Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account, citing risk of 'further incitement of violence' – live

[Dizkneelande 1,136]

6 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I've seen posts from Parler memobers advocating and actually planning insurrection---If I'm one of those companies and I believe in a peaceful transfer of power, yada yada yada...I'd boot them from my platforms too.

 

Antifa and BLM  have been using all of these platforms to organize hundreds of violent events yet, their apps are still available. Ted Wheeler got punched in the face 3 days ago. 

[Strike 6,018]

24 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Twitter and Facebook are "moderating" their content as per their terms of service. Apple, Google and Amazon are removing Parler due to a lack of "moderation". Both are essentially the same.

I get it - you don't want your platforms used for inciting violence because it is bad for business, but I think that they are all going too far with this.

As I said earlier, this would be find as long as they were consistent.  This has become a pattern and it only affects conservative viewpoints.

[RLLD 4,275]

17 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I don't know if I have a problem with Apple/Google or Amazon...if I own a grocery store, I'm not obligated to put every product on the shelves, why should it be different for tech companies?

So then if I decide to remove a product because it is being made by the minority-owned business I can do that?

What if I do not want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, what about that?

[Hawkeye21 2,454]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

As I said earlier, this would be find as long as they were consistent.  This has become a pattern and it only affects conservative viewpoints.

They have made it incredibly obvious too.

[Mike Honcho 5,432]

19 minutes ago, RLLD said:

So then if I decide to remove a product because it is being made by the minority-owned business I can do that?

What if I do not want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, what about that?

Are you removing the product from the minority business because they are minorities. No, you can't do that. 

Are you selling wedding cakes to all couples, then yes, you should be required to sell the gays. 

IF Google/Amazon/Apple, hosting other non-moderated products where people are using them to foment, incite and plan to overthrow the government then your argument carries weight----otherwise I see no problem with them being removed from their platforms.  

[RLLD 4,275]

10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you removing the product from the minority business because they are minorities. No, you can't do that. 

Are you selling wedding cakes to all couples, then yes, you should be required to sell the gays. 

IF Google/Amazon/Apple, hosting other non-moderated products where people are using them to foment, incite and plan to overthrow the government then your argument carries weight----otherwise I see no problem with them being removed from their platforms.  

I submit that it is my view that the minorities are inciting to overthrow state and local governments in Portland, Minneapolis and DC, they have taken over areas, so based on that "I" have decided we will not work with them.

Similarly, I have also decided that the gays are trying to overthrow state and local governments, that is my justification, if Google/AWS can use it, then so can I/

I hope you can see the problems that arise when this tactic is used.

[Strike 6,018]

9 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you removing the product from the minority business because they are minorities. No, you can't do that. 

Are you selling wedding cakes to all couples, then yes, you should be required to sell the gays. 

IF Google/Amazon/Apple, hosting other non-moderated products where people are using them to foment, incite and plan to overthrow the government then your argument carries weight----otherwise I see no problem with them being removed from their platforms.  

Wait.  Your logic is that if you sell wedding cakes to all couples, you can't discriminate against those couples you have something against for any reason.  But hosting platforms CAN discriminate?  Okay then.

[RLLD 4,275]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

Wait.  Your logic is that if you sell wedding cakes to all couples, you can't discriminate against those couples you have something against for any reason.  But hosting platforms CAN discriminate?  Okay then.

Correct.  He was easier to lead to admit it than MDC on this one.  Hypocrisy remains the dominant facet of leftists.

[Reality 3,121]

False.

[KSB2424 3,173]

 

[jerryskids 7,083]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Are you removing the product from the minority business because they are minorities. No, you can't do that. 

Are you selling wedding cakes to all couples, then yes, you should be required to sell the gays. 

IF Google/Amazon/Apple, hosting other non-moderated products where people are using them to foment, incite and plan to overthrow the government then your argument carries weight----otherwise I see no problem with them being removed from their platforms.  

Why are those tech companies in the business of deciding what constitutes a sufficiently dangerous plan to overthrow the government.  Are they experts in that area?  Should they not instead notify proper authorities?  Such authorities which should, theoretically, operate within the legal bounds of criminal investigations?   

[posty 2,809]

Does Joe Bryant and associates work for Twitter (and others) now?

[Mike Honcho 5,432]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Why are those tech companies in the business of deciding what constitutes a sufficiently dangerous plan to overthrow the government.  Are they experts in that area?  Should they not instead notify proper authorities?  Such authorities which should, theoretically, operate within the legal bounds of criminal investigations?   

The exact same reason you don't have to allow me into your house if you don't want to---it's your house.  It's their company, they can decide what products, and platforms they allow to use their products according to their TOS(this is the same power FFT MIke uses to ban suspend people)

And that's what it comes down to in this case.

Parler sues Amazon for cutting off its services

Quote

 

In a letter obtained by CNN Business that was sent to Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff on Saturday, Amazon Web Services said that in recent weeks it has reported 98 examples to Parler of "posts that clearly encourage and incite violence." The letter includes screenshots of several examples.

"We've seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," AWS wrote. "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service."

 

 

[jerryskids 7,083]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

The exact same reason you don't have to allow me into your house if you don't want to---it's your house.  It's their company, they can decide what products, and platforms they allow to use their products according to their TOS(this is the same power FFT MIke uses to ban suspend people)

And that's what it comes down to in this case.

Parler sues Amazon for cutting off its services

 

Well, the “it’s my house” analogy isn’t very good since I can deny access to anyone that I want for any reason I want; their race, religion, etc.  If TOS is the reason then we are back to AWS showing that they have taken similar steps with every company which violates TOS.  Long ago I worked for a company where an employee stole proprietary information.  The employee argued in court, and won, that the company had not shown adequate concern over the protection of such information.  Similarly, Parler could argue that AWS has not been consistent in such enforcement.  I don’t know if they host FB for instance, but I could probably find multiple instances of posts that violate some part of the AWS TOS in my news feed.  Also what is the significance of 98?  97 was OK, but 98 met their definition of the violation?  Shouldn’t it be one instance of a violation?  It seems more likely that they decided to cancel Parler, then went back and counted “violations” to justify the cancelation.

I’m not a lawyer of course, I’m just brainstorming some ideas that Parler might have in their suit.   

[Reality 3,121]

For the ToS clowns..

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/10/twitter-hasnt-suspended-these-accounts-or-tweets-that-openly-incite-violence/

[Cdub100 3,995]

1 minute ago, Reality said:

For the ToS clowns..

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/10/twitter-hasnt-suspended-these-accounts-or-tweets-that-openly-incite-violence/

So we know breaking TOS is a lie. What will the liberals believe next?

[KSB2424 3,173]

21 minutes ago, Reality said:

For the ToS clowns..

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/10/twitter-hasnt-suspended-these-accounts-or-tweets-that-openly-incite-violence/

When Reality punches you in the face.

***this post was a double entendre ***

[Hawkeye21 2,454]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Well, the “it’s my house” analogy isn’t very good since I can deny access to anyone that I want for any reason I want; their race, religion, etc.  If TOS is the reason then we are back to AWS showing that they have taken similar steps with every company which violates TOS.  Long ago I worked for a company where an employee stole proprietary information.  The employee argued in court, and won, that the company had not shown adequate concern over the protection of such information.  Similarly, Parler could argue that AWS has not been consistent in such enforcement.  I don’t know if they host FB for instance, but I could probably find multiple instances of posts that violate some part of the AWS TOS in my news feed.  Also what is the significance of 98?  97 was OK, but 98 met their definition of the violation?  Shouldn’t it be one instance of a violation?  It seems more likely that they decided to cancel Parler, then went back and counted “violations” to justify the cancelation.

I’m not a lawyer of course, I’m just brainstorming some ideas that Parler might have in their suit.   

If they can prove that they didn’t show concern then I think they have a pretty good case. Their lack of consistency will hurt them.  

[RLLD 4,275]

In a few good moment, Twitter’s stock dropped significantly, would be great if people left the platform to a sufficient level for the company to just die

[Gladiators 2,032]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

In a few good moment, Twitter’s stock dropped significantly, would be great if people left the platform to a sufficient level for the company to just die

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

Isn’t your cell phone company a platform too? Imagine they took away your service for the phone calls you made? Private company, right? 

[Mike Honcho 5,432]

14 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Well, the “it’s my house” analogy isn’t very good since I can deny access to anyone that I want for any reason I want; their race, religion, etc.  If TOS is the reason then we are back to AWS showing that they have taken similar steps with every company which violates TOS.  Long ago I worked for a company where an employee stole proprietary information.  The employee argued in court, and won, that the company had not shown adequate concern over the protection of such information.  Similarly, Parler could argue that AWS has not been consistent in such enforcement.  I don’t know if they host FB for instance, but I could probably find multiple instances of posts that violate some part of the AWS TOS in my news feed.  Also what is the significance of 98?  97 was OK, but 98 met their definition of the violation?  Shouldn’t it be one instance of a violation?  It seems more likely that they decided to cancel Parler, then went back and counted “violations” to justify the cancelation.

I’m not a lawyer of course, I’m just brainstorming some ideas that Parler might have in their suit.   

The house analogy was me thinking you would be much more welcoming than apparently you are...I'm calling of my trip to Phoenix. 

All good questions that I can't answer but I agree have to be addressed in  court, though I'd be willing to be Amazon/Google/Apple all have a we can boot your azz whenever we want clause in their TOS. 

[jerryskids 7,083]

27 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

The house analogy was me thinking you would be much more welcoming than apparently you are...I'm calling of my trip to Phoenix. 

All good questions that I can't answer but I agree have to be addressed in  court, though I'd be willing to be Amazon/Google/Apple all have a we can boot your azz whenever we want clause in their TOS. 

I know you are joking, but FWIW and I’ve mentioned this before, we used to host all of the theater kids at our house when my daughter was in it.  That was the island of misfit toys — we had all kinds of races not to mention genders and sexual preferences before they became a big thing.  Good kids, we miss those days.  

Sparties aren’t allowed though.  

I’m sure they have some sort of “at will” clause, as do employers.  But that doesn’t give them carte blanche to fire people for ANY reason.  There are explicit exceptions like protected classes, but there are countless examples of wrongful termination which are arbitrated in the courts.  I guess we’ll see.   

[Mike Honcho 5,432]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I know you are joking, but FWIW and I’ve mentioned this before, we used to host all of the theater kids at our house when my daughter was in it.  That was the island of misfit toys — we had all kinds of races not to mention genders and sexual preferences before they became a big thing.  Good kids, we miss those days.  

Sparties aren’t allowed though.  

I’m sure they have some sort of “at will” clause, as do employers.  But that doesn’t give them carte blanche to fire people for ANY reason.  There are explicit exceptions like protected classes, but there are countless examples of wrongful termination which are arbitrated in the courts.  I guess we’ll see.   

I'm a Badger, I just live in Sparty land.

[jerryskids 7,083]

15 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'm a Badger, I just live in Sparty land.

That’s right, I knew that.    We had a niece go to MSU so my wife’s family had to soften their stance.  

[Strike 6,018]

 

[D.Rockchild 1]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

 

She's stating this like it's a new thing that she just blew the lid off. It's always been about the money. And always will be. Sad but true.

[Utilit99 4,099]

1 hour ago, D.Rockchild said:

She's stating this like it's a new thing that she just blew the lid off. It's always been about the money. And always will be. Sad but true.

Well, even if it's always been like that, there is always a time to bring it to light.

[Strike 6,018]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

3 hours ago, D.Rockchild said:

She's stating this like it's a new thing that she just blew the lid off. It's always been about the money. And always will be. Sad but true.

Zuckerberg spent 400 million this election. It’s more out of whack than before. 

[Fireballer 2,677]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

 

Just came to post this.  No level of hypocrisy is a surprise now and they don't try to hide it.

[Hawkeye21 2,454]

Just now, Fireballer said:

Just came to post this.  No level of hypocrisy is a surprise now and they don't try to hide it.

You're comparing shutting down the entire internet to banning social media accounts?

[Utilit99 4,099]

Just now, Fireballer said:

Just came to post this.  No level of hypocrisy is a surprise now and they don't try to hide it.

This is the way of the left. Commit offenses, then tell others that they are doing it and shame them for it. 

[edjr 6,898]

 

[Strike 6,018]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You're comparing shutting down the entire internet to banning social media accounts?

Who's talking about shutting down the entire Internet?  And Twitter is getting rid of thousands of accounts, all conservative.  If anything, a sitewide shutdown is more fair than what Twitter is doing.  Twitter is trying to purge their site of conservatives. 

[Hawkeye21 2,454]

Just now, Strike said:

Who's talking about shutting down the entire Internet?  And Twitter is getting rid of thousands of accounts, all conservative.  If anything, a sitewide shutdown is more fair than what Twitter is doing.  Twitter is trying to purge their site of conservatives. 

I guess I misunderstood them saying internet shutdowns.

[edjr 6,898]

Not banned on Youtube

[Strike 6,018]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I guess I misunderstood them saying internet shutdowns.

[Hawkeye21 2,454]

I'm really starting to like all these protests against social media.  I'm seeing more and more people posting how they are singing up for MeWe for political posting and only using Facebook for everything else.  It's going to be so much more enjoyable with Facebook being free of political memes now.

[RLLD 4,275]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm really starting to like all these protests against social media.  I'm seeing more and more people posting how they are singing up for MeWe for political posting and only using Facebook for everything else.  It's going to be so much more enjoyable with Facebook being free of political memes now.

Same.  These companies need to have a wakeup call, and maybe the gradual walking away will get their attention.....