Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
Yeah, the hypocrisy is very disturbing. On Twitter, in particular, there was a long period of time where if you did a search on #WPN it would take you to a nudist colony that exploited children. That they apply certain rules to those with differing political views is only going to feed the fire.FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
IseWolf22 said:FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
Parler allowing posts that incite violence is a violation of their written Terms of Service with these companies.
But yes they have not and are not currently applying the standard evenly, particularly to foreign authoritarians. At the end of the day though, they are caving to market pressure from their other customers
No one has disputed it. Example: Georgia SOS says the had 2 people vote that were dead. Trump team says ~ 800. SOS says your data is wrong. Trump team says let me show you my data. SOS says he don't want to.Pacfanweb said:Not true. But honestly, there's no need for anyone to dispute it. It HAS been disputed by the Nevada SoS, but all you have to do is look how Trump's folks came up with that number you'll realize there's not a need to dispute it because their source (the DMV) doesn't show who voted.pineknollshoresking said:Actually, no one has disputed it either...Pacfanweb said:pineknollshoresking said:
This guy says what he thinks as well. He provided a spreadsheet with data. You can call this all debunked; however, people don't agree with it...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/01/new-detailed-inventory-election-fraud-2020-election-deroy-murdock-provides-strong-evidence-president-trumps-performance-swing-states-overall-race/
Well right off the top, his first number is incorrect. Where 4000 non citizens voted? (3987 is the actual claim}
That's not true nor has anyone presented any evidence that it is true.
""The DMV finally provided a list of green card holders and noncitizens who had obtained driver's licenses. When we compared this detailed information against the county voter records in Nevada, we discovered that 6,260 noncitizens were registered to vote and 3,987 non-citizens had voted."
And as of December 20, no evidence had been presented to Nevada that such a thing happened. The 3987 claim was made prior to that date. All the guy in the article is doing is recycling that false number.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9191
Myth #5
Non-citizens were able to register and vote in Nevada.
Fact #5
It is a felony for non-citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot in Nevada. Any individuals who are found to have voted illegally will be prosecuted. (As of 12/18/20 we have not been presented with evidence of non-citizens voting in the 2020 election.)
And once again, it's not on the Nevada elections folks to prove a claim is wrong. That's not the way it works, anywhere. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, and as with all the other fraud claims around the country, nobody has come up with any proof for this one, either. If they had, you'd think they would have brought it to the Nevada SoS or the courts there in one of the hearings.
I read another article that explained it further, but the bottom line really is, as with all the other fake claims of fraud, if there really was any evidence, it would have been shown to the various Secretaries of State, election boards, and courts around the country.
But none ever was. There's a reason for that: There was never anything but claims, no actual evidence. And that's because none of this stuff happened.
Yeah...that's all it is... nothing to see here.....IseWolf22 said:Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They'll be back up in a week or 2 unless their IT infrastructure team is incompetent. Amazon isn't the only hosting company, they are just he biggest and most convenient
They are a small startup company with roughly 14 employees. I agree, they should move platforms; however, if you know anything about this, that's not a simple task. Very doable, just not simple...IseWolf22 said:Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They'll be back up in a week or 2 unless their IT infrastructure team is incompetent. Amazon isn't the only hosting company, they are just he biggest and most convenient
He brings it up because that's the easy answer. I call this intellectual laziness. If everyone doesn't realize this is completely a political hack job, then they can't be helped.packgrad said:IseWolf22 said:FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
Parler allowing posts that incite violence is a violation of their written Terms of Service with these companies.
But yes they have not and are not currently applying the standard evenly, particularly to foreign authoritarians. At the end of the day though, they are caving to market pressure from their other customers
Terms of service are not terms of service when they are selectively enforced. Not sure why that's even brought up as justification.
Steve, this isn't hypocrisy. It's done with intent!Steve Williams said:Yeah, the hypocrisy is very disturbing. On Twitter, in particular, there was a long period of time where if you did a search on #WPN it would take you to a nudist colony that exploited children. That they apply certain rules to those with differing political views is only going to feed the fire.FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
That's your story and you can justify it how you want to. The other half knows exactly what he was doing.Civilized said:BBW12OG said:I didn't do any of the above. The lady who quoted Hitler is an idiot and was wrong in doing so. I said that already. You haven't called out Sleepy Joe for referencing Joseph Goebbels and referring to Republicans as Nazis. Although I know you and your party never admit you are wrong or have short comings your move toward socialism will be the end of this country as we know it one way or another.PackBacker07 said:
You cannot call yourself conservative if you storm the Capitol, kill officers, tell other states how to run their elections, quote Hitler on the Ellipse, etc. Trumpism is having a far greater negative effect on the country than whatever you think of the Democratic Party.
The lust for absolute power in the democrat party today is defined by the meaningless impeachment that will take place next week less 6 days before the inauguration. Now tell me how childish and immature that move is. There are over 100 million Trump supporters and you don't agree with any of them so they are all evil and wrong. We get it. Some people want to be told how to live their lives, what to believe and what not to believe. It's a lot easier than actually educating yourself and forming your own opinion.
And I damn well can call myself whatever I want. You and your party will never control me or my thoughts. I have a better work ethic than that.
Stop being disingenuous about Biden's remarks.
He didn't reference Republicans as Nazis. He said you were being lied to by Trump and Cruz and Hawley, like Hitler and Goebbels did, and that those huge lies were extremely harmful to America.
Okay, see you start out with something incorrect and go on from there.pineknollshoresking said:No one has disputed it. Example: Georgia SOS says the had 2 people vote that were dead. Trump team says ~ 800. SOS says your data is wrong. Trump team says let me show you my data. SOS says he don't want to.Pacfanweb said:
Not true. But honestly, there's no need for anyone to dispute it. It HAS been disputed by the Nevada SoS, but all you have to do is look how Trump's folks came up with that number you'll realize there's not a need to dispute it because their source (the DMV) doesn't show who voted.
""The DMV finally provided a list of green card holders and noncitizens who had obtained driver's licenses. When we compared this detailed information against the county voter records in Nevada, we discovered that 6,260 noncitizens were registered to vote and 3,987 non-citizens had voted."
And as of December 20, no evidence had been presented to Nevada that such a thing happened. The 3987 claim was made prior to that date. All the guy in the article is doing is recycling that false number.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9191
Myth #5
Non-citizens were able to register and vote in Nevada.
Fact #5
It is a felony for non-citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot in Nevada. Any individuals who are found to have voted illegally will be prosecuted. (As of 12/18/20 we have not been presented with evidence of non-citizens voting in the 2020 election.)
And once again, it's not on the Nevada elections folks to prove a claim is wrong. That's not the way it works, anywhere. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, and as with all the other fraud claims around the country, nobody has come up with any proof for this one, either. If they had, you'd think they would have brought it to the Nevada SoS or the courts there in one of the hearings.
I read another article that explained it further, but the bottom line really is, as with all the other fake claims of fraud, if there really was any evidence, it would have been shown to the various Secretaries of State, election boards, and courts around the country.
But none ever was. There's a reason for that: There was never anything but claims, no actual evidence. And that's because none of this stuff happened.
Why?
You can say all you want to that he is right, has the correct data, etc... unfortunately, for you, that doesn't convince ~ 1/2 voting population. Doesn't that scare you? If it doesn't, that's sad...
Previously (2016), when Democrats contested the election in the joint session (did you know they did that?) they had no data supporting their claim. In fact, they didn't have Senator support in the joint session. Biden shut it down because they had nothing (using the words of people here)
No reason to address your other points as the above is enough to call everything else you've said into question.
Pacfan, I didn't need to do research because I already knew the data. Your long article doesn't say anything different than what I said. Not sure of your point; however, it looks like you didn't know that happened.Pacfanweb said:Okay, see you start out with something incorrect and go on from there.pineknollshoresking said:No one has disputed it. Example: Georgia SOS says the had 2 people vote that were dead. Trump team says ~ 800. SOS says your data is wrong. Trump team says let me show you my data. SOS says he don't want to.Pacfanweb said:
Not true. But honestly, there's no need for anyone to dispute it. It HAS been disputed by the Nevada SoS, but all you have to do is look how Trump's folks came up with that number you'll realize there's not a need to dispute it because their source (the DMV) doesn't show who voted.
""The DMV finally provided a list of green card holders and noncitizens who had obtained driver's licenses. When we compared this detailed information against the county voter records in Nevada, we discovered that 6,260 noncitizens were registered to vote and 3,987 non-citizens had voted."
And as of December 20, no evidence had been presented to Nevada that such a thing happened. The 3987 claim was made prior to that date. All the guy in the article is doing is recycling that false number.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9191
Myth #5
Non-citizens were able to register and vote in Nevada.
Fact #5
It is a felony for non-citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot in Nevada. Any individuals who are found to have voted illegally will be prosecuted. (As of 12/18/20 we have not been presented with evidence of non-citizens voting in the 2020 election.)
And once again, it's not on the Nevada elections folks to prove a claim is wrong. That's not the way it works, anywhere. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims, and as with all the other fraud claims around the country, nobody has come up with any proof for this one, either. If they had, you'd think they would have brought it to the Nevada SoS or the courts there in one of the hearings.
I read another article that explained it further, but the bottom line really is, as with all the other fake claims of fraud, if there really was any evidence, it would have been shown to the various Secretaries of State, election boards, and courts around the country.
But none ever was. There's a reason for that: There was never anything but claims, no actual evidence. And that's because none of this stuff happened.
Why?
You can say all you want to that he is right, has the correct data, etc... unfortunately, for you, that doesn't convince ~ 1/2 voting population. Doesn't that scare you? If it doesn't, that's sad...
Previously (2016), when Democrats contested the election in the joint session (did you know they did that?) they had no data supporting their claim. In fact, they didn't have Senator support in the joint session. Biden shut it down because they had nothing (using the words of people here)
No reason to address your other points as the above is enough to call everything else you've said into question.
First off, right in the phone call between Trump and the SoS and all the others, at the end they agreed to get together and show each other their data. No idea if Trump's people ever showed up to do so, but the agreement was there, you can listen to it or read it right in the transcript. That's patently false that they won't listen to him.
So no, the SOS didn't say "I won't look at what you have"....the only thing they said remotely close to that was "we have ALREADY looked at it and it's wrong". But not "We refuse to look at it" They looked at all of the claims, and found them to be inaccurate at best.
And yes, it does scare me that so many people are so gullible and believe in such nonsense. Surely does.
It doesn't matter what happened in 2016, it's irrelevant, not to mention not even CLOSE to what Trump has done here. Not even in the same area code, much less the neighborhood.
But: You're talking about 6 or so Dems who "contested" the election. All they did was speak their piece and then Biden, of all people, shut them down. Only reps, no senators. That's the extent of it. So again, it's not even remotely comparable, so the "But the Democrats in 2016" doesn't fly here. That was your big protest you're referring to. Not 2 months of the President and loads of conspiracy folks telling lies to everyone who would listen. (and a shocking number did)
Less than a minute of research would have told you that.
Civilized said:
We are in uncharted territory when we have a sitting President inciting armed insurrections at and in the Capitol building.
The right doesn't like Trump being banned from Twitter or Parler being effectively silenced until they improve their moderation policies.
OK.
So how should Amazon, Apple et. al. handle it?
How should they handle the sitting President inciting an armed and deadly riot already, and with there being credible threats of more violence being organized online between now and the inauguration?
So was the Bell company! They got broken up and are now regulated as a utility. Social media is the exact same thing, to this country, as Bell was, at the time. I know, you will say we have many ways of communicating today compared to then. We had news papers as the means to speak with the masses.packgrad said:
Twitter, as I understand, are now doing some CYA... they have started censoring some of the Ayatollah's tweets. They know they have opened themselves up to suits and are tying to CYA as much as they can, so, they can create a narrative in court. Shameful!!!packgrad said:
It's not uncharted territory either. As has already been mentioned Twitter says it's acceptable for the Ayatollah to extol the murder and annihilation of Israelis and their State. Twitter says it's acceptable for China to proclaim their intent to sterilize and murder Uighurs and other minorities.
What is unprecedented is American companies uniting to silence a political party and so many Americans justifying it.
packgrad said:Civilized said:
We are in uncharted territory when we have a sitting President inciting armed insurrections at and in the Capitol building.
The right doesn't like Trump being banned from Twitter or Parler being effectively silenced until they improve their moderation policies.
OK.
So how should Amazon, Apple et. al. handle it?
How should they handle the sitting President inciting an armed and deadly riot already, and with there being credible threats of more violence being organized online between now and the inauguration?
How did they handle it when Democrats incited armed and deadly riots this summer? Those don't count? The question really is how long are the leftists who claim not to be radicals continue to support this radicalism?
Civ, you can keep repeating that tired old story. It will never make it true. You are the result of an indoctrinated education! Perhaps your household fostered the same ideology.Civilized said:
A big part of this is an issue of a small sample size, and timing.
Trump is the first and only Republican President that rose to power since the social media explosion.
The right is like: "See, look at how Big Tech treats conservative thought! They're censoring the right!"
The problem is that Trump, the one-president sample, spouted complete lies for months on Twitter and eventually incited a deadly riot that may get him impeached for a second time, which would be the first time that's happened in American history, after which there were credible threats of more violence being propagated on Parler.
This specific situation is unparalleled and tragic and I hope to god never repeated.
How much can you extrapolate from it?
Which is more likely to be true, that Big Tech will increasingly treat the right the same as they treated a deadly insurrection-inspiring sitting President and the violence that sprung from his behavior, or that this situation had unique inputs and outputs?
Pull your head out of your.... sand....Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:
We are in uncharted territory when we have a sitting President inciting armed insurrections at and in the Capitol building.
The right doesn't like Trump being banned from Twitter or Parler being effectively silenced until they improve their moderation policies.
OK.
So how should Amazon, Apple et. al. handle it?
How should they handle the sitting President inciting an armed and deadly riot already, and with there being credible threats of more violence being organized online between now and the inauguration?
How did they handle it when Democrats incited armed and deadly riots this summer? Those don't count? The question really is how long are the leftists who claim not to be radicals continue to support this radicalism?
I must have missed that. Which Democrats?
Look at the image above, that's a start... you can see the real footage where they call on the violence. A quick DuckDuckGo search will show them.Civilized said:packgrad said:Civilized said:
We are in uncharted territory when we have a sitting President inciting armed insurrections at and in the Capitol building.
The right doesn't like Trump being banned from Twitter or Parler being effectively silenced until they improve their moderation policies.
OK.
So how should Amazon, Apple et. al. handle it?
How should they handle the sitting President inciting an armed and deadly riot already, and with there being credible threats of more violence being organized online between now and the inauguration?
How did they handle it when Democrats incited armed and deadly riots this summer? Those don't count? The question really is how long are the leftists who claim not to be radicals continue to support this radicalism?
I must have missed that. Which Democrats?
pineknollshoresking said:
The ~ 75M will not stop. They are a much bigger group than the protestors and rioters this past summer. The silent majority (that's right, I said it) is awake and hopefully ready to go to war!
War isn't meant as a physical war with guns and riots. We can leave that to the progressives.
Steve Williams said:Yeah, the hypocrisy is very disturbing. On Twitter, in particular, there was a long period of time where if you did a search on #WPN it would take you to a nudist colony that exploited children. That they apply certain rules to those with differing political views is only going to feed the fire.FlossyDFlynt said:The logic they are using is only being applied in certain situations, which is why people are upset. There are literally calls from the Ayatollah to eradicate the Jews and official Chinese Embassy accounts promoting the "good outcomes" of the genocide of the Uyghurs, but their accounts haven't been suspended and the tweets are still up.Steve Williams said:
Didn't want to start a new thread but was just reading where Apple and Amazon are shutting down access to Parler, an alternative Twitter-like website primarily used by conservatives. Appears Parler may be forced off line until they find another host. Pretty scary to think of the power big tech has.
They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.
Steve, you are correct! I am hearing that we will start to see antitrust suits for the coordinated efforts. That will lead to the breakup of these companies, I hope.Steve Williams said:
The social media giants use section 230 to shield themselves from being held accountable for user activity but then use the exact same reasoning to shut down Parler.
Civilized said:pineknollshoresking said:
The ~ 75M will not stop. They are a much bigger group than the protestors and rioters this past summer. The silent majority (that's right, I said it) is awake and hopefully ready to go to war!
War isn't meant as a physical war with guns and riots. We can leave that to the progressives.
The 75M needs to do themselves a favor and not put a petulant, insecure, vindictive reality TV star in the President's chair.
Start by nominating someone that acquits themselves in a manner befitting the tremendous weight of the job.
Focus on that and we'll all be much better off.
