R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Parler has now been bullied offline completely.

Putting aside the "It's a private company" rhetoric that the left only trots out when it's convenient for them, and the inescapable fact that antitrust laws are not being enforced in this country at all, can someone please name me one large social media forum where conservatives are allowed to speak freely?

Just one.

How can anyone who isn't insane sit there and tell me that conservatives aren't being persecuted?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 15 • Views: 13,694 • Replies: 272
Topic Closed

@longjon,

What is it about "conservatives" that makes it so difficult for them to adhere to the terms of service clearly spelled out by social media platforms?

Quote:

How can anyone who isn't insane sit there and tell me that conservatives aren't being persecuted?

You're confusing site moderation of problematic content with the systematic mistreatment of individuals based on their political views. Conservatives aren't "persecuted" on this site. We have rules and people who violate them might have their offending posts deleted, as some of mine have been. It's the same with other sites. There seems to be a penchant among Trump supporters to act up, test the rules, provoke a scolding, and then whine about "persecution". It's juvenile. "Speak freely" means "see how much we can get away with" for you guys.

If the FBI shows up at your door, shows you a list of deleted posts, and informs you that you're under arrest for sharing these opinions, well, yeah, that would be a problem. Losing an internet platform because its owners refuse to monitor members' posts for the instigation of violence is hardly "persecution".

The owners of Parler did you a disservice by not screening the comments and removing ones promoting illegal activity.

0 Replies

@longjon,

1. There is no connection between the 1st Amendment and Anti-Trust legislation.

2. We all know how the poor, sad, trampled conservatives are being persecuted.

0 Replies

Examples of people who are allowed to freely post on Twitter:

~The Ayatollah
~Louis Farrakhan
~O.J. Simpson
~The Chinese government

Multiple murders and assaults have been live streamed on facebook, yet the platform has never been removed from the internet.

2 Replies

@longjon,

How many of them have been the president of the USA?

Which of them inflamed a mob and directed it to storm the Capitol?

Have any of them disputed the results of the November election?

1 Reply

@longjon,

longjon wrote:

Parler has now been bullied offline completely.

Putting aside the "It's a private company" rhetoric that the left only trots out when it's convenient for them, and the inescapable fact that antitrust laws are not being enforced in this country at all, can someone please name me one large social media forum where conservatives are allowed to speak freely?

Just one.

How can anyone who isn't insane sit there and tell me that conservatives aren't being persecuted?

It a damn shame that people are now being stop from setting up and planning mob actions to attack our government by way of face book or twitter. Not a free nation if you are not allow to have sites to plan attacks on our nation.

0 Replies

@longjon,

longjon wrote:

Examples of people who are allowed to freely post on Twitter:

~The Ayatollah
~Louis Farrakhan
~O.J. Simpson
~The Chinese government

Multiple murders and assaults have been live streamed on facebook, yet the platform has never been removed from the internet.

What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

0 Replies

@longjon,

Is the problem that Parler is unable to build a website on their own? I can build a website in a half hour on my home computer and publish whatever I want. Parler could probably get a Russian company to host for them and be right back up if they have some technical competence.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Is the problem that Parler is unable to build a website on their own? I can build a website in a half hour on my home computer and publish whatever I want. Parler could probably get a Russian company to host for them and be right back up if they have some technical competence.

Engineer's argument is disingenuous. Imagine if Google, Twitter, Facebook, Apple and Amazon decided that they were against LGBT rights.

1. Twitter and Facebook can censor any posts that were promoting LGBT rights.

2. Amazon can deny web infrastructure for any websites that don't censure LGBT supportive posts.

3. Google And Apple can censor any social media apps that allow people to support LGBT rights.

Sure, individual people could make websites that would support LGBT rights. But they would be unable to promote the widely or communicate with the public.

Is there a single liberal who would be OK with this? I think Engineer's position is just as extreme as Longjon's.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Now how long would it take for facebook or twitter an so on to go out of business if they decided to exercise their rights to be against and censor gay rights postings for example.

No private company have a duty to allow themselves to be used for haters and given 70 millions Trump voters if they still feel a need to support Trump let them support websites that is willing to host such postings.

The free market place still exist.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Are you saying that public media companies should be able to stifle LGBT rights as long at conforms to the basic politic whims of the day? It wasn't that long ago that most Americans were against LGBT rights. Now, most Americans are supportive of LGBT rights. In the future, who knows.

You are supporting big corporate media monopolies exercising their power to decide which messages are acceptable and which messages should be stifled. Yes, in the LGBT case big corporate interests are in line with your personal political beliefs.

Do you really believe that big corporate interests reacting to the free market will have your best interests at heart?

0 Replies

I disagree with Longjon that this is a First Amendment issue.

The issue here is the power we are giving to large corporations over what messages can be communicated.

This is a real issue.

0 Replies

Most of these comments are ridiculous and purposely misrepresent my point. I will not dignify that klind of nonsense with a response. President Trump has never murdered anyone, yet murderers are allowed to post on twitter. Louis Farrakhan has compared the Jews to "termites", yet is allowed a Twitter account.

Even maxdoncona, who seems to sort of understand the problem with large corporations being given too much control, is missing the larger picture.

Only one half of the political landscape is being silenced here.

Ron Paul Blocked by Facebook for Violating Community Standards

https://heavy.com/news/ron-paul-blocked-facebook-censored/

alk-radio owner orders conservative hosts to temper election fraud rhetoric

https://archive.vn/0rEEi#selection-359.1-359.76

3 Replies

Below viewing threshold (view)

@maxdancona,

Get real — why would they decide they were against LGBT rights? What if there were a good reason? — I can't think of one but we have to assume there'd be something that caused them to make that decision. If they had a strong case I might have to reconsider my views on the subject. And if they didn't have a good reason don't you think the LGBT community and its many friends would create a friendly platform for them pretty quickly or attract high-powered lawyers who'd argue their case if litigation was a choice?

For the most part, the LGBT community as a whole probably has no difficulty adhering to the user agreements they have with their hosts. All Parler had to do was exercise a little bit of content moderation, as is done here and on many other message boards. The alt-right's big problem here (and Trump's) is that they have a lot of angry, violent people in their user base and these people would leave the site if they felt they were being muzzled. They want a place where they can swagger, threaten, and vent.

Fomenting violence and advocating insurrection isn't a characteristic of LGBT culture. On the other hand, it's in the political DNA of many Trump followers. They need to learn how to express themselves in a way which comports with the terms of service of their hosts or find friendlier platforms.

It has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

1 Reply

@longjon,

So your point is that life isn't fair.

That still doesn't make it a First Amendment issue.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Get real — why would they decide they were against LGBT rights?

1. Not that long ago most of corporate America was against LGBT rights. Publishing houses pushed a lot of stories about homosexual men being predatory. They published very little about the need for rights. This is not a hypothetical.

2. A lot of things are getting censored that aren't fomenting violence or advocating insurrection. The question is who decides what gets censored? The answer seems to be large corporations.

3. I agree with you that this isn't a First Amendment Issus. The issue is how much power we give large corporations to control public discourse.

1 Reply

@longjon,

Louis Farrakhan was banned from Facebook so your comment just shows that different companies have different standards.

All these companies have terms of service. There are tons of conservatives posting on FB and Twitter every day without any issues. A handful of extremists being banned is not systematic discrimination against conservatives, in fact conservatives in general and Trump in particular owe a lot of the propagation of their messages to social media.

0 Replies

@longjon,

How many of those gentlemen had used those social media platforms to promote and whip up a large mob using lies to attack the seat of our government resulting in deaths and the stopping to the function of the government for a time???????

Next we are not talking about censoring opinions but censoring proven falsehoods being used to whip up deadly mobs.

0 Replies

We stumbled upon an interesting idea...

The LGBT movement started on the 1950s version of Parler. You see corporate media of the time TV, magazines, and major publishers were censoring any LGBT voices. When homosexuality was mentioned, it was always in a negative light.

Since they were locked out of the mass media, most Americans had no way to even access LGBT positive information. It was hidden from them.

So... alternative media was formed, the included newsletters, small publications and limited edition books that were hard to find. Advertisers wouldn't touch them, people didn't discuss them.

I suppose maybe Parler is history repeating itself... accept this time they are trying to take away the ink.

0 Replies

An outraged Glenn Greenwald reveals that those arrested for Capitol siege plotted on FACEBOOK, not Parler…

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1348617708385030144.html

1 Reply

Forums
» R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Read Question
Reply to All

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

Quick Links

My Account

able2know