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?

---

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.

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

Steve Williams said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

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.

---

So you are saying the nudist colony was removed from Twitter? So the rules were applied?

---

packgrad said:

---

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?

---

Hey man. If you want to feign ignorance, have at it. I'll choose to believe you're not that ignorant. Not going to play the "message board guy" game this morning.

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

Steve Williams said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

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.

---

So you are saying the nudist colony was removed from Twitter? So the rules were applied?

---

packgrad said:

---

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Okay, see you start out with something incorrect and go on from there.
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.

---

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.

BTW, while your at it, go ahead and find all the examples Democrats have protested the Republican wins. You can go back to, I think, the Bush Sr election he won and it happened. If not that one, then it all started with Bush Jr and hasn't stopped.

I did listen to the call, in its entirety. At one point the SOS said your data is wrong. I do vaguely remember the final part of the call. I will go back and listen to see if the agreement was as you said.

I know your sad that so many people are gullible. That's why I proudly call myself a Deplorable. See below...

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

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.

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

Civilized said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

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.

---

Where are the tweets for months from the same politicians promoting a grand lie as a legitimate grievance?

Where are the tweets inciting violence?

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

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.

---

Where are the tweets for months from the same politicians promoting a grand lie as a legitimate grievance?

Where are the tweets inciting violence?

---

Changing the subject again...

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

You hide behind some shield of being against big government but really you're just fine with the censorship. I don't have to give you legislations worded specifically on a message board. How about not allowing censorship of conservatives on social media? Mind blowing that that is such a big deal to you.

Private companies are not allowed to decide who they do business with. Please don't try to lean on that bull*****

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

You hide behind some shield of being against big government but really you're just fine with the censorship. I don't have to give you legislations worded specifically on a message board. How about not allowing censorship of conservatives on social media? Mind blowing that that is such a big deal to you.

Private companies are not allowed to decide who they do business with. Please don't try to lean on that bull*****

---

"I don't care about the specific, something is bad and should be done," is how you end up with crappy legislation that expands government power (ex. Patriot Act). Details matter.

How are you going to determine who is being censored "for being a conservative" vs any other reason for removal. Should we allow anyone to post absolutely whatever they want? That's not going to happen unless the government creates their own social media website. Should we create a panel to make judgments? Well you're not going to like that of Democrats every take the majority on that board

I've yet to see any national writer propose a solution here that isn't worse than the current problem

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

You hide behind some shield of being against big government but really you're just fine with the censorship. I don't have to give you legislations worded specifically on a message board. How about not allowing censorship of conservatives on social media? Mind blowing that that is such a big deal to you.

Private companies are not allowed to decide who they do business with. Please don't try to lean on that bull*****

---

"I don't care about the specific, something is bad and should be done," is how you end up with crappy legislation that expands government power (ex. Patriot Act). Details matter.

How are you going to determine who is being censored "for being a conservative" vs any other reason for removal. Should we allow anyone to post absolutely whatever they want? That's not going to happen unless the government creates their own social media website. Should we create a panel to make judgments? Well you're not going to like that of Democrats every take the majority on that board

I've yet to see any national writer propose a solution here that isn't worse than the current problem

---

It's not my job to write legislation so message board "details" mean nothing. You're fine with censorship based on political affiliation. I get it. Why are you no longer using your terms of service excuse? How about they just use those?

It's not hard to see the power of social media. The idea that you and leftists are fine with the silencing of political dissidents is frightening for a country founded specifically against suppression of this manner.

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

A judge ruled that Twitter was the new public square, and as such the president couldn't block anyone. That seems to make the platform pretty important in the way we move information now.

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

You hide behind some shield of being against big government but really you're just fine with the censorship. I don't have to give you legislations worded specifically on a message board. How about not allowing censorship of conservatives on social media? Mind blowing that that is such a big deal to you.

Private companies are not allowed to decide who they do business with. Please don't try to lean on that bull*****

---

"I don't care about the specific, something is bad and should be done," is how you end up with crappy legislation that expands government power (ex. Patriot Act). Details matter.

How are you going to determine who is being censored "for being a conservative" vs any other reason for removal. Should we allow anyone to post absolutely whatever they want? That's not going to happen unless the government creates their own social media website. Should we create a panel to make judgments? Well you're not going to like that of Democrats every take the majority on that board

I've yet to see any national writer propose a solution here that isn't worse than the current problem

---

It's not my job to write legislation so message board "details" mean nothing. You're fine with censorship based on political affiliation. I get it. Why are you no longer using your terms of service excuse? How about they just use those?

It's not hard to see the power of social media. The idea that you and leftists are fine with the silencing of political dissidents is frightening for a country founded specifically against suppression of this manner.

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

A judge ruled that Twitter was the new public square, and as such the president couldn't block anyone. That seems to make the platform pretty important in the way we move information now.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

A judge ruled that Twitter was the new public square, and as such the president couldn't block anyone. That seems to make the platform pretty important in the way we move information now.

---

Yes, one judge, and IMO a poor ruling. Entrenching it further is piling on more of the bad.

Twitter won't be this dominant in 20 years...unless we regulate it and entrench it against competition

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

You hide behind some shield of being against big government but really you're just fine with the censorship. I don't have to give you legislations worded specifically on a message board. How about not allowing censorship of conservatives on social media? Mind blowing that that is such a big deal to you.

Private companies are not allowed to decide who they do business with. Please don't try to lean on that bull*****

---

"I don't care about the specific, something is bad and should be done," is how you end up with crappy legislation that expands government power (ex. Patriot Act). Details matter.

How are you going to determine who is being censored "for being a conservative" vs any other reason for removal. Should we allow anyone to post absolutely whatever they want? That's not going to happen unless the government creates their own social media website. Should we create a panel to make judgments? Well you're not going to like that of Democrats every take the majority on that board

I've yet to see any national writer propose a solution here that isn't worse than the current problem

---

It's not my job to write legislation so message board "details" mean nothing. You're fine with censorship based on political affiliation. I get it. Why are you no longer using your terms of service excuse? How about they just use those?

It's not hard to see the power of social media. The idea that you and leftists are fine with the silencing of political dissidents is frightening for a country founded specifically against suppression of this manner.

---

Then find me an article that makes a meaningful proposition for fixing it? I'll check back later and pick it apart, probably for being statist.

I've consistently said, for months now, that Twitter and others are making poor decisions, unevenlly enforced, and against the spirit of open debate. I've also been consistent that I don't want the cure to be worse than the disease, which is all I've seen anyone propose.

TOS are essentially a contract that lays out when your business agreement can be voided. It does give you the right to end a consensual transaction when it's violated. Tech giving uneven enforcement on their TOS is an ethical issue, and may even open them to civil lawsuits, but its not going to be fixed by heavy handed regulation

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

A judge ruled that Twitter was the new public square, and as such the president couldn't block anyone. That seems to make the platform pretty important in the way we move information now.

---

Yes, one judge, and IMO a poor ruling. Entrenching it further is piling on more of the bad.

Twitter won't be this dominant in 20 years...unless we regulate it and entrench it against competition

---

Judges get it wrong when these people don't agree; however, they use them as the standard for the Trump cases.

Hypocrisy?

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

Utilities are not nationalized. They are on the NYSE and are publicly traded and are regulated as such. BTW, I'm not saying I agree with the regulations; rather, I am saying that's what will be done based on the actions of the big tech companies.

Look at google, a search engine that all ages use. They are controlling results through the algorithms people make. If you can't buy into some of these companies being utilities, then fine. Google is an absolute utility based on your description above. Hell, google is now a verb in our lexicon.

Phone companies, electric company's are not essential to everyone either. We can always go back to heating our houses with wood. My analogy is spot on!

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

A judge ruled that Twitter was the new public square, and as such the president couldn't block anyone. That seems to make the platform pretty important in the way we move information now.

---

Yes, one judge, and IMO a poor ruling. Entrenching it further is piling on more of the bad.

Twitter won't be this dominant in 20 years...unless we regulate it and entrench it against competition

---

Judges get it wrong when these people don't agree; however, they use them as the standard for the Trump cases.

Hypocrisy?

---

60 cases vs 1.
Dismissed for lack of evidence and standing vs. a subjective interpretation of the 1st amendment

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

packgrad said:

---

FlossyDFlynt 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.

---

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.

They are only adding gasoline to the fire at this point. The longer this goes on, the less likely there is a good outcome.

---

Correct. You truly have to have your head in the sand to continue to brush away what's happening in supposed defense of capitalism. Initially the defenders said it was fine for big tech to silence certain groups as they are private companies and that other companies would come up to replace them where voices could be heard. Now big tech is silencing the new companies and another excuse is being thrown about. Sheep being led to slaughter.

---

What do you want the government to do about it? Be specific. What legislation would you propose and how would it be worded?

Private companies are deciding who they do an do not want to do business with.

Repealing section 230 wouldn't help you here. Breaking up tech companies would only help by creating more distinct entities, who could or could not make the same decision.
So what's the solution? Not every problem is society can or should be solved by government.

---

The bell company is the proper course for these tech companies. They are, in fact, utilities now. Not when they began, but now they are and should be labeled as such. You let the actions go from there...

---

Social media is not so central to our lives that it should qualify as a utility. Your analogy would apply to internet service, not websites and platforms themselves. A better analogy would be a newspaper being required to print stories written by anyone.

There are also many competing platforms. Are you going to nationalize them all? Stop giving your business to companies you don't like. Tech comes and goes. People have shown they are willing to move to a superior product. Remember when microsoft was a "monopoly" in internet browsers? It's not any longer. Where was Tik Tok 2 years ago? Young people barely use Facebook.

---

Utilities are not nationalized. They are on the NYSE and are publicly traded and are regulated as such. BTW, I'm not saying I agree with the regulations; rather, I am saying that's what will be done based on the actions of the big tech companies.

Look at google, a search engine that all ages use. They are controlling results through the algorithms people make. If you can't buy into some of these companies being utilities, then fine. Google is an absolute utility based on your description above. Hell, google is now a verb in our lexicon.

Phone companies, electric company's are not essential to everyone either. We can always go back to heating our houses with wood. My analogy is spot on!

---

Electric is considered a utility because it would make no sense to have two competing power plants running 2 sets of power lines to your house.

Fos social media you have:
Facebook
Twitter
Tik Tok
Reddit
Instagram
Nextdoor
Linkedin
Parler
4Chan
Youtube
Tumblr
Twitch
Flickr
And many, many more

---