Parler Taken Down. Your Thoughts?

[csalvato]

Ugh. This has nothing to do with free speech.

The Constitution guarantees that speech is protected from consequence by the government, not protected by consequence from private businesses.

Sorry, but this is not a constitutional free speech issue. And it's truly disheartening that so many people are so ignorant of our constitution that they think it is.

I think she was talking about something different: the accusation that his speech incited violence, and whether or not that even has grounds.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[Guest-5ty5s4]

Wait... Isn't this where people are supposed to chime in and talk about the evils of cancel culture?

Seriously though, feel free to DM me your PayPal address and let me know how much you paid. I'll even send you $20 extra so you can buy an investing book from from someone who won't disagree with you about anything.

They don’t have to agree, but it helps not be a dick to your customers.

It ain’t the first time

 

[WJK]

Ugh. This has nothing to do with free speech.

The Constitution guarantees that speech is protected from consequence by the government, not protected by consequence from private businesses.

Sorry, but this is not a constitutional free speech issue. And it's truly disheartening that so many people are so ignorant of our constitution that they think it is.

I was talking about the President's current problems -- not Big Tech's. No, they aren't subject to free speech. But, they are subject to RICO and anti-trust laws which aren't excluded from their protective umbrella legislation.

 

[csalvato]

I was talking about the President's current problems -- not Big Tech's. No, they aren't subject to free speech. But, they are subject to RICO and anti-trust laws which aren't excluded from their protective umbrella legislation.

On what grounds do they have a RICO case?

 

[sfarieri]

What are your thoughts on this, TFLF members?

Good. Parler is an absolute cesspool. All you see is crazy conspiracy theories, racism, hate, misinformation, threatening of violence, white supremacists, and anti-intellectualism. I've seen truly disgusting things on there.

Thankfully, FBI is monitoring EVERYONE on there.

 

[WJK]

On what grounds do they have a RICO case?

I have heard a lot of talk about a possible RICO complaint concerning their coordination between the different companies to quell competition and kill companies that they collectively don't like. RICO is usually applied to collusion between different people or companies in a criminal enterprise. A prime example is a drug cartel. I don't know if it can be applied in this situation -- but there's a lot of talk about it. The 3 Big Tech moved against Parler in the same tight time frame and appeared to be together in their actions. Google is already under an Anti-trust action by the DOJ for its individual market behaviors. Were these actions against Parler coordinated between the different companies? We're they acting legally and in good faith? The attorneys will argue the issues and the courts will decide.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[DiamondDog]

The irony of people crying about "muh freedom of speech", "muh private property" but they cry even more when a company exercises its rights.

Sounds like a bunch of commies.

Companies have the right not to host people or other companies, especially if they violate their ToS. Imagine telling someone they can't kick someone else out of their house.

 

[Madame Peccato]

You are giving social media companies too much credit / importance. Why should Twitter be a champion of free speech? Is Twitter backed by the government?

Twitter is a business and made a business decision with their wave of bans. It was an atrocious decision, sure, but it was within their rights.

How are social media platforms becoming a government? I don't even have a Facebook or a Twitter account, how are they supposed to rule over me? They censored Trump which is something I would have never done, because as you can see people didn't take it well, but it was 100% within their rights.

 

[WJK]

The irony of people crying about "muh freedom of speech", "muh private property" but they cry even more when a company exercises its rights.

Sounds like a bunch of commies.

Companies have the right not to host people or other companies, especially if they violate their ToS. Imagine telling someone they can't kick someone else out of their house.

That's true -- unless they have a corner on the market where they can kill any new start-ups. And that's the real issue here. It has to do with coordinate, absolute power in the internet market. Your example of throwing someone out of your house makes sense -- if you don't own the whole kingdom. Google has what? 90% of the market?

 

[WJK]

You are giving social media companies too much credit / importance. Why should Twitter be a champion of free speech? Is Twitter backed by the government?

Twitter is a business and made a business decision with their wave of bans. It was an atrocious decision, sure, but it was within their rights.

How are social media platforms becoming a government? I don't even have a Facebook or a Twitter account, how are they supposed to rule over me? They censored Trump which is something I would have never done, because as you can see people didn't take it well, but it was 100% within their rights.

Yes, they are private companies... who are supposed to be an open platform -- not a publisher. That's why they have a 230 exception, preventing them from being sued for presented content. Publishers censor and craft opinions within their content. Platforms present other people's content without comment.

 

[DiamondDog]

That's true -- unless they have a corner on the market where they can kill any new start-ups. And that's the real issue here. It has to do with coordinate, absolute power in the internet market. Your example of throwing someone out of your house makes sense -- if you don't own the whole kingdom. Google has what? 90% of the market?

This is not an issue of antitrust law though (the Parler ban). In the case of Google, they only temporarily suspended Parker from the Play Store until it removes its violent content and implements the required moderation. It goes against Google's policies.

Parler wasn't banned because its user base is right leaning, but because it incites violence. It's more a case of "my house, my rules" regardless of the company's market share.

I do share your opinion that monopolies and oligopolies can be dangerous for competition (free market) when predatory practices are involved.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[WJK]

This is not an issue of antitrust law though (the Parler ban). In the case of Google, they only temporarily suspended Parker from the Play Store until it removes its violent content and implements the required moderation. It goes against Google's policies.

Parler wasn't banned because its user base is right leaning, but because it incites violence. It's more a case of "my house, my rules" regardless of the company's market share.

I do share your opinion that monopolies and oligopolies can be dangerous for competition (free market) when predatory practices are involved.

But, their position with Parler is a subjective judgment? And they are not equally applying the same standard across their platform? Are they acting as a publisher rather than a platform? I'm thinking that the Courts will take a hard look at this in the Antitrust action.

 

[DiamondDog]

But, their position with Parler is a subjective judgment? And they are not equally applying the same standard across their platform? Are they acting as a publisher rather than a platform? I'm thinking that the Courts will take a hard look at this in the Antitrust action.

Surely some apps/websites get away with violating rules but when attention is drawn upon you as a result of a major incident such as the Capitol riot, you can expect action to be taken quickly by the Googles and Facebooks.

And yes, courts will take a look at this from an antitrust perspective but that's because Parler's lawyers will attack from every angle. It's what lawyers do, even if it's not successful. Sauce: I'm a lawyer.

There is still a place for unmoderated content to exist but that's not going to be on major platforms like Google or Facebook because they have rules. Stormfront.org exists in this day and age despite being a disgusting racist neo nazi message board.

We haves rules at school, at university, at work, so why not on privately owned platforms. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences.

Now I don't know if you're referring to movements like BLM getting away with violence incitement. In that case, I honestly do not know because I don't follow them or what they do on social media.

 

[Gapple]

When some people are too dumb to use properly social media platforms and share hate, stupid conspiracies theories, etc. it's better to kick them out.

That why we have prisons by the way because some people are unfit for society. That's the same thing for the usage of social media platforms. Their freedom needs to be restricted so that they don't hurt anybody.

 

[WJK]

When some people are too dumb to use properly social media platforms and share hate, stupid conspiracies theories, etc. it's better to kick them out.

That why we have prisons by the way because some people are unfit for society. That's the same thing for the usage of social media platforms. Their freedom needs to be restricted so that they don't hurt anybody.

Uh? And who decides what is "unfit for society"? And how are you going to sort out when people need to be "restricted" for their speech? Who decides and by what standards? At what point does speech morph into acts of violence?* These questions are as old as mankind. That's why we have laws and generally accepted morals. I feel that some are just making up the rules as they go along. That's OK for them. I just don't want them to impose those rules on me.
*FYI -- The established standard for where free speech ends and incitement begins is in the Brandonberg vs. Ohio case, decided by the Supreme Court. There are legal rules to divine the difference.

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

I can’t believe there are people on this forum who make fun of others for wanting freedom and free speech.

You’re in the wrong place. And if you live in the USA, you have no idea what your country is about.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[WJK]

Surely some apps/websites get away with violating rules but when attention is drawn upon you as a result of a major incident such as the Capitol riot, you can expect action to be taken quickly by the Googles and Facebooks.

And yes, courts will take a look at this from an antitrust perspective but that's because Parler's lawyers will attack from every angle. It's what lawyers do, even if it's not successful. Sauce: I'm a lawyer.

There is still a place for unmoderated content to exist but that's not going to be on major platforms like Google or Facebook because they have rules. Stormfront.org exists in this day and age despite being a disgusting racist neo nazi message board.

We haves rules at school, at university, at work, so why not on privately owned platforms. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom of consequences.

Now I don't know if you're referring to movements like BLM getting away with violence incitement. In that case, I honestly do not know because I don't follow them or what they do on social media.

No, I don't follow BLM either. They are scary people who want to take what they want by force. They are self-designated Anarchists.

My question for the social media platform is why they don't apply their standard equally across their platforms? The biased application of their rules bothers me. Rules aren't really rules -- if they are only applied to one side or one group.

 

[Gapple]

Uh? And who decides what is "unfit for society"?

The ones who have the most requisite variety, the most knowledge of life, and the most knowledge on human psychology and evolution.

And how are you going to sort out when people need to be "restricted" for their speech? Who decides and by what standards? At what point does speech morph into acts of violence?

When behaviors such as hate, incitation to violence, racism, xenophobia, bullying, etc. become too frequent and/or attract a group of like-minded people, freedom needs to be limited or censored.

People in power should decide, but at the same time, it's tricky because the people in power are not always are smartest one.

 

[Gapple]

You said a mouth full. The people in power aren't always the best and the brightest.

Exactly.

But it's still complicated. I actually think that people in power are most of the time (not always) more competent than the general population, but many counter-example exists.

 

[Kevin88660]

The big tech are more of acting out of fear rather than wanting to take part in politics.

They are facing a difficult issue. If they are seen by the establishment as incapable of self-censoring content and offer a breeding ground for “undesired content” then there will be tougher laws forcing them to do so.

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

The big tech are more of acting out of fear rather than wanting to take part in politics.

They are facing a difficult issue. If they are seen by the establishment as incapable of self-censoring content and offer a breeding ground for “undesired content” then there will be tougher laws forcing them to do so.

It's the perfect setup for the government tyrants, because they have the "front" of a business to do the dirty work of censoring and restricting speech.

Just like what they have in China.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[Deleted78083]

It sounds like Parler is "back".

You can connect to parler.com and see the following. I guess they found new hosting....

 

[Kevin88660]

It's the perfect setup for the government tyrants, because they have the "front" of a business to do the dirty work of censoring and restricting speech.

Just like what they have in China.

Wechat have national security personnels stationed there running codes so that sensitive contents will be blocked out.

Google and Facebook didn’t want to comply and left the Chinese market.

It is not about a front. But black and white rules and regulation and what to comply and how to comply.

There is also greater wariness coming from Europe against American tech companies having too much power influencing their domestic politics. Every country soon will set up their own regulatory bodies on digital platforms.

 

[Guest-5ty5s4]

That's true -- unless they have a corner on the market where they can kill any new start-ups. And that's the real issue here. It has to do with coordinate, absolute power in the internet market. Your example of throwing someone out of your house makes sense -- if you don't own the whole kingdom. Google has what? 90% of the market?

Or worse, they pretend to be innovative but they really just focus on M&A.

They buy out every startup and contributor and add it to their umbrella of companies.

I'm surprised this is where we are at with Big Tech.

 

[daivey]

I'm really confused why people are so upset about them being taken off of app stores.

It's possible to download an app outside of the app store and install it, even on iPhone. It's not even hard. On Android, you download the apk file and push install. On Apple, the developer provides you with a development build that you download, install and need to manually approve on the device.

Binance did this for years because Apple didn't allow them to have their app on the app store since they weren't a business approved to operate in the US.

I wanted to use it, so I got it from their website, downloaded it, and used it for years.

Also, Parler is a web app. You can use it with feature parity on any device at any time from any browser.

It feels like that point is being massively overblown, to me.

And Amazon is still a private business, and there are several hosting alternatives like Digital Ocean that offer just about the same features (load balancing, bastion hosts, etc.) who will gladly take Parler's money.

It feels like we are overreacting to something that the free market will sort out (assuming we let it operate as a somewhat quasi-free market....but who the hell knows on that point anymore)

EDIT: It looks like Apple started restricting how you can install apps that are not on the app store, and it's much more restrictive now, so they do have a stranglehold on that (though you can make a web app with full feature parity pretty easily, and people who believe strongly enough in Parler's mission would sell their iPhones to get an Android if it was that big of a deal to them)

You're right, but, for the masses they don't understand that. The path to least resistance is downloading an APP that just works.

 

[DiamondDog]

No, I don't follow BLM either. They are scary people who want to take what they want by force. They are self-designated Anarchists.

My question for the social media platform is why they don't apply their standard equally across their platforms? The biased application of their rules bothers me. Rules aren't really rules -- if they are only applied to one side or one group.

My guess is that it's the same as with politicians. It's bad for their business.

Politicians do what they have to do. This is why many people are not cut out for it, and generally that's probably a good thing for character. Still it is a necessary business. One of the most racist politicians in 20th century America, Alabama governor George Wallace, originally ran and lost his first major election run by not taking a stand on segregation -- because white supremacy wasn't his thing. He never made the same mistake again. A most cynical kind of racism was the result: what was politically prudent.

As for BLM, if you court the crazies, you court disaster. As Voltaire put it, "Any one who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" (or atrocities). I wish there were more sane voices from the left when people went into hysterics over the Kavanaugh hearings and tried to paint the guy as the Golden State Killer. The left also needs to learn more from the Spanish Civil War and leave history to the historians and focus policy and politics more on the here, now, and future.

So extremist groups from the left fly under the radar on social media because it would be an unpopular choice to dispose of them. And their bases are nothing but cows ready to be milked.

 

Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member: Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)

[nordine]

I don't have any opinion about US politics, mostly because I'm not a US citizen, also I do not believe in politic in general. So Parler wasn't for me, tho what happened with amazon is quiet frightening. I would "understand" if it was the FBI or any judge, because the law gives them the possibility of that, but a private company with so much power is dangerous for the entire world. maybe it's time to dismantle those gafa

 

[Deleted78083]

There is also greater wariness coming from Europe against American tech companies having too much power influencing their domestic politics. Every country soon will set up their own regulatory bodies on digital platforms.

This is correct. Whatever is going on in America eventually reaches Europe. It was nice when US exports were music and movies. Identity politics though, isn't so nice. We've had our fair share of it, thank you very much. We gonna have to beat our own path if we wish to avoid what the US is going through.

While we are entangled into vaccines and Brexit atm, we'll eventually cut the cable America has set up at the end of WWII and sail free. This will be done through the building of a defense force first, then with our own GAFAM.

We agreed to play by US rules as long as it fits our agenda. But the Twitter move on Trump was the moment when we (finally) realized our respective cultures had drifted apart too much, and that we no longer were as alike as we thought.

 

[WJK]

This is correct. Whatever is going on in America eventually reaches Europe. It was nice when US exports were music and movies. Identity politics though, isn't so nice. We've had our fair share of it, thank you very much. We gonna have to beat our own path if we wish to avoid what the US is going through.

While we are entangled into vaccines and Brexit atm, we'll eventually cut the cable America has set up at the end of WWII and sail free. This will be done through the building of a defense force first, then with our own GAFAM.

We agreed to play by US rules as long as it fits our agenda. But the Twitter move on Trump was the moment when we (finally) realized our respective cultures had drifted apart too much, and that we no longer were as alike as we thought.

A recording came out from a Twitter management conversation today. They plan to expand their "Trump trick" to more governmental leaders and people around the world. They are just getting started with removing people from their platform. I guess that they don't want to stay in business...

 

[Kevin88660]

This is correct. Whatever is going on in America eventually reaches Europe. It was nice when US exports were music and movies. Identity politics though, isn't so nice. We've had our fair share of it, thank you very much. We gonna have to beat our own path if we wish to avoid what the US is going through.

While we are entangled into vaccines and Brexit atm, we'll eventually cut the cable America has set up at the end of WWII and sail free. This will be done through the building of a defense force first, then with our own GAFAM.

We agreed to play by US rules as long as it fits our agenda. But the Twitter move on Trump was the moment when we (finally) realized our respective cultures had drifted apart too much, and that we no longer were as alike as we thought.

I think the concern is that they could play a significant role in influencing elections and policies directions, by having control of all the mediums for public discussion.

Just for example you have protesters organizing protest over American mnc buying over local telco companies in a small European countries and the next day the facebook group is shutdown for some “platform violation”.