Google Pulls Parler as Apple Threatens the Same in Wake of Capitol Riot

[Brian4Liberty]

Where was this Brian 2 years ago?!

Defending free speech and open debate. Obviously, that war is over.

 

[CaptUSA]

Good

And for those yelling about the first amendment, try reading it.

While you're factually correct... You're missing the point here.

 

[Sammy]

Bye.

 

[wizardwatson]

Good

And for those yelling about the first amendment, try reading it.

Nazi book burnings weren't done by the Nazi's either.

 

[misterx]

It's just the Daily Stormer, it's just Alex Jones, it's just Donald Trump. If you're a good boy they won't ban you Shut up and lick Google's boot, they aren't the government, there's no shame in being enslaved by them.

 

[TheCount]

Bye.

Ideological censorship?

 

[TheCount]

At this point, there is no more need to play games with trolls, and those who never supported Ron Paul.

... would Ron Paul disagree with Rev3 on this issue?


Or is Rev3 being banned for his support of a concept which is entirely in line with the site mission?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

... would Ron Paul disagree with Rev3 on this issue?


Or is Rev3 being banned for his support of a concept which is entirely in line with the site mission?

Ron Paul is not celebrating censorship or corporatism. I'd suggest that celebrating such is simply trolling for reaction, and trolling may result in banning. Do you believe that private forums are free to ban trolls? Hiding behind one principle to destroy a whole bunch of other principles is no excuse. Trolling for your own banning just to play martyr is pretty transparent.

 

[TheCount]

Ron Paul is not celebrating censorship or corporatism. I'd suggest that celebrating such is simply trolling for reaction, and trolling may result in banning. Do you believe that private forums are free to ban trolls?

Yes, I believe that private forums are just as free to ban trolls as Twitter is free to ban trolls, and just as people here ask why Twitter bans the people it bans, I'm asking why you ban the people you ban. I don't see the word "good" as meeting the standard that you seem to be setting out.

Just because it is a point of view which angers you specifically does not mean that it's a troll. It's probably Rev3's genuinely held viewpoint.

Hiding behind one principle to destroy a whole bunch of other principles is no excuse.

Which principles are being destroyed by 'hiding behind' the principles of free association and property ownership?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, I believe that private forums are just as free to ban trolls as Twitter is free to ban trolls, and just as people here ask why Twitter bans the people it bans, I'm asking why you ban the people you ban. I don't see the word "good" as meeting the standard that you seem to be setting out.
...

"Wow, that straw was not heavy at all. How did it break the camel's back?"

Pro Tip: looking at the last post of a person before being banned is not terribly meaningful for a variety of reasons.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
I don't see the word "good" as meeting the standard that you seem to be setting out.
...

Why don't you tell us what is "good" about corporatist collusion to eliminate one of the only competitors to Twitter in the market place?

Then tell us what is "good" about Facebook limiting Ron Paul's account, probably in preparation for banning?

What is good about Ron Paul Liberty Reports being removed and banned from YouTube?

While you're at it, what is "good" about Facebook banning Ronpaulforums.com?

 

[TheCount]

Why don't you tell us what is "good" about corporatist collusion to eliminate one of the only competitors to Twitter in the market place?

Then tell us what is "good" about Facebook limiting Ron Paul's account, probably in preparation for banning?

What is good about Ron Paul Liberty Reports being removed and banned from YouTube?

While you're at it, what is "good" about Facebook banning Ronpaulforums.com?

It is good those those corporations are capable of doing those things because if they were incapable of doing so, it would represent a reduction in private property rights.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It is good those those corporations are capable of doing those things because if they were incapable of doing so, it would represent a reduction in private property rights.

Bullshit. There is nothing “good” about it. What’s next? Are you going to exclaim “good” at every gun murder because “at least we still have gun rights”? It’s trolling.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

It is good those those corporations are capable of doing those things because if they were incapable of doing so, it would represent a reduction in private property rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Eunuch Libertarian in action. An individual so ineffectual their sole purpose is to defend the same things that will lead to their personal destruction. At best, it is a person compelled to become a martyr. At worst, they are a danger to everyone around them.

 

[CaptUSA]

It is good those those corporations are capable of doing those things because if they were incapable of doing so, it would represent a reduction in private property rights.

First... We have to remember that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution does not grant the right of free speech. We have a natural right of free speech and the 1st Amendment ensures (supposedly) that the government will not infringe upon your natural rights. That is important because we keep hearing this trope about these being private companies.


Secondly... We also have the natural rights of voluntary association. So your point stands.

But we have to ask ourselves the question here... Why are these companies banning viewpoints?
Is it simply because they fear being associated with violence?? I mean, if that were the case, they would have been shutting down apps and people all summer long during the violence.
Is it because they fear retribution by the State? If that's the case, then the State IS infringing upon free speech - just taking a different route.
Maybe they just fear the reaction of their cancel-culture customers? That sounds reasonable - but then why the instantaneous purge? That would be cause for much debate and discussion amongst their customer base. Also, it would take time before they'd take the step of cancelling a viewpoint.
And if they are really concerned about violence - why did they not just go after anyone plotting violence? They went after an ideology that to them eventually may lead to violence. Again, get back to the disparity in which violence they have a problem with.
And if they were truly trying to stop violence, why are they shutting down questioning of the election???? Instead, they are actively trying to suppress political speech.

So, this isn't really about voluntary association. We agree that companies can do what they want. This is about using their power to limit speech.

 

[PAF]

First... We have to remember that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution does not grant the right of free speech. We have a natural right of free speech and the 1st Amendment ensures (supposedly) that the government will not infringe upon your natural rights. That is important because we keep hearing this trope about these being private companies.


Secondly... We also have the natural rights of voluntary association. So your point stands.

But we have to ask ourselves the question here... Why are these companies banning viewpoints?
Is it simply because they fear being associated with violence?? I mean, if that were the case, they would have been shutting down apps and people all summer long during the violence.
Is it because they fear retribution by the State? If that's the case, then the State IS infringing upon free speech - just taking a different route.
Maybe they just fear the reaction of their cancel-culture customers? That sounds reasonable - but then why the instantaneous purge? That would be cause for much debate and discussion amongst their customer base. Also, it would take time before they'd take the step of cancelling a viewpoint.
And if they are really concerned about violence - why did they not just go after anyone plotting violence? They went after an ideology that to them eventually may lead to violence. Again, get back to the disparity in which violence they have a problem with.
And if they were truly trying to stop violence, why are they shutting down questioning of the election???? Instead, they are actively trying to suppress political speech.

So, this isn't really about voluntary association. We agree that companies can do what they want. This is about using their power to limit speech.

Bingo.

Company/corporation status, licenses, permits and contracts, ordinances, all involve government.

In a True Free Market, those [multi-lateral agreements] would not exist. As it stands - Fascism.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Is it because they fear retribution by the State? If that's the case, then the State IS infringing upon free speech - just taking a different route.

I wonder who Amazon's single biggest customer is today?

Bingo.

Company/corporation status, licenses, permits and contracts, ordinances, all involve government.

In a True Free Market, those [multi-lateral agreements] would not exist. As it stands - Fascism.

A question I pondered earlier today: if every consumer that used Amazon to make purchases engaged in a 100% boycott, what portion of Amazon's revenue would remain? How much does the government pay Amazon for server space and cloud services?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Glenn Greenwald:

Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler?

Zero.

The planning was largely done on Facebook. This is all a bullshit pretext for silencing competitors on ideological grounds: just the start.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1348619731734028293

 

[PAF]

I wonder who Amazon's single biggest customer is today?



A question I pondered earlier today: if every consumer that used Amazon to make purchases engaged in a 100% boycott, what portion of Amazon's revenue would remain? How much does the government pay Amazon for server space and cloud services?

Yeah, I've been pondering that too. Not just Amazon, but all of the players. I think even partial awareness among the people would make some kind of dent, but it would also require that those .gov contracts be identified/recognized and put the brakes on them. Catherine Fitts did a nice presentation in that interview in the other thread.

 

[RJB]

First... We have to remember that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution does not grant the right of free speech. We have a natural right of free speech and the 1st Amendment ensures (supposedly) that the government will not infringe upon your natural rights. That is important because we keep hearing this trope about these being private companies.


Secondly... We also have the natural rights of voluntary association. So your point stands.

But we have to ask ourselves the question here... Why are these companies banning viewpoints?
Is it simply because they fear being associated with violence?? I mean, if that were the case, they would have been shutting down apps and people all summer long during the violence.
Is it because they fear retribution by the State? If that's the case, then the State IS infringing upon free speech - just taking a different route.
Maybe they just fear the reaction of their cancel-culture customers? That sounds reasonable - but then why the instantaneous purge? That would be cause for much debate and discussion amongst their customer base. Also, it would take time before they'd take the step of cancelling a viewpoint.
And if they are really concerned about violence - why did they not just go after anyone plotting violence? They went after an ideology that to them eventually may lead to violence. Again, get back to the disparity in which violence they have a problem with.
And if they were truly trying to stop violence, why are they shutting down questioning of the election???? Instead, they are actively trying to suppress political speech.

So, this isn't really about voluntary association. We agree that companies can do what they want. This is about using their power to limit speech.

Post of... Well it's one of the best that I have read in a while.