Poll of the Day > Parler says they are FINISHED if Google and Apple BAN THEM with NO MONEY!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Parler Chief Policy Officer Boogeywoman, Amy Peikoff is warning that they are on the BRINK of financial COLLAPSE if they are permanently BANNED from Google and Apple after they were suspended their app store citing posts on there that incited violence and demanding "robust" content moderation from the app favoured by trump supporters!!

Google gave them 24 hours to submit a detailed moderation plan, pointing to participants using the service to coordinate wednesday's siege of the US Capitol

2 Silicon Valley companies mean the network seen as a haven for people expelled from Twitter and Facebook could become unavailable for new downloads on those app stores

Parler has been around for 2 years which is a more freewheeling alternative to twitter and has become popular with right wing groups as it saw a major spike in traffic after trump's twitter was permanently banned and now Amy says they are being targeted as a conservative platform that refuses to fact check its users

Conservatives have flocked to Parler, Telegram, Gab to try to find a new home but are now finding it very difficult after the suspensions from big tech

Google, who powers Android phones, cited its policy against apps that promote violence and gave examples from Parler including a friday post that said "How do we take back our country? About 20 or so coordinated hits" and another promoting "Million Militia March"

Amy went on Tucker Carlson to say the app should not have responsibility for every piece of incitement that is posted there and is competing with other platforms who have decided that they want to surveil and blasted the fact checking policies..

She says "the nature of an open platform, a free and open town square is that we do not take action on people until we are aware of a situation that's particularly suspicious. I think we do have a reputation as a conservative platform, although we are nonpartisan, that is what everybody sees us. People don't like to live in a world of Orwell's 1984 and on the other hand, a lot of people seem to want to pressure social media to do more to moderate, as they call it, content on their platforms, but that would require 24 hour surveillance. And we don't think that is consistent with the principles of America"

She wants people to speak their mind freely and are not going to fact check and be told what to think, what to read etc..

She admits that if these bans do take effect it will have a very serious effect on their growth and amazon has also threatened them and if they were to remove services, then they will be down and likely have to CLOSE...

She admits, "we'd be gone" and CEO John Matze claimed Apple was applying standards to the app that did not apply to itself

Apple has 24 hours to remove all objectionable content or else they will be delisted and to submit a written plan to moderate and filter content out

Matze who says is a "libertarian" founded it in 2018 as a free speech driven alternative and has won over Candace Owens, Rudy Guiliani, Larua Loomer and others

Would you be happy to see this site get taken out?

https://i.imgur.com/WKJ4ujg.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/j8r9acr.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/hKflMY8.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JMR5KTD.jpg
---

1) Far-left authoritarians in government crack down on social media networks to stifle conservatives.
2) Conservatives, libertarians, and other non-leftists leave to find new platform
3) Far-left authoritarians in government pressure online stores to de-list those new platforms
4) Lather, rinse, repeat until the authoritarians control speech and indirectly control thought

Granted, although this moves America much closer to becoming China, I'm also kinda happy to see Parler go because it fucked up Google search results so instead of seeing beautiful parlors in peoples' homes I saw crap for some shitty app.

https://i.imgur.com/MTzWXhrg.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0Qoe2d5.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/3FisIwx.jpg

Just a few examples of the things being buried by that fucking app. So sure, this is a terrible infringement on speech, but now people will be able to enjoy parlors again.

---

Shoulda called it SpeakEasy

---

Why would they be finished? Just make a non-app version of Parler... I mean, derr

---

No since all censorship is wrong.
---

Now stopping the planning of terror attacks is censorship. Traitors.

It's shitty that they can kill their existence by deeming their sensibilities wrong.
---

Free speech has limits. If violence is being orchestrated or encouraged, it should be shut down. That goes for whatever attacks Parler users want to arrange, etc. That said, the "protests" (see: excuse to loot/destroy) that occurred over the summer should've been treated as seriously as this in terms of shutting down access to platforms and the FBI knocking on doors. The peaceful ones obviously are fine, and many of them were. But there were so many that weren't and I am sure law enforcement could've easily figured out which were gonna go bad based on who they monitored going to them.

I don't understand why we've got people in here defending terrorism.

Raddest_Chad posted...

Free speech has limits. If violence is being orchestrated or encouraged, it should be shut down.

Agreed, except Parler isn't orchestrating anything. This is akin to bulldozing a house because a drug dealer was operating in it. There's no sense in destroying the location, the criminals committed the crime.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Agreed, except Parler isn't orchestrating anything. This is akin to bulldozing a house because a drug dealer was operating in it. There's no sense in destroying the location, the criminals committed the crime.

You're lying, which is normal for you. They are being told they need to have a moderation policy in place to stop the planning of terror attacks on their platform.

Stop defending terrorism.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're lying, which is normal for you. They are being told they need to have a moderation policy in place to stop the planning of terror attacks on their platform.

This... I mean, they have a responsibility to police their platform. And they have been given a chance to come up with a solution.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Now stopping the planning of terror attacks is censorship. Traitors.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't understand why we've got people in here defending terrorism.

Bullshit claims that might be more impactful if you hadn't defended terror attacks and their planning within just the past year, including handwaving the destruction of buildings (including police stations) by saying crap like "well, people are angry"

In fact, in just the lead-up to the election, you advocated for some of that shit. Now you're turning around and trying to fly a flag over your sins.

---

I ain't playing games with you. I'm reporting all you traitors when you're in here defending terrorism.

This isn't funny any more and your bull shit isn't cute.

as it turns out, you can make an app that you can do whatever on

as it turns out, you signed and agreed to a terms of service with whatever platform hosts that app

as it turns out, if you break those terms, they can ask you to stop breaking those terms

as it turns out, if you don't agree to stop, they can remove you.

as it turns out, zeus left out the part where trump kept trying to make it so social media platforms could be held more accountable for the things on their platform, which zeus also advocated for

as it turns out, if trump had actually gotten his way, apple and google wouldn't be asking for those apps to change, but they would just be banned immediately. oh, and trump would still have gotten banned from social media, albeit sooner.

as it turns out, if google and apple just immediately banned those apps, zeus would be bitching about that, too.

as it turns out, zeus is just a troll

---

then they should have done more to curb the talk of violence on their site, then.
people there were talking about murdering Democrats constantly.

---

Phantom_Nook posted...

then they should have done more to curb the talk of violence on their site, then.
people there were talking about murdering Democrats constantly.

oooh, lets not forget that, for a platform that prided itself on not censoring things, they censored anything pro-democratic posted there by removing it


---

Raddest_Chad posted...

Free speech has limits.

Free speech is irrelevant to be mentioned here since social media websites are not government owned institutions.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I ain't playing games with you. I'm reporting all you traitors when you're in here defending terrorism.

This isn't funny any more and your bull shit isn't cute.

I'm pretty sure Kyuubi is from the UK so he can't be a traitor to America by definition.

Joe_Biden posted...

as it turns out, you can make an app that you can do whatever on

as it turns out, you signed and agreed to a terms of service with whatever platform hosts that app

as it turns out, if you break those terms, they can ask you to stop breaking those terms

as it turns out, if you don't agree to stop, they can remove you.

as it turns out, zeus left out the part where trump kept trying to make it so social media platforms could be held more accountable for the things on their platform, which zeus also advocated for

as it turns out, if trump had actually gotten his way, apple and google wouldn't be asking for those apps to change, but they would just be banned immediately. oh, and trump would still have gotten banned from social media, albeit sooner.

as it turns out, if google and apple just immediately banned those apps, zeus would be bitching about that, too.

as it turns out, zeus is just a troll

Twitter and Facebook would also be shut down if they got rid of Section 230.
---

Zeus posted...

Bullshit claims that might be more impactful if you hadn't defended terror attacks and their planning within just the past year, including handwaving the destruction of buildings (including police stations) by saying crap like "well, people are angry"

Comparing anything from last year with the attack on the capital is unbelievably dumb

---

Revelation34 posted...

Twitter and Facebook would also be shut down if they got rid of Section 230.

actually, no, they wouldn't, because they have made it a point to branch out their services to be more than just a social media platform specifically if that were to happen

---

You're strawmanning again, BS0. Literally nobody is defending terrorism in this topic although, I might add, you've done that plenty of times in the past as recently as in November if not December. You can troll and drum your chest all you like, but what you're taking issue with isn't "terrorism" and it never has been. It's just the latest pretext you're using for the same shit you've always pulled.

Joe_Biden posted...

as it turns out, zeus left out the part where trump kept trying to make it so social media platforms could be held more accountable for the things on their platform, which zeus also advocated for

Except for the fact that Trump was advocating accountability for preserving free speech. You're confusing it for congressional democrats on the far left who were having hearings to force social media platforms to censor in ways that those officials saw fit, which is more akin to the kind of government intervention you see in China than the US.

---

trump was advocating for the direct removal of section 230

try the fuck again champ

---

Joe_Biden posted...

actually, no, they wouldn't, because they have made it a point to branch out their services to be more than just a social media platform specifically if that were to happen

The social media side would be. Facebook just owns a bunch of different companies.
---

Hey look at that, Zeus no longer supports businesses being able to deny doing business to anyone they want for any reason they want.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Comparing anything from last year with the attack on the capital is unbelievably dumb

Let's see, within the last year there were the orchestrated assassinations of cops, the attacks on government buildings (including a police station being burned), multiple major bombings including the one that took out that ATT (or other major provider's building) and disrupted communications within a region, etc. I think those are all very serious attacks, so I'm not sure why you're trying to handwave them.


---

Revelation34 posted...

The social media side would be. Facebook just owns a bunch of different companies.

definitely don't look up the stuff twitter owns lmao


---

Joe_Biden posted...

trump was advocating for the direct removal of section 230

try the fuck again champ

Do you post things not knowing what they are or do you deliberately conflate them in an attempt to try to confuse people? You're comparing a civil matter to government-led censorship, which bears no resemblance between the two. And it wasn't Trump calling Zuckerberg and the others to a hearing.

---

Zeus posted...

https://i.imgur.com/3FisIwx.jpg

Just a few examples of the things being buried by that f***ing app. So sure, this is a terrible infringement on speech, but now people will be able to enjoy parlors again.

That's a pretty cool ass gaming parlor.

Fortunately their demographic are very passionate and very dumb. They can bleed them dry, just like Trump was doing.

Zeus posted...

Let's see, within the last year there were the orchestrated assassinations of cops, the attacks on government buildings (including a police station being burned), multiple major bombings including the one that took out that ATT (or other major provider's building) and disrupted communications within a region, etc. I think those are all very serious attacks, so I'm not sure why you're trying to handwave them.

They were serious attacks. I agree. But comparing any of that with a direct armed attack on the Senate chamber? No, that is absolutely braindead.

---

If you want the First Amendment to apply to social media sites, then you should support said sites being publicly owned- aka, socialized.

But... well, we wouldn't want to be like Vuvuzela, would we?

---

Raddest_Chad posted...

Free speech has limits. If violence is being orchestrated or encouraged, it should be shut down. That goes for whatever attacks Parler users want to arrange, etc. That said, the "protests" (see: excuse to loot/destroy) that occurred over the summer should've been treated as seriously as this in terms of shutting down access to platforms and the FBI knocking on doors. The peaceful ones obviously are fine, and many of them were. But there were so many that weren't and I am sure law enforcement could've easily figured out which were gonna go bad based on who they monitored going to them.

Many of them were using twitter to incite violence and call for murders on various political figures over the last year. You'd think twitter would've been shut down then but no. Many of the specific tweets are still up apparently. Crazy stuff.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't understand why we've got people in here defending terrorism.

Usually because they don't understand common decency.

---

Zeus posted...

You're strawmanning again, BS0. Literally nobody is defending terrorism in this topic

I mean you and kyuubi are defending terrorism so there are at least two people.

Lokarin posted...

Why would they be finished? Just make a non-app version of Parler... I mean, derr

that's what's hilarious about this! There is a website for it! I made an account to troll a month ago, but then deleted my account after seeing just how serious these racists were on that website. It absolutely disgusted me.

---

Rather than going after the platform holders that those disgusting failures cling to, simply keep it closely monitored. Don't even bother trying to moderate or control it. Let them spread their idiocy, let them plan their crimes...

And when they go to carry out the things they've discussed, have the right people in the right places to stop them, and dispense justice accordingly.

---

Zeus posted...

Do you post things not knowing what they are or do you deliberately conflate them in an attempt to try to confuse people? You're comparing a civil matter to government-led censorship, which bears no resemblance between the two. And it wasn't Trump calling Zuckerberg and the others to a hearing.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act specifically protects sites (or "interactive computer services") that allow user-submitted content from liability for (most) criminal things posted by users. If it were fully repealed and revoked, as the Tang-faced buffoon in the Oval Office desired in the waning moments of his failed Presidency, Parler would have to implement a strict moderation policy or find itself shut down for being criminally liable for the criminal bullshit users have posted there. Likewise, Google and Apple would have to remove the Parler app from their respective stores or find themselves criminally liable for the criminal content posted via an app on their stores.

Enough damage has already been done to Section 230 by useless bullshit legislation like FOSTA, but a full repeal of Section 230 would have far more damaging effects on free speech than allowing private entities to moderate user-submitted content according to clearly delineated Terms of Service, Rules, and Guidelines would.

And this "government-led censorship" you're harping on about? That is frankly bullshit. The three latest hearings attended by Facebook were:

1. A hearing in late 2019 regarding Facebook allowing disinformation and outright lies in political ads posted to their service, as well as violations of housing discrimination laws. This, predictably, went fucking nowhere. Democrats wanted to know why Facebook would allow malicious ads in which Donald Trump's campaign told deliberate lies about Joe Biden to run on their service, and Zuckerberg just waffled off with a "I think we did the right thing, we strike a good balance, etc." (I'm severely paraphrasing). This accomplished nothing.
2. A big-ass anti-trust hearing in July of 2020, to which Google, Amazon, and Apple were also party. Lawmakers believed that the four companies were getting so big that they were stifling competition, whereas the four companies believed they needed to be giant, monolithic corporate gods in order to help their tiny competitors discover fire or whatever. This went nowhere and accomplished nothing.
3. An honest-to-God useless sham of a hearing about Section 230 (also involving Twitter and Google), with Democrats demanding to know what the companies involved were doing to rein in hate speech and voter suppression, and Republicans demanding to know why they were doing things to rein in hate speech and voter suppression. It was a big clusterfuck that accomplished nothing.

---

Parler is facebook for neo-nazis and pedophiles. Good riddance. You do not give fascists a platform. That is asking for trouble.

---

Aren't Google and Apple ideologically opposed to free speech to begin with? Why would Parler even do business with them let alone become solely dependant on them?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Aren't Google and Apple ideologically opposed to free speech to begin with? Why would Parler even do business with them let alone become solely dependant on them?

Learn what freedom of speech is.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Aren't Google and Apple ideologically opposed to free speech to begin with?

What gives you that idea? Because they actively enforce their ToS?

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Learn what freedom of speech is.

Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

Google and Apple support censorship of public expression of opinions.
They interfere with other other companies that oppose censorship.

And just in case you were focused on the last of the 3 qualities - They act in a politically biases manner. Restraint on behalf of government achieves the same as restraint by government.

---

That's some impressive delusion, spinning any enforcement by a corporation as politically and thus government-inspired. Where exactly does that logic end?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

Google and Apple support censorship of public expression of opinions.
They interfere with other other companies that oppose censorship.

And just in case you were focused on the last of the 3 qualities - They act in a politically biases manner. Restraint on behalf of government achieves the same as restraint by government.

Telling a company to stop the planning of terrorism on their platform is not censorship. Fuck off.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

Google and Apple support censorship of public expression of opinions.
They interfere with other other companies that oppose censorship.

And just in case you were focused on the last of the 3 qualities - They act in a politically biases manner. Restraint on behalf of government achieves the same as restraint by government.

Wat.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

Google and Apple support censorship of public expression of opinions.
They interfere with other other companies that oppose censorship.

And just in case you were focused on the last of the 3 qualities - They act in a politically biases manner. Restraint on behalf of government achieves the same as restraint by government.

LMFAO
You are not entitled to use other's platform to shout your free speech. Trump can still say whatever the fuck he wants.

There are also limits to free speech. Inciting violent riot is not protected.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government.

Google and Apple support censorship of public expression of opinions.
They interfere with other other companies that oppose censorship.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Comparing anything from last year with the attack on the capital is unbelievably dumb

Actually let's compare.... how many police officers were bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher between all of the BLM protests this year?

---

BADoglick posted...

Actually let's compare.... how many police officers were bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher between all of the BLM protests this year?

Is that a weapon in L4D2? I can't remember

---

"if conservatives don't like it, why don't they start their own social network?"

This is why. Every time they do, servers refuse to host them, payment processing services cut them off...etc. unless you're expecting conservatives to literally build their own utility infrastructure, server hosts, and payment services entirely from scratch, the argument is obviously bullshit, and this ain't the first time this has happened in recent years.

---