Google bans 'free speech' app Parler, Apple and Amazon have followed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,518   +3,817
Thankfully android can just install .apks. Google's censorship arm can suck it.
#1: “CONGRESS shall not...”

Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter... even Techspot, are all private.

Learn the Constitution.

there is no guarantee of “free speech”.

there is only a negative right for Congress (the government) to censor citizens.


#2. The violent insurrection/sedition and terrorism gave Social Media the perfect excuse to do what they should have done 3 years ago.

It’s called a “pretext”.
Funny, that was the same argument used by companies to avoid hiring/servicing black people. And the same people who use "but muh private company" have 0 issue calling for regulation on industries over other topics, like pay, minority quotas, ece.
 

Tantor

Posts: 156   +254
What gives Apple or Google the right to ban Parler? Who the hell makes the decision about what is 'inciting violence'?

BLM leaders have repeatedly stated that they would BURN THE COUNTRY DOWN if they don't get what they want. They then showed they were serious by killing over 40 people and causing over 2 billion dollars of damage during George Floyd riots.

Antifa has been involved in MANY very violent encounters. They make it a point to show up at conservative rallies and attack people. They're not there to protest, but to commit violence. Everybody knows this.

Why doesn't Apple, Google, Cnn, Twitter, ban everyone in BLM and Antifa? The double standard is beyond hypocrisy. It's so lopsided that you can't even wrap your brain around it.
 

Tantor

Posts: 156   +254
Thankfully android can just install .apks. Google's censorship arm can suck it.

Funny, that was the same argument used by companies to avoid hiring/servicing black people. And the same people who use "but muh private company" have 0 issue calling for regulation on industries over other topics, like pay, minority quotas, ece.

Yes. The very same logic used to exclude Blacks is now being used to exclude conservatives, specifically White Males.

Anyone who can't see the hypocrisy is either braindead or utterly blind.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,691   +3,552
TechSpot Elite
Then the tech giants are not following their own guidelines. Violent threats against politicians? Conspiracy theories about stolen elections? De-humanizing language? Organizing "peaceful protests" that result in looted stores, beaten people, or entire city blocks being taken over and occupied?
Takes me about 60 seconds to find multiple examples on twitter, facebook, and other websites that host on Amazon or google, or thru apps that are on iTunes store or Google Play. Yet they remain.
Wrong, those kind of comments do get removed. You just refuse to believe so. I personally had my youtube account terminated (with no warning and prior offence) because I got into an argument with some trumpards and all I did was throw some insults at people who were saying that people should take up arms because of "fraud". I have proof that both sides are being moderated, you don't.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,691   +3,552
TechSpot Elite
What gives Apple or Google the right to ban Parler? Who the hell makes the decision about what is 'inciting violence'?

BLM leaders have repeatedly stated that they would BURN THE COUNTRY DOWN if they don't get what they want. They then showed they were serious by killing over 40 people and causing over 2 billion dollars of damage during George Floyd riots.

Antifa has been involved in MANY very violent encounters. They make it a point to show up at conservative rallies and attack people. They're not there to protest, but to commit violence. Everybody knows this.

Why doesn't Apple, Google, Cnn, Twitter, ban everyone in BLM and Antifa? The double standard is beyond hypocrisy. It's so lopsided that you can't even wrap your brain around it.
It takes only some reading skills to understand when someone is inciting violence in a comment. But it seems that some people are refusing to actually read and just like to write.
All comments that that talk about violence are being removed, including those from BLM. But the vast majority of such content is coming from trumpards right now. Nobody is else is actually advertising the "violence" with such passion.
 

Tantor

Posts: 156   +254
Existing precedent - as defined from past SCOTUS rulings - says that 1st Amendment rights do not include inciting violence.

True. But you need to define 'inciting violence'. It has nothing to do with the criteria that Apple and Google are using to drive conservatives off the net. They use it as a convenient excuse to silence opinions they do not want to hear.

Inciting violence requires that (1) that the person is directly being encouraged or incited to commit some act of violence, (2) there is a clear and present danger that the person will commit the act, and (3) that the person actually commits the act.

Expressing opinions, regardless of the level of anger or irrationalty, is not inciting violence.

Banning Parler is irrational because Right Wingers rarely, if ever, commit violent crimes. It's far more appropriate for the Left because almost all of the recent political violence, such as the George Floyd riots, has come from the Left. The recent Capitol protests are touted by leftists as a textbook example of Right wing violence. But who was actually hurt? We see a BLACK police officer shoot a Conservative WHITE woman, Ashli Babbitt, in the neck. She was no threat to him. She had not attacked him or tried to take his gun. She couldn't even reach him. He and his colleagues didn't even warn her. Just bam, you're dead. Do we see any concern from the Left at this egregious crime? No. Does anybody even know the name of the officer who did this? No. He was merely placed on administrative leave after essentially murdering an unarmed person.

Repressing free speech is one of the most egregious forms of psychological and social violence there is. That's why the American Founding Fathers put it as #1 in the Bill of Rights. Lefties should read the Bill of Rights and do a little soul searching because what goes around comes around. It's a slippery slope, once you deprive certain members of free speech, it's inevitable that everyone will lose their free speech.
 

Tantor

Posts: 156   +254
Wrong, those kind of comments do get removed. You just refuse to believe so. I personally had my youtube account terminated (with no warning and prior offence) because I got into an argument with some trumpards and all I did was throw some insults at people who were saying that people should take up arms because of "fraud". I have proof that both sides are being moderated, you don't.

Everyone is moderated. But there is a huge difference between an individual being terminated and entire sites being taken down by corporations that don't even own the sites. To the best of my knowledge, there are no Leftist sites being taken down.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,042   +5,649
Inciting violence requires that (1) that the person is directly being encouraged or incited to commit some act of violence, (2) there is a clear and present danger that the person will commit the act, and (3) that the person actually commits the act.


How about if I tell everyone to walk down to the capital building, “it’s going to be wild“, and then I’ve made sure that there isn’t enough security there in order for everyone to barge their way in so that they can disrupt or destroy the electoral college process and thereby force the reset or do over that I’ve been trying to force using ridiculous lawsuits that have gotten left out of court?

How about if I tell my followers “stand back and stand by“ and have them wait for me to draw away sufficient security so that they can help me accomplish my goals?

In my opinion social media and the media itself should’ve stood up to this tyrant along time ago but they needed a good reason to be able to do it and he absolutely gave them that. Now they’ve completely marginalized his Socio path megalomaniac self into a corner and we are just watching the clock tick down until President Biden and Kamala Harris vice president swear in.

When I think about the number of Congress people who would have been attacked and killed by vees racist terrorists: AOC, Omar, Pelosi, Rasheed – I hope Congress puts these people in to jail for a decade or more. And that’s only because they won’t be able to simply executed for treason.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,042   +5,649
Absolutely disgusting behaviour from the big tech corpos. I can understand how Google and Facebook want to sensor their own platforms but banning competitors because they don’t match their censorship criteria isn’t on.

The problem is they do have a duopoly. If a user doesn’t agree with these private moderation policies they don’t exactly have the option to go elsewhere.

I have now removed Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram. I will still use YouTube but in a container shell on my PC where they can’t get anything out of me. I urge others to do the same.


I don’t think you understand how YouTube works. As long as you view YouTube, your view is counted and even if they don’t have your personal information to send you ads your view alone is all the advertisers need to know where to place their advertisement revenue so that people like me (YouTube partners) get paid every month on the 21st of the month.

The constitution specifically says that Congress is not allowed to censor the individual. It in no way guarantees “free speech“ and in no way allows the government to censor private companies that have a product that the public decides that it wants to use for their own purposes. Big tech is actually within constitutional rights to do exactly what it’s doing.

Trump cannot censor people from his Twitter account which is the reason why he shouldn’t be on Twitter at all as a government official. If the government itself wants to host a social media system that allows US citizens or even the rest of the world to participate that’s one thing but he cannot force his way into Twitter and post seditious/treasonous actions anymore that he could come on tech spot and force them to give more Exposure to Apple, NVIDIA and Microsoft products.

It’s not his call whether you like it or not.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,551   +1,122
I don’t think you understand how YouTube works. As long as you view YouTube, your view is counted and even if they don’t have your personal information to send you ads your view alone is all the advertisers need to know where to place their advertisement revenue so that people like me (YouTube partners) get paid every month on the 21st of the month.

The constitution specifically says that Congress is not allowed to censor the individual. It in no way guarantees “free speech“ and in no way allows the government to censor private companies that have a product that the public decides that it wants to use for their own purposes. Big tech is actually within constitutional rights to do exactly what it’s doing.

Trump cannot censor people from his Twitter account which is the reason why he shouldn’t be on Twitter at all as a government official. If the government itself wants to host a social media system that allows US citizens or even the rest of the world to participate that’s one thing but he cannot force his way into Twitter and post seditious/treasonous actions anymore that he could come on tech spot and force them to give more Exposure to Apple, NVIDIA and Microsoft products.

It’s not his call whether you like it or not.
What a dumb comment. Clearly you have absolutely no idea how anything works. You’ve got it badly wrong. YouTube collects tonnes of metadata on your system. Look it up. It’s quite disgusting how much data they harvest.

Also if you actually read my comment I stated that I’m fine with big tech censoring their own platforms. I have a problem with big tech preventing users who don’t want to use Facebook/Twitter etc from using other apps. For example, a social media platform called Parler.

Google and Facebook do NOT have the right to force their competitors out of the market. I pity your lack of intelligence if you feel otherwise.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,551   +1,122
#1: “CONGRESS shall not...”

Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter... even Techspot, are all private.

Learn the Constitution.

there is no guarantee of “free speech”.

there is only a negative right for Congress (the government) to censor citizens.


#2. The violent insurrection/sedition and terrorism gave Social Media the perfect excuse to do what they should have done 3 years ago.

It’s called a “pretext”.

You have fundamentally misunderstood what is going on here. No one is asking for Google, Apple, Facebook or Twitter to remove their censorship. They are upset as a competitor to these apps has been locked out..

How on Earth had this escaped you? Were you born last week?
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 371   +302
I thought Trump trying to get on other twitter channels hilarious - I don't have to delete any of these platforms as I never use them. He's the President - he could have called a press conference anytime - Why did he not do that? - Boris , Jacinda would .

All you Americans on here screaming - Did you stand up for the media that was harassed and targeted by Trump like a tinpot fascist state.

Did you stand up when people were illegally told not to testify ( Democrats should have forced the principle )?

Did you stand up when government workers with principles were demoted , transferred or fired - while stooges were put in their place .

Why are so many Americans so masochistic ? they glory in dead end jobs like coal mining - enriching corporate elites while they destroy your kids future environment and the workers lungs - Praise corporate greed and tax breaks while berating the working man .

Your whole system is corrupt by other country standards - buying Senators etc , countless lobby groups dolling it out . Trump filled the swamp with destroyers and criminals (so many now convicted ) .
Oh we want small govt - then screaming to interfere with California and their environmental laws .
Proud of having the most expensive public health in the world as well as the most expensive private health - yet many fear the invoices .

I don't buy it - you are angry America is not great any more - where you own women and colored people - no matter how ignorant and horrible you are - those not blessed born with the right skin pigment or sex must defer to you- where you can travel overseas giving out chocolate, pantyhose and no condoms - because your industrial complex wasn't bombed into the ground .

You want to get the truth out there about Pizza houses doing unspeakable things - about imaginary voter fraud - when most found has always been mostly republicans voting twice - or in the wrong place .

To tell the truth the CO2 is not a greenhouse gas- and it's rise since the industrial revolution is just a coincidence - it's all some unknown natural cycle .

I vote conservative in NZ mostly as I believe in the individual - but I would never support Trump - The moment I saw him on The Apprentice - I knew he was a scammer - He spoke as so his company was perfect and in certainties ( these are so obvious TELLS of a scammer ) - the only thing I can think off is that so many Americans are so devoid of knowing what is important - they latch on to coat tails hoping to get a bit of this and that will transform their life - You would have to pay me a lot of money to hang out with shallow socialites , and status seeking jerks
 

fps4ever

Posts: 686   +907
When I think about the number of Congress people who would have been attacked and killed by vees racist terrorists: AOC, Omar, Pelosi, Rasheed – I hope Congress puts these people in to jail for a decade or more. And that’s only because they won’t be able to simply executed for treason.

An absolute lie of ignorance...every one of those politicians you mentioned are a cancer and a threat to the American way and values. Protesters were unarmed and yet were gunned down. So much hypocritical bull there I dare not say anything more.
 

Cubi Dorf

Posts: 343   +224
#1: “CONGRESS shall not...”

Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter... even Techspot, are all private.

Learn the Constitution.

there is no guarantee of “free speech”.

there is only a negative right for Congress (the government) to censor citizens.


#2. The violent insurrection/sedition and terrorism gave Social Media the perfect excuse to do what they should have done 3 years ago.

It’s called a “pretext”.

These company are not private. they are public company which mean they are answer to share holder. this mean people with enough money can buying influence in these matter. it also probably not coincidence these company are support incoming government side being they are in trouble with outgoing government for antitrust and other issues. they are also aggressively try to get their people into government boards and power jobs to gain favor in these matter. americans have blinders on to how their country operate. people at the top are use money to get power and power to get money at the expense of everyone else. and people cheer for them because the party they feel to identify with can win while they are still themselves lose.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,042   +5,649
These company are not private. they are public company which mean they are answer to share holder. this mean people with enough money can buying influence in these matter. it also probably not coincidence these company are support incoming government side being they are in trouble with outgoing government for antitrust and other issues. they are also aggressively try to get their people into government boards and power jobs to gain favor in these matter. americans have blinders on to how their country operate.


If you don’t agree with them - don’t buy their stock!!!

They are publicly-traded, yes, but they are still private companies.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,042   +5,649
What a dumb comment. Clearly you have absolutely no idea how anything works. You’ve got it badly wrong. YouTube collects tonnes of metadata on your system. Look it up. It’s quite disgusting how much data they harvest.

Also if you actually read my comment I stated that I’m fine with big tech censoring their own platforms. I have a problem with big tech preventing users who don’t want to use Facebook/Twitter etc from using other apps. For example, a social media platform called Parler.

Google and Facebook do NOT have the right to force their competitors out of the market. I pity your lack of intelligence if you feel otherwise.


I don’t need to argue.

I am right and I know the law.

thank you for your YouTube view$.

That is all.
 

Puiu

Posts: 4,691   +3,552
TechSpot Elite
You have fundamentally misunderstood what is going on here. No one is asking for Google, Apple, Facebook or Twitter to remove their censorship. They are upset as a competitor to these apps has been locked out..

How on Earth had this escaped you? Were you born last week?
Then they are upset for the wrong reason and they have misunderstood what is happening right now.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 684   +862
Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right: (first one is real relevant trumptards)

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
 

fps4ever

Posts: 686   +907
Freedom of speech includes the right:

Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right: (first one is real relevant trumptards)

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Demorats have crapped over all over the constitution this pass year. This is deeper than tweets that hurt some feelings. Check what was happening when riots and destroying businesses were going down. Hypocrisy is rampant in the socialist blue party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.