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

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm a little lost on all this. Can some one explain to me why its neccessary for them to be on the these app stores? Aptoide and hosting the app software on your own site seems to be a quick solution. I assume there's something idk about.

LuciferSage posted...

"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.

Actually, it goes a little more like this:

Every time conservatives start their own social network, it winds up attracting (for some mysterious reason) a "surprising" amount of white nationalists, neo-nazis, abject racists, domestic terrorists, seditionists, violent nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, and anti-semites. The hateful language and violent threats espoused by this varied groups of assholes inevitably gets the "free speech" conservative platform shut down for not moderating that shit because very few hosting service want to put up with that kind of hateful bullshit.

It's not like all conservative things get shut down. Hell, Conservapedia, which has apparently gone full dipshit (as opposed to only slightly dipshit) since the last time I looked at it over a decade ago, is still up. The problem is that many of these so-called "conservative" social media sites advertise themselves as "free speech" havens, which only serves to attract hateful bigots who talk about murdering Jewish people, lynching black people, and assassinating Republican Vice Presidents.

Nobody's getting their conservative social media sites shut down for discussing a miserly fiscal policy or tax breaks for billionaires.

---

dainkinkaide posted...

Actually, it goes a little more like this:

Every time conservatives start their own social network, it winds up attracting (for some mysterious reason) a "surprising" amount of white nationalists, neo-nazis, abject racists, domestic terrorists, seditionists, violent nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, and anti-semites. The hateful language and violent threats espoused by this varied groups of assholes inevitably gets the "free speech" conservative platform shut down for not moderating that shit because very few hosting service want to put up with that kind of hateful bullshit.

It's not like all conservative things get shut down. Hell, Conservapedia, which has apparently gone full dipshit (as opposed to only slightly dipshit) since the last time I looked at it over a decade ago, is still up. The problem is that many of these so-called "conservative" social media sites advertise themselves as "free speech" havens, which only serves to attract hateful bigots who talk about murdering Jewish people, lynching black people, and assassinating Republican Vice Presidents.

Nobody's getting their conservative social media sites shut down for discussing a miserly fiscal policy or tax breaks for billionaires.

Tl;dr, everything I disagree with is ist-and-phobic: the post.

You can have a "conservative platform" but only as long as your behavior is within acceptable limits as defined by liberals. Gotta gatekeep that overton window.

---

wah wah wah, dem libs taking away mah freedom of speech.

---

LuciferSage posted...

everything I disagree with is ist-and-phobic

No, just the stuff that's -ist and -phobic

---

LuciferSage posted...

Tl;dr, everything I disagree with is ist-and-phobic: the post.

You're that one guy who summarized "Catcher in the Rye" as "I don't know. It's about baseball, I guess."

---

LuciferSage posted...

Tl;dr, everything I disagree with is ist-and-phobic: the post.

You can have a "conservative platform" but only as long as your behavior is within acceptable limits as defined by liberals. Gotta gatekeep that overton window.

Literally defending terrorism.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Literally defending terrorism.

hold on now, by entailment that means "the English language" is a terrorist.

---

Lokarin posted...

hold on now, by entailment that means "the English language" is a terrorist.

What?

BlackScythe0 posted...

What?

Parler as a platform is entirely neutral regardless of the mass bigotry and aggression shared by its users

---

LuciferSage posted...

Tl;dr, everything I disagree with is ist-and-phobic: the post.

You can have a "conservative platform" but only as long as your behavior is within acceptable limits as defined by liberals. Gotta gatekeep that overton window.

do

do you not disagree with white supremacy, racism, and bigotry?

is this the hill you're choosing to die on, whiskey

---

dainkinkaide posted...

You're that one guy who summarized "Catcher in the Rye" as "I don't know. It's about baseball, I guess."

[citation needed]

Go ahead, I'll wait.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Literally defending terrorism.

Free speech means potentially hearing things you don't like or agree with. It's a pretty basic concept.

Furthermore, if you drive these guys deeper and deeper into the shadows, eventually you get an underground movement. Would you rather have these guys openly saying dumb shit where it can be monitored, or do you want them plotting bombings across a kitchen table like Timothy Mcveigh back in the "good old days"? When people typed their manifestos from cabins in the woods on typewriters and sent them to newspapers wrapped around explosives.

Joe_Biden posted...

do

do you not disagree with white supremacy, racism, and bigotry?

is this the hill you're choosing to die on, whiskey

I don't have to agree with the language used to defend the principle of the thing. See above.

I don't agree with AOC either, but I'm not calling for her to be unpersoned because I think she's an ill-informed, idealistic moron. Bad ideas should be expressed, challenged, noted. Not driven into dark places to fester and grow. Light is the best disinfectant.

---

LuciferSage posted...

Would you rather have these guys openly saying dumb shit where it can be monitored, or do you want them plotting bombings across a kitchen table like Timothy Mcveigh back in the "good old days"?

Pretty sure the tech companies want them planning seditious acts off of their platforms where they can't be held complicit to them.

---

LuciferSage posted...

I don't have to agree with the language used to defend the principle of the thing. See above.

I don't agree with AOC either, but I'm not calling for her to be unpersoned because I think she's an ill-informed, idealistic moron. Bad ideas should be expressed, challenged, noted. Not driven into dark places to fester and grow. Light is the best disinfectant.

Joe_Biden posted...

do you not disagree with white supremacy, racism, and bigotry

bro, it's literally a fucking yes or no question.

---

Joe_Biden posted...

bro, it's literally a fucking yes or no question.

He's said he's against it a million times! Why do you keep asking him that!

---

Joe_Biden posted...

bro, it's literally a fucking yes or no question.

It's really not when PB&J is "racist", actual hispanics look at a term like "latinx" as ridiculous, and everything is a microagression to somebody somewhere.


---

Zareth posted...

Pretty sure the tech companies want them planning seditious acts off of their platforms where they can't be held complicit to them.

They can't anyway due to Section 230.
---

From a neutral perspective: Monopoly is bad; competition is good for the consumer and product quality. Hence anti-trust laws exist.

From a political perspective: https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1136789323074945026?s=20

"Would you apply this logic to the phone company? Consider AT&T, which is in its own way a social media platform. Its a private company. You didnt create it. Are you ok with AT&T denying service on the grounds of people making politically objectionable statements on the phone?"

---

I find it objectionable that they are fucking listening in on my calls.

---

They should have broken up companies like Google years ago but choose not to. Google for example is much larger than Microsoft was when they got hit with the antitrust laws.
---

Revelation34 posted...

They can't anyway due to Section 230.

Section 230 should require them to take steps to deal with it. Like if someone posts child porn on twitter then twitter has to take steps to remove it in a reasonable time frame or at some point they become responsible for it.
SantaKhala posted...

From a neutral perspective: Monopoly is bad; competition is good for the consumer and product quality. Hence anti-trust laws exist.

From a political perspective: https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1136789323074945026?s=20

I'm trying really hard to answer this in a way that won't get me modded because of just how utterly full of nonsense that "comparison" is. Phone calls are not an example of a published statement there is absolutely no comparison.

Keep the bull shit out trumpster.

Revelation34 posted...

They should have broken up companies like Google years ago but choose not to. Google for example is much larger than Microsoft was when they got hit with the antitrust laws.

Google and Apple alone are way bigger than Bell was when IT was broken up, and even ignoring Facebook, Twitter, and the social media platforms, G and A have literally ALL your data hostage to the point where listing or de-listing an app makes or breaks something because only about 10% of us even k ow how to sideload apps. Twitter unpersoned the leader of the free world with 80M+ followers.

Hahaha. You totally pwnd the Bad Orange Man.

Remember this when the shoe is on the other foot, as it tends to be every 4-8 years.

You're panicked because a group of people had a fun run in the Capitol building for a few hours.

Where was the same outrage during the siege of Portland as it went on for weeks? The hypocrisy alone is astounding.

---

LuciferSage posted...

[citation needed]

Go ahead, I'll wait.

The implication here was that you don't read things before you summarize them. In essence, the "tl;dr" summary you made of my post was quite literal in that you didn't read it at all.

---

dainkinkaide posted...

The implication here was that you don't read things before you summarize them. In essence, the "tl;dr" summary you made of my post was quite literal in that you didn't read it at all.

No, I was mocking you. CitR was more or less assigned reading in High School. You could have at least picked something that wasn't like basic literature. Don't write checks you can't cash just to try and drag me thru the mud with you.

---

LuciferSage posted...

Twitter unpersoned the leader of the free world

Fundamentally an oxymoron.

---

keyblader1985 posted...

Fundamentally an oxymoron.

It's funny because the person in question gave up the title of leader of the free world willingly and for no reason.

LuciferSage posted...

No, I was mocking you.

Ah yes, mocking. Because, as we all know, when the northern mockingbird attempts to make the sound of a blue jay, it actually produces the sound of a constipated eagle.

---

keyblader1985 posted...

Fundamentally an oxymoron.

Weird though since I don't see the words "Insurrection" or "coup" being tossed about so lazily when the tale of Pelosi demanding that the Joint Chiefs of Staff take Trump's nuclear codes away is told. She literally demanded the Commander in Chief be stripped of his duties extra-judicially, and yet I don't see Twitter, et-al unpersoning her as well for dangerous rhetoric or fears of what she *might* say next.

---

dainkinkaide posted...

Ah yes, mocking. Because, as we all know, when the northern mockingbird attempts to make the sound of a blue jay, it actually produces the sound of a constipated eagle.

I'm surprised you didn't also try to put words in my mouth as to the summation of "To Kill a Mockingbird" given the prompt.

I see you've learned your lesson.

---

LuciferSage posted...

It's really not when PB&J is "racist", actual hispanics look at a term like "latinx" as ridiculous, and everything is a microagression to somebody somewhere.

What? I'm Hispanic and I don't think it's ridiculous. Why should the term latinx bother me at all?

GunslingerGunsl posted...

What? I'm Hispanic and I don't think it's ridiculous. Why should the term latinx bother me at all?

BRB, going to the tacx shop to grab a burritx while I think this over. Might as well drop by the bodegx next door for a fantx and a 6 pack of coronx to wash it down with too. Maybe grab a macanudx to wrap up a blunt to give it some real deep thought.

---

LuciferSage posted...

BRB, going to the tacx shop to grab a burritx while I think this over. Might as well drop by the bodegx next door for a fantx and a 6 pack of coronx to wash it down with too. Maybe grab a macanudx to wrap up a blunt to give it some real deep though.

Grab me a tacx while you're out please. Thanks babe.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

Grab me a tacx while you're out please. Thanks babe.

Chicken? Beef? Fish? Pork?

Just 1? Are you a child?

---

3 Beef tacxs, please.

I'm an adult that sometimes acts like a child, if that counts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agELcTCN2Rw

---

GunslingerGunsl posted...

3 Beef tacxs, please.

I'm an adult that sometimes acts like a child, if that counts.

I got you bro.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Section 230 should require them to take steps to deal with it. Like if someone posts child porn on twitter then twitter has to take steps to remove it in a reasonable time frame or at some point they become responsible for it.

I'm trying really hard to answer this in a way that won't get me modded because of just how utterly full of nonsense that "comparison" is. Phone calls are not an example of a published statement there is absolutely no comparison.

Keep the bull shit out trumpster.

Yes I agree but reasonable should be case by case depending on the size of the moderation team. Section 230 is just really awful how it is right now.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Yes I agree but reasonable should be case by case depending on the size of the moderation team. Section 230 is just really awful how it is right now.

By should I meant I believe it does I'm just not sure on the specifics. It's why youtube takes stuff down, because if they refuse they get taken down.

BlackScythe0 posted...

By should I meant I believe it does I'm just not sure on the specifics. It's why youtube takes stuff down, because if they refuse they get taken down.

Well nobody really knows other than it only exists to protect companies. It's outdated like the constitution.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Well nobody really knows other than it only exists to protect companies. It's outdated like the constitution.

Anyone that thinks "arms" only applies to powder muskets and rifles is also only entitled to leeches and bloodletting for healthcare. At the barber. Same with dentistry.

I'll also remind you that the Continental Army was outfitted entirely by private citizens up to and including canons back when our navy was still in tree-form. Our strategy the first winter was to have the Brits chase us up the shores of the Hudson until it froze.

That being said...you think the Constitution is outdated? Ok. Do you trust our current Legislature to write the new one? We'll just have to pass it before anyone reads it to find what's in it, and somewhere in it is going to be things like almost a billion dollars set aside for gender study programs in Pakistan. And a ban on the shoulder thing that goes up. Asset forfeiture seizures. A war on drugs. For-profit prisons.

Think about it before you knee jerk because someone was mean to you because they disagreed with you.

---

LuciferSage posted...

Anyone that thinks "arms" only applies to powder muskets and rifles is also only entitled to leeches and bloodletting for healthcare. At the barber. Same with dentistry.

Look me in the eyes and tell me Ben Franklin would want citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons if he knew what they were.

---

Zareth posted...

Look me in the eyes and tell me Ben Franklin would want citizens to be able to own nuclear weapons if he knew what they were.

I think you underestimate a man that thought travelling back across the atlantic to France at 76 was a good idea.

And he still made it back to America to die here. Pretty sure if he saw one, or a mass driver, or a low orbit ion canon, he would have asked if they were cheaper by the dozen and then commissioned 2 dozen of them before penning seperate letters to Washington, Jefferson, Addams, Madison, Burr, Arnold, and Button about the new toy he was dragging to the next battle with a gentle suggestion that they avert their gazes on his mark when the "fuse was lit".

Ben Franklin is a particularly poor example because that man didn't have a single fuck to give his entire recorded life. He was YOLO personified back in the 1700s.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Yes I agree but reasonable should be case by case depending on the size of the moderation team. Section 230 is just really awful how it is right now.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79228079/949291664

---

I am guessing the attack was coordinated on this parler app or something?

Well even if they banned the app, it doesnt really matter, banning an app doesnt stop terrorism, terroism began before the creation of apps. If people are mad enough they will find a way to communicate and grab their pitchforks.

---

deoxxys posted...

I am guessing the attack was coordinated on this parler app or something?

Well even if they banned the app, it doesnt really matter, banning an app doesnt stop terrorism, terroism began before the creation of apps. If people are mad enough they will find a way to communicate and grab their pitchforks.

In part, parler moderates "liberal" speech but it doesn't moderate violent speech. Most platforms didn't really do enough to police the planning of this attack, but while other platforms are quickly trying to hinder planning of future attacks on their platforms parler is unlikely to do so so you have companies unwilling to host them until they explain how they will address it.

LuciferSage posted...

You're panicked because a group of people had a fun run in the Capitol building for a few hours.

Where was the same outrage during the siege of Portland as it went on for weeks? The hypocrisy alone is astounding.

Comparing those two things is the real hypocrisy.
LuciferSage posted...

Weird though since I don't see the words "Insurrection" or "coup" being tossed about so lazily when the tale of Pelosi demanding that the Joint Chiefs of Staff take Trump's nuclear codes away is told. She literally demanded the Commander in Chief be stripped of his duties extra-judicially, and yet I don't see Twitter, et-al unpersoning her as well for dangerous rhetoric or fears of what she *might* say next.

This too

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

In part, parler moderates "liberal" speech but it doesn't moderate violent speech. Most platforms didn't really do enough to police the planning of this attack, but while other platforms are quickly trying to hinder planning of future attacks on their platforms parler is unlikely to do so so you have companies unwilling to host them until they explain how they will address it.

Where was the harsh moderation and unpersoning of those behind the siege of Portland that went on for weeks on the "mainstream" social media platforms?

---

HelIWithoutSin posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79228079/949291664

That's not censorship.
---

LuciferSage posted...

It's really not when PB&J is "racist", actual hispanics look at a term like "latinx" as ridiculous, and everything is a microagression to somebody somewhere.

are you

against

white supremacy

racism

and bigotry

yes.

or.

no.

this should not be a hard thing to say, whiskey.

---

Imagine the farmers rise up rhetoric whiskey would be spewing if this (the terrorism at the Capitol) was a result of radical BLM or left wing activists. He would be absolutely melting down wrapped in his Trump flag. If there was a platform where radical leftists were actively planning an insurrection I'm sure it'd be quite different.

When the right wing does it it's a "fun run" (5 people died btw) but If BLM protests it's terrorism. Ok

---