick out Parler because of freedom of speech.

You are slowly trying to back out of the wrong assertions you made above, Loser Dixie.

No just responding to your lack of comprehension!
And "loser" is a guideline violation!
I never was talking about violent posts. Youre not keeping up!
When anyone or anything allows one side to freely express their view points while banning the opposing side is suppression of speech! Stop word playing and crawfishin.

[winn dixie]

facebook and twitter started the fact checking b/s. It was totally one sided! That was suppression! Do you defend that? Apparently so!

[matchingmole]

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

FB and Twitter want to make billions selling advertising and they want to do it with a staff of 37 people who just operate the servers. They don't want to incur the cost of hiring thousands of monitors to remove porn material or violence inciting material. Too bad about them.

Not true. FB and Twit have thousands of people doing programing and moderation. they have somebody there removing posts they don't like or fact checking with "banners" or shadow doxxing or permanently ban people.

Regulations should be put in place to eliminate the anonymous accounts. Twitter members should be required to sign up with credit cards, just like FB users. This will eliminate 90% of the keyboard warriors. Then prosecutions should be made against anyone who threatens another person. And that includes doxxing.

theres always reason to have anonymous accounts. I wouldn't eliminate them.

[Yssup Rider]

It’s utterly amazing how an armed insurrection turns the insurrectionists and supporters into Monday morning legal scholars.

Trump has been trying other handles today as a means to re-access his Twitter mob.

He has not succeeded.

Did someone here rtm him?

As simplistic though it may be to say thus — our freedom does not include the right to incite mayhem and violent insurrection. To death and destruction.

You want to scream fire in a theater and still watch the movie,

Can’t have it both ways, Trumpites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH,

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It’s utterly amazing how an armed insurrection turns the insurrectionists and supporters into Monday morning legal scholars.

Trump has been trying other handles today as a means to re-access his Twitter mob.

He has not succeeded.

Did someone here rtm him?

As simplistic though it may be to say thus — our freedom does not include the right to incite mayhem and violent insurrection. To death and destruction.

You want to scream fire in a theater and still watch the movie,

Can’t have it both ways, Trumpites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH,

Give that analogy a rest yssup. Apples and oranges to whats being suppressed! one charmin roll response

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

As simplistic though it may be to say thus — our freedom does not include the right to incite mayhem and violent insurrection. To death and destruction.

Great principle assup!

Did twitter and Facebook ban the accounts that organized the antifa/blm flash mobs that looted stores and burned police stations and businesses to the ground all last summer?

Did I miss something or are their accounts still active?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei's account still going strong enabling him to tweet out "Death to Israel!" dozens of times a day to millions of his fanatical followers?

Please explain how fairly and even-handedly your "simplistic" principle is being applied in practice by those broad-minded champions of free speech Dorsey and Zuck!

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Great principle assup!

Did twitter and Facebook ban the accounts that organized the antifa/blm flash mobs that looted stores and burned police stations and businesses to the ground all last summer?

Did I miss something or are their accounts still active?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei's account still going strong enabling him to tweet out "Death to Israel!" dozens of times a day to millions of his fanatical followers?

Please explain how fairly and even-handedly your "simplistic" principle is being applied in practice by those broad-minded champions of free speech Dorsey and Zuck!

yssups reply will be fuck Trump! Thats all hes posted for days!

The dims dont want the double standard exposed!

[HedonistForever]

Calling for protesters to go to DC is absolutely no different than calling for protesters to show up at a mall or show up and block a roadway. Something the left has been doing for 4 years with nobody being banned. That last one is illegal but was anybody banned for doing exactly that? The problem as I see it, is that this restricting and banned is not done with a scalpel but with a sledge hammer and that hammer is coming down on anybody speaking as a Conservative or Republican and the perfect example of how this has gone to far, is Twitter suspending or banning a newspaper for publishing a story they didn't like about Hunter Biden that turned out to be true. And the only reason for doing this was to protect a political party they supported.

There was nothing in that story that supported violence, nothing. It merely talked about a subject that the platform did not want talked about because it might hurt the candidate of their choice.

That can never be OK.

I am all for regulating some speech. I think we all agree, well the sane among us, that Al Qaeda or the Ayatollah, should not have a platform on social media. That's the easy part but for organizing a flash mob that ends up looting a department store and injuring people in the process, that can be allowed?


If one group can call for a protest and not use words associated with violence, "come armed, "we'll burn it to the ground" a common phrase used by the left over and over, not banned, than any group on the other side of the political spectrum should be able to call for protests. Did Twitter or Facebook ban any BLM accounts when their members were calling for the death of cops? I don't remember that happening. What I do remember are plenty of people supporting that movement saying "that wasn't what we support" but was exactly what happened, over and over, again and again with no talk of banning.

I would like somebody, anybody to find the speech that Trump gave prior to the riot at the capital and produce the words that incited that riot. Can any of you do that? Or is this a reaction that could not be foreseen any more than calling for a protest after the death of George Floyd could foresee burning a city down.

What is happening now is political speech that we don't like not using words common to the notion of inciting violence but implying it to one political party over the other.

Not one single Republican to my knowledge, has condoned what happened at the capital. It was not intended or should I say it can't be proved that Trump knew this would happen. How many rallies did Trump hold where the participants left the rally and trashed a town, broke into buildings? Yes, fights broke out but that's to be expected when the other side wants to disrupt a rally that would have been peaceful had they not showed up with the intention of causing fights just like White Supremacists did and rightly got the blame for but never the left, never the left.


I just read an article implying that the words "We will never concede" are the words that incited the riot and yet Hillary and Stacy Abrams used the same words. Were their Twitter and Facebook accounts closed for using words that incite violence. Or perhaps the words "we will fight for our rights". Any left leaning group ever use those words" Pretty sure civil rights groups used those words everyday and the racist cops used those words against them saying they were inciting a riot and the defenders correctly said "the fight" was a legal fight not a call for street violence which Rev. King always spoke against.


So words can be twisted to mean what ever one side wants them to mean. IMHO, there must be specific words we associate with inciting violence and "we will never concede" and "we will fight to the end" are not those words, unless of course they come from the mouths of a Republican. When a Democrat says the same words, they tell us that they don't mean what you are suggesting they mean. Isn't that covenant and when you have a media that accepts that one side can use those words but another can't.


Not much different than Black artist's using a certain word in their music, their writing, daily use in communicating but when a 15 year old White girl uses the word not in a pejorative way but a way to be "cool" to be like the other kids, she has her life ruined by hypocrites.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Great principle assup!

Did twitter and Facebook ban the accounts that organized the antifa/blm flash mobs that looted stores and burned police stations and businesses to the ground all last summer?

Did I miss something or are their accounts still active?

Is Ayatollah Khamenei's account still going strong enabling him to tweet out "Death to Israel!" dozens of times a day to millions of his fanatical followers?

Please explain how fairly and even-handedly your "simplistic" principle is being applied in practice by those broad-minded champions of free speech Dorsey and Zuck!

None of these people were President of the United States attempting to overturn the results of an election.


Apples and oranges, LL.


Check your PMS.

[Yssup Rider]

This message is hidden because winn dixie is on your ignore list.

Sad.