Parlor CEO says they may not ever be able to come Back

[zantax]

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Already answered this, the banning of otherwise lawful political speech.

You just said Parler was moderating… I mean censoring…

Which is it?

Moderating criminal speech, not otherwise legal political speech, try and keep up.

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

Moderating criminal speech, not otherwise legal political speech, try and keep up.

How can you know either of those is true? go to r/parlerwatch. You can see how well they “moderated”.

[zantax]

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Moderating criminal speech, not otherwise legal political speech, try and keep up.

How can you know either of those is true? go to r/parlerwatch. You can see how well they “moderated”.

By reading their TOS. None of the big social media companies have perfect moderation either.

[WCD9973]

Conservative voices are not being silenced.
Fox news, OAN, Newsmax are all on right this second.
Conservative radio is still all over the dial.
Redstate , Brietbart are still publishing…

But jobs that advacate violence against other companies TOS are being turned off.
While are you complaining? This is what you© wanted.

Removal of section 230 would mean platforms would could be held liable for what is posted, meaning they would have to enforce more TOS violations and be extra careful about people that post known lies and push for crimes (like sedition).

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

By reading their TOS. None of the big social media companies have perfect moderation either.

Never said they did…

You made a claim that one was only moderating “criminal speech” while the other was only moderating “political speech”.

[zantax]

@PurpnGold

@zantax

By reading their TOS. None of the big social media companies have perfect moderation either.

Never said they did…

You made a claim that one was only moderating “criminal speech” while the other was only moderating “political speech”.

Nope, never said the other companies were only moderating political speech.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

What does that have to do with them censoring?

Who writes the laws that could prevent it?

[WorldWatcher]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Did the DNC et al not attempt to use the government to stifle freedom of expression by blocking the release of a film critical of their candidate?

Who filed the complaint? It wasn’t the DNC

Citizen’s United filed the complaint that the law was unConstitutional. Obama’s FEC blocked the freedom of expression. Are you sure the DNC didn’t spur the FEC?

IIRC, Hillary: The Movie was produced and Citizens United tried to release it just prior to the DEM primaries in 2008. Obama didn’t become President until 2009. So it would have been the Bush FEC that blocked its release under a law passed in 2002, also under the Bush Administration.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

Nope, never said the other companies were only moderating political speech.

Oh man…

If they are moderating various forms speech… then I don’t understand the issue.

[zantax]

@PurpnGold

@zantax

Nope, never said the other companies were only moderating political speech.

Oh man…

If they are moderating various forms speech… then I don’t understand the issue.

I give up.

[Cratic3947]

In their Smollett like oppression fantasies, I bet many on the left thought they’d be the victim of ruthless corporate censorship, but they are the one doing it and supporting it. No liberty in modern Liberalism…

And I notice many of the dems have a flag waving campign going. Just the way they told us fascism would arrive… hee, hee, hee!!!

[FreeAndClear]

@Cratic3947

In their Smollett like oppression fantasies, I bet many on the left thought they’d be the victim of ruthless corporate censorship, but they are the one doing it and supporting it. No liberty in modern Liberalism…

And I notice many of the dems have a flag waving campign going. Just the way they told us fascism would arrive… hee, hee, hee!!!

Bringing up oppression fantasies in a thread about oppression fantasies is stellar.

Parler is cool.

[Cratic3947]

Has your media informed you that Parlor has been blocked? That’s the difference between reality and fantasy…

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

I give up.

I understand.

Looks like your argument got itself into a pickle.

[zantax]

@PurpnGold

@zantax

I give up.

I understand.

Looks like your argument got itself into a pickle.

How would you know? You weren’t capable of following it.

[FreeAndClear]

@Cratic3947

Has your media informed you that Parlor has been blocked? That’s the difference between reality and fantasy…

Corporate over reach in this instance is bad, doesn’t justify the victim hood of conservative fantasies though.

Does that answer your question?

[Cratic3947]

Remember when they lost the e-mails during the IRS oppression of republican scandle? They wouldn’t let reps have 501c’s for the 2012 election. Then all the evidence was lost.

Where’s Hunter?
Where’s Durham?
Who’s will actually be president after Trump?

Biden is not really mentally there, so he’s not really going to be president and was not really elected, so let’s call him… “Not Really Joe”…

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

How would you know? You weren’t capable of following it.

I absolutely was following it… take this statement of yours

@zantax

They didn’t leave because they wanted to engage in or be subjected to criminal speech. They left because they didn’t want to be subject to censorship of otherwise legal political speech.

Who left Twitter because their legal “political speech” was violated by Twitter?

How do you know that Parler didn’t censor “legal political speech”?

[Cratic3947]

@FreeAndClear

@Cratic3947

Has your media informed you that Parlor has been blocked? That’s the difference between reality and fantasy…

Corporate over reach in this instance is bad, doesn’t justify the victim hood of conservative fantasies though.

Does that answer your question?

No. How come few, if any, elected dems are condemning the corporate censorship of citizens?

[Zander]

Because Trump is not cool. It’s really that simple, and all you need to know.