3 ms·

The author uses the word "united" liberally, implying there was some kind of collusion between Amazon, Apple and Google. I would imagine it was quite the opposi

by fblp 6y ago

The author uses the word "united" liberally, implying there was some kind of collusion between Amazon, Apple and Google. I would imagine it was quite the opposite, they each would have independently banned/limited Parler regardless of what the other company did. Parler also doesn't compete with any of those companies. It competes with Facebook and Twitter. So where's the anti-competitive conduct?

saagarjha 6y ago
Generally services look at each other when deciding to ban things.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  The guy with no shirt and no shoes does not have an anti trust lawsuit because McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's all decided to prohibit his entry into their restaurants. Sometimes the customer is the reason they all make the same decision.
  - bravo22 6y ago
    That's if it is equally applied to everyone. Examples, similar to yours, are used as basis of racial discrimination lawsuits when the evidence shows that it is selectively applied to a group of people.
    - kickopotomus 6y ago
      Discrimination is perfectly legal in the US. It is only illegal if you discriminate against someone within a protected class on the basis of them being a member of that protected class. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
      - JarlUlvi 6y ago
        political affiliation/activity is definitely protected in certain US states. "California. In California, employers may not control the political affiliation or activities of workers. Employers cannot threaten to terminate workers for refusing to engage in specific political activity. Colorado. In Colorado, an employer may not prevent employees from engaging in political activities. An employer may not terminate an individual because of political affiliation. District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, employers cannot discriminate against employees based on political affiliation. Louisiana. Louisiana law prohibits employers from threatening or intimidating individuals on account of political party affiliation. Minnesota. Minnesota law prevents employers from financially retaliating against, or threatening to fire, an individual based on that individual’s political activities. Montana. Under Montana law, an employee may only be terminated for “good cause.” That is, the termination must be based on reasonable grounds related to work performance. Termination based on political activity is prohibited. Termination based on political affiliation is prohibited. Nebraska. Employers may not threaten to terminate individuals based on their political activities. New Jersey. New Jersey law prohibits employers from requiring employees to take part in employer-sponsored meetings about the employer’s political opinions or positions. New York. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their off-duty, off-premises political activities. South Carolina. Employers may not terminate a citizen from employment because of that person’s political opinions or activities. Wisconsin. Wisconsin law also prohibits employers from threatening to terminate employees based on political activity." Above provided from Legalmatch

by fblp 6y ago

saagarjha 6y ago

Generally services look at each other when deciding to ban things.

MattGaiser 6y ago
The guy with no shirt and no shoes does not have an anti trust lawsuit because McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's all decided to prohibit his entry into their restaurants. Sometimes the customer is the reason they all make the same decision.
- bravo22 6y ago
  That's if it is equally applied to everyone. Examples, similar to yours, are used as basis of racial discrimination lawsuits when the evidence shows that it is selectively applied to a group of people.
  - kickopotomus 6y ago
    Discrimination is perfectly legal in the US. It is only illegal if you discriminate against someone within a protected class on the basis of them being a member of that protected class. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
    - JarlUlvi 6y ago
      political affiliation/activity is definitely protected in certain US states. "California. In California, employers may not control the political affiliation or activities of workers. Employers cannot threaten to terminate workers for refusing to engage in specific political activity. Colorado. In Colorado, an employer may not prevent employees from engaging in political activities. An employer may not terminate an individual because of political affiliation. District of Columbia. In the District of Columbia, employers cannot discriminate against employees based on political affiliation. Louisiana. Louisiana law prohibits employers from threatening or intimidating individuals on account of political party affiliation. Minnesota. Minnesota law prevents employers from financially retaliating against, or threatening to fire, an individual based on that individual’s political activities. Montana. Under Montana law, an employee may only be terminated for “good cause.” That is, the termination must be based on reasonable grounds related to work performance. Termination based on political activity is prohibited. Termination based on political affiliation is prohibited. Nebraska. Employers may not threaten to terminate individuals based on their political activities. New Jersey. New Jersey law prohibits employers from requiring employees to take part in employer-sponsored meetings about the employer’s political opinions or positions. New York. Employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their off-duty, off-premises political activities. South Carolina. Employers may not terminate a citizen from employment because of that person’s political opinions or activities. Wisconsin. Wisconsin law also prohibits employers from threatening to terminate employees based on political activity." Above provided from Legalmatch