3 ms·

You're argument is a lazy argument that accepts the weaponization of free speech, which is even more scary. Parler was never about free speech. If you read up o

You're argument is a lazy argument that accepts the weaponization of free speech, which is even more scary. Parler was never about free speech. If you read up on its making, it was dark money, russian bots, alt-right hate groups and their cover is this absurdly stupid front of free speech that no alt-right fascist person actually wants. They just use it against you.

surge 6y ago
Your* Most of the people who are saying this never actually looked at the site, the reality is the majority of the content seen was no worse than that of Twitter, in some ways better and more politer (that's what you get with an echo chamber), but every argument leveraged against Parler could be leveraged 10x over against Twitter. So no matter what intentions are, the effect is the same. You can't in good faith argue Parler deserves to be taken down anymore than Twitter and many other sites. Twitter does not enforce many of its own rules, even when reported a lot of violent, hateful content stays up for days or weeks while very minor infractions will get enforced. So even what they do enforce is very inconsistently enforced. Given how bad Twitter is and has been over the course of its history, you can't really argue in good faith this wasn't just a pretext from eliminating a competitor to the dominance of SV big tech from the market. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...
- vixen99 6y ago
  Seems rather obvious that this 'Big Tech bloc' will eventually turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- supernovae 6y ago
  Your* entire argument actually supports what I said. Twitters goal was never to weaponize freedom of speech. You can't blame twitter for being anti-free speech when the basis for kicking off Trump was violation of TOS. It was never a freedom of speech issue to begin with. Parler on the other hand weaponizes freedom of speech does so in a very juvenile way to confuse people. The GOP runs with this too. It's how conspiracy theorists thrive - they weaponize authority in every way - be it authority because of comprehensive study, understanding and scientific evidence or authority because of governance, speech, status quo. It's pathetic really... and i have to laugh that you seem to suggest you have some pillar to stand on merely because you corrected what my iphone chose to autocorrect. lol
mc32 6y ago
No. One can make the argument that there are kinds of speech that need to be restricted because of reasons x, y and z and still recognize that they are speech. His take is rather fascistic in that he just redefines what a thing is to avoid dealing with the unpleasant parts. No, it’s not a sterilization campaign, it’s family planning.

surge 6y ago

Your* Most of the people who are saying this never actually looked at the site, the reality is the majority of the content seen was no worse than that of Twitter, in some ways better and more politer (that's what you get with an echo chamber), but every argument leveraged against Parler could be leveraged 10x over against Twitter. So no matter what intentions are, the effect is the same. You can't in good faith argue Parler deserves to be taken down anymore than Twitter and many other sites. Twitter does not enforce many of its own rules, even when reported a lot of violent, hateful content stays up for days or weeks while very minor infractions will get enforced. So even what they do enforce is very inconsistently enforced. Given how bad Twitter is and has been over the course of its history, you can't really argue in good faith this wasn't just a pretext from eliminating a competitor to the dominance of SV big tech from the market. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...

vixen99 6y ago
Seems rather obvious that this 'Big Tech bloc' will eventually turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
supernovae 6y ago
Your* entire argument actually supports what I said. Twitters goal was never to weaponize freedom of speech. You can't blame twitter for being anti-free speech when the basis for kicking off Trump was violation of TOS. It was never a freedom of speech issue to begin with. Parler on the other hand weaponizes freedom of speech does so in a very juvenile way to confuse people. The GOP runs with this too. It's how conspiracy theorists thrive - they weaponize authority in every way - be it authority because of comprehensive study, understanding and scientific evidence or authority because of governance, speech, status quo. It's pathetic really... and i have to laugh that you seem to suggest you have some pillar to stand on merely because you corrected what my iphone chose to autocorrect. lol

mc32 6y ago

No. One can make the argument that there are kinds of speech that need to be restricted because of reasons x, y and z and still recognize that they are speech. His take is rather fascistic in that he just redefines what a thing is to avoid dealing with the unpleasant parts. No, it’s not a sterilization campaign, it’s family planning.