- Joined
- May 25, 2013
I don't understand why people bother with an app for shit you can just use the web browser for
Apple says it will kick Parler off the App Store in 24 hours unless content is moderated
- Thread starter themasterlurker
- Start date
-
🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.
Polystyrene Glioblastoma
It's funny because it's true! - Trudy Wiegel
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2018
Grindr is allowed on app stores and it has negligent resources to leave a data trail when predators target others or young teens. Grindr also allows meth dealers and bug spreaders to advertise with no consequences. Yet Parler is the problem because someone said something mean?
Garm
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2019
Yes. Opinions these days are more dangerous than actual actions. You might have an independent thought.
- Joined
- May 6, 2016
Did Apple ever threaten to take twitter off the app store because of it being used by terrorists and pedophiles? Or Facebook for being a platform where people livestream shootings and other crimes? Or YouTube for having having child exploitation content and animal abuse videos?
Humble Shitpost Merchant
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2019
Parler's entire appeal is rooted in not being twitter, so I'm not sure why anyone would be stupid enough to take the deal to "be twitter but less popular"
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
Race is a protected class. Not black people. Sex is a protected class. Not women.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2020
dlive took the deal to "be twitch but less popular" we can see how that plays out
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
But why do some people get protection and others don't? I'd be forced to hire a troon no matter how much I hate them, but if someone spoke out against BLM, I'd be able to refuse without an issue. I just want the rules -- whatever they are -- to be applied fairly. I thought treating everyone equally was the goal. You can't do that if some animals are more equal than others.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2020
That's the idea. Purge anybody who thinks differently out of society.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
No because that's retarded. Look up what protected classes are in the law.
Do you ever tire of simping for a 75 year old grifter?
Look up protected classes. You can't not hire someone simply because they're a tranny, but you can for any non-protected class
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2019
A much bigger deal is the massive hack that happened. Radical lefties now possess driver licenses of many users, due to a verification program where you had to send some sort of ID to get verified. While Parler was lame, not being that much better than twitter, and without the benefits of saying the gamer word like you can on Gab, its absolute deplatforming should give anyone who uses this site some pause.
If they are going after boomers, who's political opinions are largely conventional, its only a matter of time before the axe comes our way.
If they are going after boomers, who's political opinions are largely conventional, its only a matter of time before the axe comes our way.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2019
Almost seems like fake and gay is what they want you to be these days, eh?
- Joined
- May 19, 2018
Imagine not understanding the difference between "de facto" and "de jure" THIS hard.
WhatIsThePunchline
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
Amazon also stopped hosting them looks like.
People are accountable for what they say, not their 'platforms'. This applies both on and offline. You don't get evicted from your apartment because the landlord thinks your neighbor participated in a riot. Getting your entire community destroyed because someone you've never met allegedly talked about doing something illegal is wrong.
If amazon actually had a problem with people on parlor conspiring to commit violence, the appropriate action for them would have been to call the police. The police could then contact parler and ask them to provide details on these people. If parler refused they could get a court order. If the people involved could not be located due to being careful of their privacy, and their speech was deemed illegal, those specific individuals could then be banned. And if the legal system was abused to overstep their bounds and silence political opposition, that could then be pointed out, criticized and the government could be held to account for it.
But of course amazon do not have a problem with people conspiring to commit violence. Neither does apple or any other rich and unaccountable corporation. They are banning parler because they want to silence political opposition
People are accountable for what they say, not their 'platforms'. This applies both on and offline. You don't get evicted from your apartment because the landlord thinks your neighbor participated in a riot. Getting your entire community destroyed because someone you've never met allegedly talked about doing something illegal is wrong.
If amazon actually had a problem with people on parlor conspiring to commit violence, the appropriate action for them would have been to call the police. The police could then contact parler and ask them to provide details on these people. If parler refused they could get a court order. If the people involved could not be located due to being careful of their privacy, and their speech was deemed illegal, those specific individuals could then be banned. And if the legal system was abused to overstep their bounds and silence political opposition, that could then be pointed out, criticized and the government could be held to account for it.
But of course amazon do not have a problem with people conspiring to commit violence. Neither does apple or any other rich and unaccountable corporation. They are banning parler because they want to silence political opposition
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2019
A 24 hour deadline like that was hardly given in good faith. It would've taken far longer to somehow comply.
Gab were wise not to use a Globohomo corp like Amazon for hosting. Parler weren't, which makes browser use moot.
I used Gab briefly after launch, but left with all the ff bots. A fair few use Twitter, just reregistering on bans (having a backup) and going on a 'find my frens' search. Ducking and diving like so, might remain preferable if Gab is still Ram Ranch for bots.
Gab were wise not to use a Globohomo corp like Amazon for hosting. Parler weren't, which makes browser use moot.
I used Gab briefly after launch, but left with all the ff bots. A fair few use Twitter, just reregistering on bans (having a backup) and going on a 'find my frens' search. Ducking and diving like so, might remain preferable if Gab is still Ram Ranch for bots.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
They are banning Parler to get rid of competition. It's all about money.
WhatIsThePunchline
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2020
Google, Android, and Amazon are all private companies who can refuse service to anybody. Republicans were all about the FCC revoking Title 2, based on allowing companies to govern themselves. You real what you sow.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2018
Its not about making money, its about a stranglehold on all communication and The Narrative
. There is a reason Twitter and Youtube are operated at a loss.
attractive_pneumonia
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
The issue isn't with Amazon or any of these companies dropping Parler individually, its the industry collusion which is the issue. Apple and Google both have already been sued for wage fixing: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...gle-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion all of these companies suddenly decided at the exact same time to go after Parler over a contrived scenario that they themselves are culpable of. That Jan 6th rally was talked about on Youtube and Twitter as much as it was Parler, the tech sector decided to cut down a rival in an rather overt manner. If the US was willing to conduct anti-trust cases there would be a reckoning. Many of these companies are already well past the point of being monopolistic in their sector and should be broken up, now they're actively conducting anti-competition operations.