Big Tech Censorship

[Corners]

Has big tech finally gone too far? It’s pretty scary what they have colluded to do to political foes and market competition. It’s interesting to watch the fallout, which will probably end in antitrust law violations.

Even Elon has come down on them.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon...acebook-2021-1

[Corners]

Rep. Nunes calls for racketeering investigation into Amazon, Apple, Google following Parler ban

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nun...gle-parler-ban

[zef]

Remember that Twitter has continued to allow ISIS, and numerous dictators who murder homosexuals and other innocent citizens, to use it's platform. Maduro in Venezuela, Ayatollah of Iran, and Erdogan in Turkey.

Twitter also allows white supremacists to use it's platform to coordinate and launch attacks. Despite being reported multiple times, Twitter refuses to take action in most cases. Here's an example: https://twitter.com/NewJosephStalin

Twitter is facilitating and effectively supporting terrorism, hate crimes, and anti-US activities, and they have been since the beginning.

[Corners]

Parler sues Amazon for suspending app from cloud service, claiming antitrust violation

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/othe...ct/vi-BB1cEEZ3

[69Mach351]

I am sure I will get roasted on this one, but I do not think that they have "gone too far." I absolutely hated both choices for POTUS, but think DT would have looked a lot better (before and after the elections) if he knew when to keep quiet.



At the point of being banned from the major social media platforms, a lot of what was being said was inflammatory, baseless claims, that have already had their day in court. There has been no proof of any substantial fraud - and I would argue the President's phone call was more damning than any small bits that they have found. After he ran out of legal avenues, he used those platforms get people pumped up, to try to disrupt the democracy, and peaceful transition of power that this country has come to expect.



If you take an objective look, he basically told Mike Pence to do something that he had no power to do, told a mob to march to the capitol, fight like hell, etc. If you want to look at it with a bias eye, sure, you can say he did not word for word tell them to go do what they did, but he did dance around it when he could have easily found a number of other things to do to appease the crowd and mitigate any problems.



This is not a freedom of speech issue - these are private companies. If the POTUS would like to make statements, he has an entire room dedicated to press conferences, as well as journalists that will put it out there for him. Any television or radio channel would be more than happy to have him on. This is an issue of not being able to say whatever you want, whenever you want, without being fact checked or questioned on the same platform immediately after you say it.

[Corners]

Originally Posted by 69Mach351

This is not a freedom of speech issue - these are private companies.

Agree, but not to the size these companies and grown to. I see this as more like a telephone provider, electricity, or mail delivery. A utility nowadays if you will. A utility that should be regulated because of the lack of competition. It’s the same reason why Evergy can’t just shut off your power because they don’t like who your voted for and claiming they can’t give you power because you might use it to write bad things on the internet.

The US has always had very strong antitrust laws. As for the case with Parler, they have an uphill battle. It’s pretty clear to any reasonable person that the companies have colluded to take them down, but the burden of proof is with Parler, and that won’t be so easy. But Amazon choosing to remove Parlor while continuing to host Twitter (the competitor to Parler) who has the same “violations” as Parler does help their antitrust case. It’s only if they can bring enough facts to convince the courts of it. Then you have all smaller outlets backing out of helping Parler in fear they will be shut down by big tech as well. It has antitrust violations written all over it.

[69Mach351]

Not sure why the quote function is not working...



Corners -

Agree, but not to the size these companies and grown to. I see this as more like a telephone provider, electricity, or mail delivery. A utility

nowadays if you will. A utility that should be regulated because of the lack of competition. It’s the same reason why Evergy can’t just shut off your power because they don’t like who your voted for and claiming they can’t give you power because you might use it to write bad things on the internet.


The size of the companies involved are huge - but they are far from a utility. A utility will typically offer a basic service that is more or less essential in day to day lives, and because of lack of competition, must be regulated. Twitter, FB, etc., are far from necessary, especially for an outgoing POTUS after the election. If you brought up something like banning advertisements from one side prior to the election (without a specific, non-bias reason), I would this holding water a little better. The POTUS has an entire press room, and any media source that he wants, at his disposal.



Saying a power company cannot give you power because you may write something bad on the internet, is falling a little short. They banned a user with legitimate and implied power, that was using their platform to spread what to this point, have been false statements, to try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, for a legitimate election. It boiled over with violence at US Capitol, and there is no place for that.

The US has always had very strong antitrust laws. As for the case with Parler, they have an uphill battle. It’s pretty clear to any reasonable person that the companies have colluded to take them down, but the burden of proof is with Parler, and that won’t be so easy. But Amazon choosing to remove Parlor while continuing to host Twitter (the competitor to Parler) who has the same “violations” as Parler does help their antitrust case. It’s only if they can bring enough facts to convince the courts of it. Then you have all smaller outlets backing out of helping Parler in fear they will be shut down by big tech as well. It has antitrust violations written all over it.

I am not familiar enough with Parler to comment on what specifically they cater to. Assuming it is to silence the outgoing POTUS only, I would be shocked if they were not back up after the the President elect is sworn in.

[Hoop]

I believe in the rights of a privately held company to either uphold their own beliefs and profit from it or hang themselves. But to the point that the company is in possession of such powerful sway over the masses and is willing to use that to guide and guide or corral a US election is scary. The consequences of what would almost be considered a government run and controlled media at that point reeks of another type of political regime......

[69Mach351]

Originally Posted by Hoop

I believe in the rights of a privately held company to either uphold their own beliefs and profit from it or hang themselves. But to the point that the company is in possession of such powerful sway over the masses and is willing to use that to guide and guide or corral a US election is scary. The consequences of what would almost be considered a government run and controlled media at that point reeks of another type of political regime......

That is why I would have a lot bigger problem if they did something like this before the elections. If FB or Twitter banned ads or truthful comments from one side, but not the other, I could see that being grounds for concern. With so many people getting their "news" on social media, I do think there is some obligation to mitigate the damage that false statements could cause.

[Hoop]

Imagine this scenario:

Biden and Harris get their social media accounts permabanned. Do you think the decidedly liberal leaning media would sit quietly by and say "Eh, its a privately held company."

I think both choices were warm and greasy dick meat sandwiches, but at least one dick meat sandwich was leaving a bad taste in the medias mouth, the other is just the flavor they want. And I don't like it when a liberal leaning media has their candidate in control.

[Corners]

Some of the best ones...

[Hoop]

Just remember, the only thing that divides activism and terrorism is opinion and viewpoint....the rest is up to whoever gets to record the history.

[69Mach351]

Originally Posted by Hoop

Imagine this scenario:

Biden and Harris get their social media accounts permabanned. Do you think the decidedly liberal leaning media would sit quietly by and say "Eh, its a privately held company."

I think both choices were warm and greasy dick meat sandwiches, but at least one dick meat sandwich was leaving a bad taste in the medias mouth, the other is just the flavor they want. And I don't like it when a liberal leaning media has their candidate in control.

It depends on what they (Biden/Harris) do to get it banned.



After failing in the courts, failing to produce any type of credible evidence of substantial election fraud that would have swayed the election, there is no reason to continue to allow him to fire people up with the claims he was putting out there that led to what happened last Wednesday. At best, it was incredibly irresponsible. If Biden/Harris looked to disrupt the country in this manner, I do think that they would face more criticism than most would expect.

[Oblique]

Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uSYhyFao4



Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhjRXO72v1s

They did the right thing. Not like this wasn't completely obvious to those of us firmly planted in reality that this was going to happen.

I predicted the uprising due to Trump's presidency being threatened AND the backlash/demonization the right would receive because of that uprising. And hate to break it to you guys but this is FAR from over.

[69Mach351]

Originally Posted by Hoop

Just remember, the only thing that divides activism and terrorism is opinion and viewpoint....the rest is up to whoever gets to record the history.

Activism is doing what you can, and I would argue within the confines of the system - vote, protest, etc. Terrorism is intentionally causing fear to produce the outcome you want. That is completely outside of the system we have.

In this case, the side that claims to be patriots fighting for the constitution, want to actively fight against it based on false claims, and it produced an outcome they did not like. Stop, regroup, and come up with a better candidate. Moderates are not that hard to get. A lot of conservatives vote on a handful of issues and those will not be lost. Actively turning people off is what lost this one.

[Corners]

Originally Posted by Oblique

And hate to break it to you guys but this is FAR from over.

Unfortunately, I think this is correct too. I think the left’s reaction and the censorship has fanned the flames of violence from extremists more than Trump saying I love you.

[Hoop]

Just to further the discussion, would you consider the Antifa portion of the BLM movement terrorists or activists?

I'm not a Trumper btw. I'm sure as hell not a Joe "lost in his own house" Biden fan either. Like asking if you liked the end of the turd that came out of your butt first or last is your favorite. It's the same turd.

[Corners]

Originally Posted by Hoop

Just to further the discussion, would you consider the Antifa portion of the BLM movement terrorists or activists?

I'm not a Trumper btw. I'm sure as hell not a Joe "lost in his own house" Biden fan either. Like asking if you liked the end of the turd that came out of your butt first or last is your favorite. It's the same turd.

I think the left winged riots, and the right winged riots were terrorist activities.

[Hoop]

I think you're correct. I also think it is such a carnal sin for a politician to not pander to far ends of the metronomes sweep. Those of us who reside around both sides of center just get further and further left in the dust.

[Oblique]

Originally Posted by Corners

Unfortunately, I think this is correct too. I think the left’s reaction and the censorship has fanned the flames of violence from extremists more than Trump saying I love you.

[69Mach351]

Originally Posted by Hoop

Just to further the discussion, would you consider the Antifa portion of the BLM movement terrorists or activists?

I'm not a Trumper btw. I'm sure as hell not a Joe "lost in his own house" Biden fan either. Like asking if you liked the end of the turd that came out of your butt first or last is your favorite. It's the same turd.

I think a lot of people out for BLM are genuinely good, but there are a lot of opportunists mixed in to loot, create violence, etc. That said, I don't think BLM is all in the right by any means. This isn't a cut and dry issue that either side is completely (or mostly) right one. To think this is a quick close issue by defunding police, or something like that, your are short sighted. Increase police funding until you prove something else works.

I am sure there were people in DC just to show support as well. There were those there to cause trouble too. I find it hard to give the benefit of the doubt to those in DC, because I don't see the point of being there. I think a lot of them were there under false pretenses, which makes me question their intelligence.

[Corners]

Originally Posted by Oblique

Yep. Will be interesting to watch.

[Corners]

Originally Posted by 69Mach351

I think a lot of people out for BLM are genuinely good, but there are a lot of opportunists mixed in to loot, create violence, etc. That said, I don't think BLM is all in the right by any means. This isn't a cut and dry issue that either side is completely (or mostly) right one. To think this is a quick close issue by defunding police, or something like that, your are short sighted. Increase police funding until you prove something else works.

I am sure there were people in DC just to show support as well. There were those there to cause trouble too. I find it hard to give the benefit of the doubt to those in DC, because I don't see the point of being there. I think a lot of them were there under false pretenses, which makes me question their intelligence.

Yeah BLM is a good movement, but there are/were a lot of leaders egging on actual violence. Not that the right didn’t either, but it was more outspoken and mainstream, which is why the violence was more widespread.



Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7G0suBN-aU

[69Mach351]

Yeah BLM is a good movement, but there are/were a lot of leaders egging on actual violence. Not that the right didn’t either, but it was more outspoken and mainstream, which is why the violence was more widespread.

I would take the video with a grain of salt, at least in comparison to what happened a week ago.



I am not saying other politicians have not tread close to or stepped over a line before. A 2 minute video of dozens of short clips, with no context, celebrities mixed in, etc.,that cover a wide variety of issues and time is hardly the same thing. I would even argue that videos like that are a problem all on their own (for both the left and right). Without any context, what good, legitimate purpose do they serve? At least IMO, they are out for an emotional, rather than rational response.



I saw this morning that even Mconnell is quietly backing the effort for impeachment. Not sure how true that is, but it wouldn't surprise me if at the very least, he is glad he will not have to deal with DT any longer. My hopes going forward, is that the GOP can be done with DT and come back with a more respectable candidate for the next round. Doing that, I think they pick up a lot more moderates.

[Corners]

Originally Posted by 69Mach351

I would take the video with a grain of salt, at least in comparison to what happened a week ago.



I am not saying other politicians have not tread close to or stepped over a line before. A 2 minute video of dozens of short clips, with no context, celebrities mixed in, etc.,that cover a wide variety of issues and time is hardly the same thing. I would even argue that videos like that are a problem all on their own (for both the left and right). Without any context, what good, legitimate purpose do they serve? At least IMO, they are out for an emotional, rather than rational response.



I saw this morning that even Mconnell is quietly backing the effort for impeachment. Not sure how true that is, but it wouldn't surprise me if at the very least, he is glad he will not have to deal with DT any longer. My hopes going forward, is that the GOP can be done with DT and come back with a more respectable candidate for the next round. Doing that, I think they pick up a lot more moderates.

There’s still no denying the media and big tech coverage of left winged violence vs right winged violence. The double standard and hypocrisy is crazy. They all need to be treated, and punished equally.