Parler App

[bear_down_chicago_89]

Yeah, that was all 75 million people that voted for Trump invading the Capitol. Exaggerate much?
I'm hardly a Trump sycophant, but I voted for him, because there is little difference between Establishment Republicans & Establishment Democrats and I felt we needed an outsider to shake things up and he did. Despite having the bulk of both Parties hoping he'd fail and having unprecedented obstacles thrown in front of him by the Dems, he was able to accomplish a lot of good things. Personally, he annoyed the Hell out of me on a daily basis, but his policies were sound and he was one of the few politicians, who actually did what he promised, after he got elected.

It's funny, listening to the Dems ranting about how badly he botched handling CV-19. Their constant drone was the he didn't act soon enough or do enough. Yet, when he closed travel with China on 31Jan, the Dems & MSM raked him over the coals for overreacting, calling him a racist & xenophobe. The Dems offered no real time proposals, but they were quick to second guess everything he did.

When he said that he could get a vaccine within a year, the Dems & the media derided him as being delusional, since it had taken at least 4 years to create, test, approve and bring a vaccine to market before. If there had been a politician in the WH, we still wouldn't have had a vaccine. Since Trump was used to operating in the private sector, he started Operation Warp Speed, leaned on Big Pharma to expedite research & production, leaned on FDA to expedite the approval process and organized the supply chain to get the vaccine to the states. Amazingly, we have people being inoculated with not one, but three vaccines. Yet, never a positive word from the Dems & MSM. Trump could single handedly cure cancer and the headlines would be, "Trump Puts Thousands in Cancer Research Out of Work".

Great, just what this thread needed. A COVID discussion.

And note .. i separated Conservatives from Trumpians. We can debate rep vs. dem policies politely, but the MAGA crowd is a whole other beast.

They did this because dear leader lost and they can’t accept it.

 

[Mustang100]

I am not arguing for Parlor. I am pointing out the hypocrisy and croc tears of people like you. If a group uses social media to incite looting and burn down government buildings then they should be banned? Yeah, I'll support that. But you don't. As i have documented Google's you tube host content from Louis Farrakhan. Not another company using google phones or search engines. Google themselves.

Oh wait, maybe you dont think calling Jews Satan and termites and promoting positions about them running the banks and finance is garbage. Ok. I get it now. My fault. That's our disconnect.

As far as Farrakhan videos go, they may be on there, but they don’t seem to be having much impact. Those videos may be inappropriate and should be removed, but they’re pretty far down the priority list. One possibility is also a “Streisand Effect” on those videos. Removing them may bring more attention to them than not removing them. I’m guessing the activities at the Capitol last week are garnering a fair amount of attention already.

 

[Olas]

I am not arguing for Parlor. I am pointing out the hypocrisy and croc tears of people like you. If a group uses social media to incite looting and burn down government buildings then they should be banned? Yeah, I'll support that. But you don't. As i have documented Google's you tube host content from Louis Farrakhan. Not another company using google phones or search engines. Google themselves.

Oh wait, maybe you dont think calling Jews Satan and termites and promoting positions about them running the banks and finance is garbage. Ok. I get it now. My fault. That's our disconnect.

??????? Not even sure how you could create this narrative based on anything I've said.
I've have not supported people individually posting any of that stuff.

If Twitter users or Facebook users are found using their sites to plan violent attacks, those users are removed.
Parlor does not and allows for them to plan and continue to plan and organize violence publicly on their app with no restrictions.
How can you not wrap your head around that?

People posting disgusting comments or videos is revolting. Period. Those people get to deal with the consequences of public opinion on them for posting or saying such things.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

You think this is great because it fits your ideology, but you realize the worm can turn don’t you? If not you should. I’m not on Parler but this is quite disconcerting.

It appears to me to be more like a grocery store deciding not to stock Pepsi. Google and Apple can choose what is and is not in their "store". If Parler wants to they could become a separate entity like Twitter and Apple and Google could do nothing. Parler has chosen not to do that - why I don't know - so they have to abide by the "rules" of the "store."

 

[tjreese]

So, I would again point out that not having a social media account is not "stamping out free speech." No one is guaranteed any right to have a social media account and there are still other avenues to share things outside of social media. The president specifically can get on tv any time he wants, but somehow I'm to believe his speech has been severely limited because he got his Twitter account taken away?

As to the rest of what you've said, I think it's more than what you point out. People aren't just posting angry rhetoric, they are going way further than that. They used these platforms to organize an event that led to the Capitol being breached. People died. A Capitol Police officer died. Is that suddenly not an issue for the right? I thought we were supposed to back the blue? I have to imagine that does not include bashing an officer in the back of the head with a fire extinguisher.

All of that said, I don't think any of it has to do with 230. Maybe you didn't intend any of your comments to be related to that, but it is what I was talking about and it would not create a more open platform for people to share their thoughts. Quite the opposite actually.

In my ignorance of 230 and I admit that I'm ignorant I thought there were special tax privileges given to the social media and that ensured no censorship of unpopular positions and if true many...many censorship could be in violation... That said, I don't know and have not researched. My very limited view was just trying to recall something I previously read...months ago

 

[ptree06]

I don't support that and threats of violence are rightly regarded as illegal. The idiots who stormed the capitol this week are the furthest thing from patriots and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law..

but you fully support these million people to be left unchecked to organize, share blueprints of buildings they plan to attack, issue threats, etc on Parlor??? Because in your mind organizing a coup is free speech. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[TheGunner]

Great, just what this thread needed. A COVID discussion.

And note .. i separated Conservatives from Trumpians. We can debate rep vs. dem policies politely, but the MAGA crowd is a whole other beast.

They did this because dear leader lost and they can’t accept it.

View embedded media

The irony in the statement above is hard to ignore. The Democrats have been doing the same for four years. Not the Capitol building, but in cities across America.

And now riots have gone too far. So the Capitol building is where the Democrats drew the line. Point noted.

BTW, the people attacking the Capitol should be identified and arrested....but the other rioters should they slide? Where do u draw your line?

 

[ptree06]

He said he's not a Trumper. What's your problem?

he asked what civil war

 

[BoilerMadness]

Is ANTIFA posting on Twitter their plots? If they are they absolutely should be shut down.

As i posted above ... they have been monitoring and censoring the Ayatollah’s account.

Other than the threat to Biden's election, what threat did the article posted by the NY Post about Hunter Biden's laptop pose to the nation? Both Twitter & Facebook stifled that story very quickly and the MSM chimed in with Russian disinformation, without doing any type of investigation. That act of censorship may have turned the election. Those two platforms wield a lot of power, when it comes to forming & controlling opinions. That's a lot of power for people, who are more interested in propaganda, than facts.

 

[QuadBoiler]

In my ignorance of 230 and I admit that I'm ignorant I thought there were special tax privileges given to the social media and that ensured no censorship of unpopular positions and if true many...many censorship could be in violation... That said, I don't know and have not researched. My very limited view was just trying to recall something I previously read...months ago

I'm not aware of any tax implications related to section 230. This is a quick explanation from CNET (don't think that is considered a biased source). I think the last part is what conservatives have an issue with, but repealing the whole thing would have consequences far beyond what they intend imo.

"Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. A number of tech industry observers say it's the most important law protecting free expression online.

The provision essentially protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services. The law shields not only internet service providers, like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, but also social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Google.

Section 230 isn't blanket protection. There are exceptions for federal crimes or intellectual property claims. A company could still be held accountable if it knowingly allowed users to post illegal content.

The law provides social media companies with sweeping protections that let them choose what content they restrict, and how. This means social media platforms can't be sued for taking down content or leaving it up."

 

[tjreese]

Yeah, that was all 75 million people that voted for Trump invading the Capitol. Exaggerate much?
I'm hardly a Trump sycophant, but I voted for him, because there is little difference between Establishment Republicans & Establishment Democrats and I felt we needed an outsider to shake things up and he did. Despite having the bulk of both Parties hoping he'd fail and having unprecedented obstacles thrown in front of him by the Dems, he was able to accomplish a lot of good things. Personally, he annoyed the Hell out of me on a daily basis, but his policies were sound and he was one of the few politicians, who actually did what he promised, after he got elected.

It's funny, listening to the Dems ranting about how badly he botched handling CV-19. Their constant drone was the he didn't act soon enough or do enough. Yet, when he closed travel with China on 31Jan, the Dems & MSM raked him over the coals for overreacting, calling him a racist & xenophobe. The Dems offered no real time proposals, but they were quick to second guess everything he did.

When he said that he could get a vaccine within a year, the Dems & the media derided him as being delusional, since it had taken at least 4 years to create, test, approve and bring a vaccine to market before. If there had been a politician in the WH, we still wouldn't have had a vaccine. Since Trump was used to operating in the private sector, he started Operation Warp Speed, leaned on Big Pharma to expedite research & production, leaned on FDA to expedite the approval process and organized the supply chain to get the vaccine to the states. Amazingly, we have people being inoculated with not one, but three vaccines. Yet, never a positive word from the Dems & MSM. Trump could single handedly cure cancer and the headlines would be, "Trump Puts Thousands in Cancer Research Out of Work".

I saw picture of a poster on a car a couple of moths ago that said."Fu%k your feelings vote Trump" I understand why people don't like Trump as a person, but rarely hear about policies they hate. Some could list a litany and others not one

 

[faneidde]

but you fully support these million people to be left unchecked to organize, share blueprints of buildings they plan to attack, issue threats, etc on Parlor??? Because in your mind organizing a coup is free speech. Makes a lot of sense.

No...those things are illegal. And I support making Twitter and Facebook allow all legal speech.

If someone wants to advocate anything legal, they should be allowed to. The more you censor, the more those people go underground into places without countering viewpoints where there are illegal threats. Who the hell had even heard of Parler before Twitter banned Trump?

 

[tjreese]

I'm not aware of any tax implications related to section 230. This is a quick explanation from CNET (don't think that is considered a biased source). I think the last part is what conservatives have an issue with, but repealing the whole thing would have consequences far beyond what they intend imo.

"Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. A number of tech industry observers say it's the most important law protecting free expression online.

The provision essentially protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services. The law shields not only internet service providers, like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, but also social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Google.

Section 230 isn't blanket protection. There are exceptions for federal crimes or intellectual property claims. A company could still be held accountable if it knowingly allowed users to post illegal content.

The law provides social media companies with sweeping protections that let them choose what content they restrict, and how. This means social media platforms can't be sued for taking down content or leaving it up."

FWIW I'll repeat that I don't know either. It may not be 230, but understand they have special treatment from taxes...again I could be very wrong. I like CNET and have no idea of their political leanings but there is one

 

[BoilerMadness]

Show me any censorship as it relates to conservative discussion on ..

taxes, health care, position on Israel or whatever political point you want to discuss.

Even the discussion on the constitutionality of the mail in voter laws.

None of that has been censored.

How is it that you know so specifically all the things that allegedly aren't censored?

Yet mysteriously, a number of Conservatives have had their accounts arbitrarily shut down, up to and including the President. Granted, Trump was a bit of a loose canon on Twitter, but I do not like the idea that Twitter can censor POTUS. That sounds a bit like overreach.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

The irony in the statement above is hard to ignore. The Democrats have been doing the same for four years. Not the Capitol building, but in cities across America.

And now riots have gone too far. So the Capitol building is where the Democrats drew the line. Point noted.

BTW, the people attacking the Capitol should be identified and arrested....but the other rioters should they slide? Where do u draw your line?

Anybody that becomes violent (breaking windows, burning, punching/shoving, etc) should be arrested and prosecuted.

I do think Dem leaders should have done more to keep the BLM and other stuff peaceful.

I do think this week crossed a line though .. Trump fired them up and pointed them to the Capital so the Trump Army could Fight for Trump!! Their sole intention was to disrupt the meeting and vote counting. Rudy was on the phone at 7 pm that night trying to get senators to keep slowing it down more ... i do wonder what else they were trying.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Amazon removed Parler from their store also. Would it be permissible to remove child pornography from their "stores"? Or speech advocating violence against anyone?

 

[JWoodsclassof81]

The first amendment prevents Congress from creating a law to infringe on free speech. Not private companies.

Section 230 protects private companies from being liable for what is posted on their sites. It does not prevent in any way the private companies ability to set rules for what can be shared on their site.

The Supreme Court has established if you provide a certain product or service to the public that you can not discriminate and not offer that same product or service based on discrimination.
This does not mean a business cannot kick people out or deny service to someone who violates their rules of service.
Using the gay couple wedding cake. Business must make a cake they would for anyone else. Business can deny the request if they want to place a cake topper of two people having sex on the cake.

Parlor did not put any rules in place to prevent the spreading of lies, hate, violence, and inciting more riots. So Google and Apple banned their product.
This is would be the same as if a coffee shop was holding Nazi meetings at their location. The owner of the building can terminate their lease.

Nobodies rights have been infringed. Here is a suggestion to those people. Stop being stupid, disgusting, terrible human beings.

you are a fool. any decent debater would display that for all. Substitute black or gay people with Nazis and your case falls apart. Dummy. You do not get to decide which group is protected.

 

[bear_down_chicago_89]

How is it that you know so specifically all the things that allegedly aren't censored?

Yet mysteriously, a number of Conservatives have had their accounts arbitrarily shut down, up to and including the President. Granted, Trump was a bit of a loose canon on Twitter, but I do not like the idea that Twitter can censor POTUS. That sounds a bit like overreach.

Other than Trump, who’s account has been shut down arbitrarily that was not tied to the violence this week?

Hannity is as pro-Trump, pro-Conservative as you get and he’s tweeting today about how bad Twitter is. There are no warnings or any restrictions.

Heck ... PARLER has an account on Twitter they use to communicate without restriction.

 

[QuadBoiler]

The irony in the statement above is hard to ignore. The Democrats have been doing the same for four years. Not the Capitol building, but in cities across America.

And now riots have gone too far. So the Capitol building is where the Democrats drew the line. Point noted.

BTW, the people attacking the Capitol should be identified and arrested....but the other rioters should they slide? Where do u draw your line?

Dems were rioting because their candidate lost the presidential race? I guess I missed those. Damn MSM.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Anybody that becomes violent (breaking windows, burning, punching/shoving, etc) should be arrested and prosecuted.

I do think Dem leaders should have done more to keep the BLM and other stuff peaceful.

I do think this week crossed a line though .. Trump fired them up and pointed them to the Capital so the Trump Army could Fight for Trump!! There sole intention was to disrupt the meeting and vote counting. Rudy was on the phone at 7 pm that night trying to get senators to keep slowing it down more ... i do wonder what else they were trying.

I too, read that about Guiliani and "slowing it down". What was that about?

 

[BoilerMadness]

Your argument is false because Twitter allows individuals such as Louis Farrakhan and the Ayatollah of Iran to tweet. The first refers to Jews as termites and the second ends every statement with “death to America.” Do you think this incites violence and dangerous activities? Do you think the anyone who follows Iranian state feeds have been inspired to join a group that has been responsible for the death of Americans?

Antifa members also have access to Twitter and YouTube (google). Has their group has been responsible for violence?

And the CCP is welcome to tweet obvious falsehoods without any moderator notifying the reader that the content is false. Of course Google is deeply involved with CCP. And yet nobody cares about the number of high level of Google execs who have moved into the Biden administration? A company working hand-in-glove with a communist dictatorship to censor and control their population has moved to the new administration. Oh what ideas they could provide.

How dare you imply that the Big Guy could be controlled by China.

 

[ptree06]

No...those things are illegal. And I support making Twitter and Facebook allow all legal speech.

If someone wants to advocate anything legal, they should be allowed to. The more you censor, the more those people go underground into places without countering viewpoints where there are illegal threats. Who the hell had even heard of Parler before Twitter banned Trump?

Good, then we agree since Parlor didn’t censor illegal activity, they should have been shut down as they were.

now, what else we arguing about?

 

[QuadBoiler]

FWIW I'll repeat that I don't know either. It may not be 230, but understand they have special treatment from taxes...again I could be very wrong. I like CNET and have no idea of their political leanings but there is one

I'm sure there is, but I have no idea what it is. I googled and picked a link from a source I thought wouldn't be instantly tossed aside by many. The description was pretty concise and seemingly unbiased, so that's what I pasted here.

 

[rproff]

That's Marsh vs. Alabama. I would suggest that the very obvious distinguishing factor is that the usage and activities within the town were open to the public as a whole and not to those who entered into any written agreements indicating that their use of the town was not a public right but a private usage of the business's property as opposed to Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. There would be a legitimate analogy to Marsh if the platforms merely made themselves available without the need to sign off on their agreement as to terms of use.

I don't know the detailed history of company towns, but I would guess the people living there had to sign contracts that may have included language stating what they could and could not do with the company property. I believe the ruling applied not only to visitors who did not have to sign anything but also to those who lived there and had signed contracts. Anyway the point I was making was that the more a property becomes a public service, the more Constitutional restrictions override the rights of private property. I believe this should be applied to social media companies as the new defacto "town squares."

 

[tjreese]

How is it that you know so specifically all the things that allegedly aren't censored?

Yet mysteriously, a number of Conservatives have had their accounts arbitrarily shut down, up to and including the President. Granted, Trump was a bit of a loose canon on Twitter, but I do not like the idea that Twitter can censor POTUS. That sounds a bit like overreach.

My niece told me she has a timeout for referencing 1984 on Twitter. Maybe it wasn't a single tweet but several I don't know or see any
That said, her mother that I assume has a Twitter account is no doubt an extremist on the other side 🤣. I don't believe for a second that there exists a fear that Trump is going to incite people. I think it is more about diminishing him in continuation of the many previous attempts AND to somehow shame any that supported him making it easier to accept policies much different. Shaming is a form of control...just one of many controls in play

 

[faneidde]

Good, then we agree since Parlor didn’t censor illegal activity, they should have been shut down as they were.

now, what else we arguing about?

Now do Twitter and Facebook...

 

[70boiler]

I don't know the detailed history of company towns, but I would guess the people living there had to sign contracts that may have included language stating what they could and could not do with the company property. I believe the ruling applied not only to visitors who did not have to sign anything but also to those who lived there and had signed contracts. Anyway the point I was making was that the more a property becomes a public service, the more Constitutional restrictions override the rights of private property. I believe this should be applied to social media companies as the new defacto "town squares."

The difference is that the town was opened to everyone to use not just residents, even assuming that there were such waivers by residents and that clearly is a distinction. The town stopped being a private town with its usage by others.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, paid for 70 buses to transport armed rioters to the rally. Her Facebook page was shut down today. I didn't see her actual posts offering free transportation so I am not sure what the issue was with Facebook.

Question: Could Amazon or Twitter or Facebook or other social media be sued or held responsible in any way if they did not shut down or ban some of these accounts? For example, can the husband or parents sue for the death of the young woman at the Capital?

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Now do Twitter and Facebook...

and Amazon.

 

[faneidde]

and Amazon.

Right...I could find hundreds of threats on any of those sites in minutes. Dozens of replies on every tweet by Trump encouraged him to commit suicide.

 

[70boiler]

Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, paid for 70 buses to transport armed rioters to the rally. Her Facebook page was shut down today. I didn't see her actual posts offering free transportation so I am not sure what the issue was with Facebook.

Question: Could Amazon or Twitter or Facebook or other social media be sued or held responsible in any way if they did not shut down or ban some of these accounts? For example, can the husband or parents sue for the death of the young woman at the Capital?

I believe that is in general what Section 230 protects them from.

 

[BoilerMadness]

If so you would support the repeal of NN. That package that was adopted during the Obama Administration made the Internet a utility that was highly regulated by the government - and pick winners and losers like Netflix (winner). Ever wonder why Obama got a 100 million w/Netflix. Seriously. Do you think that he is worth that much in content? No. But his ability to save them money via a regulatory body was.

There is also the fact that the Obama rules were drafted in privacy and not released to public until AFTER passage. SO much for transparency.

Hmmm? That sounds familiar. I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi telling the House once, "You have to pass the Bill, before you can find out what's in it." Wasn't that Obamacare?

It absolutely amazes me that people can vote for someone, who could make a pronouncement like that. It amazes me even more, when I think of all our tax dollars that get pissed away by politicians too lazy or incompetent to know what they're voting for, yet still vote for it. I'm fast becoming a fan of term limits.

 

[Bethboilerfan]

Right...I could find hundreds of threats on any of those sites in minutes. Dozens of replies on every tweet by Trump encouraged him to commit suicide.

It must be difficult to monitor these sites - for example, the one we are on seems to allow things that are against the rules. At the moment, there is a very political thread on the basketball board which several people have asked them to remove but the last time I looked it was still there??? Also, a lot of name-calling appears to have escaped notice. I would assume that there is some sort of algorithm making these decisions???

 

[Droid12345]

I'm fast becoming a fan of term limits.

Agreed. I also advocate for ending gerrymandering and publicly-financed elections. Throw in ranked-choice voting and you've really got something.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I don't know how I feel about 230, but it's definitely time to break up Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook.

The problem is, who's going to do it. Big Tech owns all the politicians. I always find it humorous, when they bring in the CEOs of Twitter, Google, Microsoft and Facebook, and berate them before the cameras. Everyone thinks that Congress is doing their job by controlling Big Tech and putting them in their place. The reality is that it's all political theater to make the voters believe their Representatives are doing their jobs. The Tech Oligarchs aren't the least bit nervous.

 

[Sophie1970]

Are you saying John Roberts is a pedophile? Source?

TMan92 said he was up above in a post. I am as surprised to learn he was one as much as you.

 

[ptree06]

It must be difficult to monitor these sites - for example, the one we are on seems to allow things that are against the rules. At the moment, there is a very political thread on the basketball board which several people have asked them to remove but the last time I looked it was still there??? Also, a lot of name-calling appears to have escaped notice. I would assume that there is some sort of algorithm making these decisions???

sorry but allowing people to call each other stupid vs allowing people to organize a govt coup/mass murder are a little different...

 

[BoilerMadness]

let me add this as well- it was the democratic party in the past session of congress advocating for the break up of big tech companies. banning Parlor is helps bring the left back into their corner

Democrats call for Congress to rein in, break up Big Tech

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to rein in Big Tech, possibly forcing Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple to break up their businesses, while making it harder for them to acquire others and imposing new rules to safeguard competition...

apnews.com

I'll believe it, when I see it. Talk is cheap with politicians.

 

[Olas]

you are a fool. any decent debater would display that for all. Substitute black or gay people with Nazis and your case falls apart. Dummy. You do not get to decide which group is protected.

Actually no. Hate groups are not a protected group. The Constitution only prevents discrimination for specific reasons (race, sex/gender, age, religion, national origin, disability, genetic information, or veteran status) and Nazi's is not one of them. You can deny goods or services to Nazi's.

The only thing Nazi's are protected from is not getting arrested for solely being a Nazi.

The fact you don't understand this and advocating for it, is disturbing to say the least.

 

[Olas]

Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence Thomas, paid for 70 buses to transport armed rioters to the rally. Her Facebook page was shut down today. I didn't see her actual posts offering free transportation so I am not sure what the issue was with Facebook.

Question: Could Amazon or Twitter or Facebook or other social media be sued or held responsible in any way if they did not shut down or ban some of these accounts? For example, can the husband or parents sue for the death of the young woman at the Capital?

No, section 230 of CDA means that the site or app cannot be held liable.

It does not prevent a site or app or service that provides those applications or servers from setting terms of use and moderator rules. Section 230 does still protect the app or platform if the moderation rules were not correctly applied and the message was still delivered or seen and a violent action did occur partially or potentially based on the message. The individual is the potential liable party.