Censorship continued: first the Parler app then @realDonaldTrump

[Cortopassi]

a3187dac155f.jpg

(Sorry I am still getting email notified on this thread so I am answering because I like sparring with pug!)

You are free to conduct your life without those companies that are supposedly choking off free speech.

Put the iPhone down, pug. Drop your Prime subscription. Got an old Blackberry?

There have been no companies, in my estimation, that have promoted so much free ranging speech in the history of the world than those that are being castigated right now. Boo hoo, Trump got banned, throw the whole industry under the bus.

[vnatale]

Listened to all 34 minutes of it while reading the transcript!

The interview was done with the Parler CEO while last Wednesday's events were going on.

Vinny


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/opin ... ogin=email

Capture.JPG (62.18 KiB) Viewed 5519 times

[Maddy]

. . .

[GT]

a3187dac155f.jpg

(Sorry I am still getting email notified on this thread so I am answering because I like sparring with pug!)

You are free to conduct your life without those companies that are supposedly choking off free speech.

Put the iPhone down, pug. Drop your Prime subscription. Got an old Blackberry?

There have been no companies, in my estimation, that have promoted so much free ranging speech in the history of the world than those that are being castigated right now. Boo hoo, Trump got banned, throw the whole industry under the bus.

George "Cortopassi" Costanza? - Every time I think I'm out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-QYRITpXrY

I do agree that companies should set their own standards.
- if they want to be political that is their risk

Customers should have a right to vote with their feet.

The joke you made is correct - where do you go to get away from the tech giants - Blackberry?

Wasn't Verizon forced to share cell tower coverage with Sprint. via lease, to get away from the image of having a monopoly? that rings a bell but I could be wrong.

[flyingpylon]

Parler definitely made a major strategic error in depending on Google, Facebook, and Amazon. If they were truly serious about their mission, they didn't have to look any further than Gab.com for an example of what could happen to them. There are some that say Parler's real mission was to build a database of users and data. Even if not used in the same manner as other social media networks, that's a valuable thing. That might explain the less than rigorous approach to their project. I don't claim to know any of that for a fact, it's just speculation.

One of the problems with these tech giants is the extent to which they are now interwoven with our government. Has anyone looked at how many people have job-hopped between government and tech? Has anyone seen a list of incoming Biden staffers and looked at their connections to big tech? Anyone think the Biden administration is going to do anything to protect people from these behemoths?

I don't have the answers. If action will not be taken at the national level, perhaps it will be up to state governments to impose some kind of control. Get enough of them together and maybe they could force certain changes.

Maybe certain types of companies need to be regulated as utilities. At what point did electricity providers or telephone companies become regulated?

Speaking of telephone companies, antitrust is another issue. Anyone remember AT&T before 1982 (I know you do)? My grandfather worked for Bell Telephone for 42 years and I'll never forget him explaining that breaking up the Bell System was the stupidest thing the government ever could have done. Obviously he had a biased opinion, but I remember him being pretty hot about it and I didn't know much about it, I was only in high school at the time.

It's a complicated issue with no easy answers. You can say "go build your own ______" but the problem is that these big tech companies have so much market share and so much power that not only does it make it extremely difficult to create an application that can compete, it's extremely difficult for others to create businesses that can provide the technical and financial infrastructure to help you run it at scale. By simply saying "oh well, that's business" we all miss out on a lot of potential innovation and advances.

I generally think the government should leave businesses alone and let the market sort it out. But there have to be limits to that at some point and the country will have to decide. It will be messy getting there.

[glennds]

Add Angela Merkel to the list of those concerned with Twitter's censoring:

https://www.thelocal.de/20210111/merkel ... roblematic

or

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... oblematic/

Lol

She just thinks she should get to decide who gets to speak, not a company.

Germany does not have freedom of speech. You can get arrested for certain beliefs there if you express them.

Really? Where did you hear this SomeDude?

From Wikipedia (among other sources)

The Federal Republic of Germany guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and opinion to its citizens as per Article 5 of the constitution....

Since the publication of the German Grundgesetz, there have been two kinds of censored media in Germany. The first is material that is considered offensive or indecent; such media are placed on the "Index" and restricted in their publication, and distribution to minors is illegal. The second is material that is considered anti-constitutional, dangerous to the state.

And for the more visual, here is some representative German opinion about Trump from a parade (annual Carnaval):

[SomeDude]

Add Angela Merkel to the list of those concerned with Twitter's censoring:

https://www.thelocal.de/20210111/merkel ... roblematic

or

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/0 ... oblematic/

Lol

She just thinks she should get to decide who gets to speak, not a company.

Germany does not have freedom of speech. You can get arrested for certain beliefs there if you express them.

Really? Where did you hear this SomeDude?

From Wikipedia (among other sources)

The Federal Republic of Germany guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and opinion to its citizens as per Article 5 of the constitution....

Since the publication of the German Grundgesetz, there have been two kinds of censored media in Germany. The first is material that is considered offensive or indecent; such media are placed on the "Index" and restricted in their publication, and distribution to minors is illegal. The second is material that is considered anti-constitutional, dangerous to the state.

From the same Wikipedia, I'm amazed you missed it:


Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. § 130(3) of the StGB (German penal code) reads:

He who, publicly or in assembly, approves, denies, or trivializes genocide committed under the regime of National Socialism in a way that is suitable to disturb the public peace, is subject to imprisonment up to 5 years or a monetary fine.[20]
Perpetrators of Holocaust denial can be tried in absentia and declared persona non grata, thus being barred from entering the country. Extradition treaties as relate to Holocaust denial are subject to political asylum pleas, but a persona non grata who enters Germany can be immediately arrested. Furthermore, a German arrest warrant based on the offense of Holocaust denial is deemed executable in many EU states, thus, a Holocaust denier's entry into any EU state could lead to arrest and extradition to Germany (or any other state where such denial is an offense, such as Austria, and which has issued an arrest warrant).

Among those who have been charged with Holocaust denial in Germany are the following:

David Irving, who was declared persona non grata and has not returned to Germany;
Germar Rudolf, who was sentenced to prison but fled jurisdiction; he was deported from the United States in 2005;
Ernst Zündel, received a five-year prison sentence on February 15, 2007 in Germany,
Fredrick Töben, an Australian citizen, who had an appointment with a German public prosecutor in Mannheim with whom he wanted to discuss Holocaust denial; at the end of the conversation with the prosecutor, Toben was presented an arrest warrant which the prosecutor had already obtained beforehand. A German court sentenced him to a prison sentence of ten months.

also try being pro christian home school in Germany.. they will come take your kids...

[SomeDude]

Lol. Glends this is literally the second paragraph from the article you linked to:

"The fundamental right to freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of elementary importance, and this fundamental right can be interfered with, but through the law and within the framework defined by the legislature, not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms," said Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert."

As I said, Germany doesn't have freedom of speech and merkle certainly doesnt support it.

[glennds]

Lol. Glends this is literally the second paragraph from the article you linked to:

"The fundamental right to freedom of opinion is a fundamental right of elementary importance, and this fundamental right can be interfered with, but through the law and within the framework defined by the legislature, not according to the decision of the management of social media platforms," said Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert."

As I said, Germany doesn't have freedom of speech and merkle certainly doesnt support it.

I have no horse in the race, but somehow find myself here defending Germany! In terms of overall scoring of human rights, Germany looks better than the US. Lol.
Does any country in the world meet your standard of freedom of speech? Obviously not the US and not Germany. If there is a country that makes the grade in your mind, I'd be interested to know whom.

[vnatale]

From the same Wikipedia, I'm amazed you missed it:


Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. § 130(3) of the StGB (German penal code) reads:

He who, publicly or in assembly, approves, denies, or trivializes genocide committed under the regime of National Socialism in a way that is suitable to disturb the public peace, is subject to imprisonment up to 5 years or a monetary fine.[20]
Perpetrators of Holocaust denial can be tried in absentia and declared persona non grata, thus being barred from entering the country. Extradition treaties as relate to Holocaust denial are subject to political asylum pleas, but a persona non grata who enters Germany can be immediately arrested. Furthermore, a German arrest warrant based on the offense of Holocaust denial is deemed executable in many EU states, thus, a Holocaust denier's entry into any EU state could lead to arrest and extradition to Germany (or any other state where such denial is an offense, such as Austria, and which has issued an arrest warrant).

Among those who have been charged with Holocaust denial in Germany are the following:

David Irving, who was declared persona non grata and has not returned to Germany;
Germar Rudolf, who was sentenced to prison but fled jurisdiction; he was deported from the United States in 2005;
Ernst Zündel, received a five-year prison sentence on February 15, 2007 in Germany,
Fredrick Töben, an Australian citizen, who had an appointment with a German public prosecutor in Mannheim with whom he wanted to discuss Holocaust denial; at the end of the conversation with the prosecutor, Toben was presented an arrest warrant which the prosecutor had already obtained beforehand. A German court sentenced him to a prison sentence of ten months.

This is completely appropriate in a country like Germany wherein they owned up to their responsibility to the world for letting Nazism reign for 12 years and all the misery it brought to both its own country and so many other countries of the world.

This is showing that they serious about the matter.

Unlike our country and its Civil War cause deniers.

The same penalties above should apply to anyone in our country who denies that the cause of the Civil War was anything but the South's desire to not only continue the institution of slavery in the existing states but to be extended to additional states.

If that had been done then we would not have seen that offensive flag of United States black oppression being waved around the Capitol building last week.

[Mark Leavy]

This is showing that they serious about the matter.

Unlike our country and its Civil War cause deniers.

The same penalties above should apply to anyone in our country who denies that the cause of the Civil War was anything but the South's desire to not only continue the institution of slavery in the existing states but to be extended to additional states.

If that had been done then we would not have seen that offensive flag of United States black oppression being waved around the Capitol building last week.

You really don’t understand what free speech means.

The 1st amendment is about protecting speech that most people find repugnant. It is about defending insulting, offensive, idiotic and inflammatory speech.

‘Approved’ speech needs no protection.

This doesn’t apply to Germany, of course, as they have neither the first amendment nor free speech.

[vnatale]

This is showing that they serious about the matter.

Unlike our country and its Civil War cause deniers.

The same penalties above should apply to anyone in our country who denies that the cause of the Civil War was anything but the South's desire to not only continue the institution of slavery in the existing states but to be extended to additional states.

If that had been done then we would not have seen that offensive flag of United States black oppression being waved around the Capitol building last week.

You really don’t understand what free speech means.

The 1st amendment is about protecting speech that most people find repugnant. It is about defending insulting, offensive, idiotic and inflammatory speech.

‘Approved’ speech needs no protection.

This doesn’t apply to Germany, of course, as they have neither the first amendment nor free speech.

Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.

However, you are not acknowledging that there is not complete free speech in our country. I challenge you to go anywhere public within ear shot of others or on the radio and continually repeat George Carlin's famous seven words.

Ask Howard Stern about the realities of free speech in our country.

Clear Channel nixes Howard Stern
Faced with a $495,000 FCC fine, the radio chain drops Stern show from six stations.
April 8, 2004: 5:48 PM EDT

https://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/news/f ... 20stations.

You can say, "Well that is different." Maybe so. But if there can be laws against seven words then there can also be laws against speech attempting to either minimize or perpetuate crimes against humanity.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[glennds]

Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.

However, you are not acknowledging that there is not complete free speech in our country. I challenge you to go anywhere public within ear shot of others or on the radio and continually repeat George Carlin's famous seven words.

Ask Howard Stern about the realities of free speech in our country.

Clear Channel nixes Howard Stern
Faced with a $495,000 FCC fine, the radio chain drops Stern show from six stations.
April 8, 2004: 5:48 PM EDT

https://money.cnn.com/2004/04/08/news/f ... 20stations.

You can say, "Well that is different." Maybe so. But if there can be laws against seven words then there can also be laws against speech attempting to either minimize or perpetuate crimes against humanity.

None of our liberties are without some limits thanks to politicians and judges.

Also thanks to reason and common sense. An example being limitation of speech that calls for immediate violence.

[Mark Leavy]

Of course I really understand what free speech means.

What you really missed was that I was writing the ideal, as if I had full power to mandate all. But it's understandable you missed that because my writing is generally written in such a serious and literal vein.

My mistake. I acknowledge that you are not in favor of free speech.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[glennds]

None of our liberties are without some limits thanks to politicians and judges.

Also thanks to reason and common sense. An example being limitation of speech that calls for immediate violence.

I don't disagree there shouldn't be speech limits to protect other's liberty such as calling for violence or defamation.

I should have been more clear that these liberties including speech continue to be eroded by politicians and judges to "protect" us from ourselves.

I think we're in agreement. Rights should not be unlimited, but eroding them should not happen lightly either. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Honestly, I often think if more of us (all of us?) conducted ourselves more responsibly and did not abuse our rights, they might not be as vulnerable to erosion. However I also recognize that promoting accountability of self is not a popular idea in our age of entitlement.

[InsuranceGuy]

[deleted]

[vnatale]

Republicans usually revere the free market. Now, they’re cursing it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... ursing-it/

Opinion by
Max Boot
Columnist
Jan. 12, 2021 at 2:30 p.m. EST
You have to savor the irony: Republicans who normally extol the virtues of the free market are now cursing it. That’s because they are feeling the wrath of corporate America for having subverted U.S. democracy and instigated an insurrection.

Simon & Schuster decided to cancel a book by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), leading him to rage against the “woke mob” in ways that he has never done against the MAGA mob that invaded the U.S. Capitol. He even called the publisher’s move a “direct assault on the First Amendment,” as though every American has a constitutional right to be published by Simon & Schuster. Other major companies have said they won’t donate to the Sedition Caucus — the 147 congressional Republicans who voted not to certify the presidential election results. The financial hit could hurt GOP chances of retaking Congress in 2022.

President Trump is said to be “gutted” because the Professional Golfers’ Association of America voted to take the 2022 PGA Championship away from one of his golf courses. If only he could get a mulligan for his attacks against U.S. democracy.



That these right-wingers are able to protest Twitter’s decision on Twitter refutes their silly scaremongering about the end of free speech. Indeed, the fact that Twitter banned the president of the United States shows that freedom of speech is very much alive in America. Any media organization in China or Russia that tried to shut down Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin’s lies would not be in business for long — and its owners would not be at liberty either.


A better solution is to introduce more transparency and accountability into social media companies’ decisions to ban certain users — without risking heavy-handed government censorship. It’s a tough balancing act, but it can be done. Mark MacCarthy of the Brookings Institution suggests the creation of an independent industry arbitration panel that could oversee social media companies’ implementation of their own standards to make sure they are being fair and consistent. This would provide a way to appeal decisions by Twitter’s Jack Dorsey or Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg without forcing the government to rule on who should be allowed to say what.

But simply because social media companies need to be more transparent in their decisions doesn’t mean that they were wrong to ban Trump and some of his most deranged followers. If the companies had acted earlier — while Trump was spreading lies about election fraud — the Capitol might never have been attacked.

[I Shrugged]

Max Boot is not a republican, no matter what he might say. He’s a center neocon.

[vnatale]

Max Boot is not a republican, no matter what he might say. He’s a center neocon.

Duly noted.

Any response to the thoughts he expresses. His words?

[I Shrugged]

Max Boot is not a republican, no matter what he might say. He’s a center neocon.

Duly noted.

Any response to the thoughts he expresses. His words?

I'm going to apply the Vinny standard. Max Boot is discredited in my mind so I'm not going to evaluate what he might say.

[vnatale]

Max Boot is not a republican, no matter what he might say. He’s a center neocon.

Duly noted.

Any response to the thoughts he expresses. His words?

I'm going to apply the Vinny standard. Max Boot is discredited in my mind so I'm not going to evaluate what he might say.

Good one. I was wondering if you'd reply that way.

Except the "Vinny standard" is directed towards certain wacky conspiracy theories that are not infrequently brought here. Plus, brought from sources that are either fringe or obviously biased or both.

Still waiting for anyone to tell me how large that antifa mob was in New York City on Sunday.

[dualstow]

Still waiting for anyone to tell me how large that antifa mob was in New York City on Sunday.

Dunno

I was going to create a thread, Where Tech Meets Politics, to make up for that post of Cortopassi’s that was deleted, but it looks like this thread serves that purpose just fine.

[vnatale]

https://www.distractify.com/p/parler-data-dump

A Hacker Leaked Every Single Post From Parler, and It Isn’t Pretty

Capture.JPG (58.09 KiB) Viewed 6428 times