5 ms·
one question to people here. would you have acted in the same way you are doing now if US govt had banned parler and they wanted people to contribute to keep th
by 2Gkashmiri 6y ago
one question to people here. would you have acted in the same way you are doing now if US govt had banned parler and they wanted people to contribute to keep the service up? for all i know everyone colluded against them and killed them. now, if anyone wanted to help them stay afloat, why did you go after their hosting provider, CDN and payment processors?
if helping signal is meaning defying iran, then helping parler would mean defying the US.
think about it
- Cyclone_ 6y agoNot exactly the same. Signal is banned by Iranian government, parler was banned by US companies.
- throwitaway1235 6y agoAccurate but a disingenuous concept (not you) because U.S companies are approaching nation state power, i.e Google, Amazon etc.
- 2Gkashmiri 6y agoYes. Exactly. How do we as outsiders know the us govt isnt doing backchannel deals with faang, even with one is enough to get the ball rolling. Even if thats not the case, my question still stands. If American companies banned parler, why dodgy govt intervene like how it tries to potray a sense of high handedness when it comes to Iran. If the can sanction companies to not serve Iran, cant they force them to serve parler in the first place? If not then they are silently agreeing with faang decision, against free speech