Parler is back online so...

[guidryp]

100%. Profit off hate and division. Good business.
Also... are we polling on how long it lasts? I mean before it craps out again?

It will probably stay online indefinitely now. "The Daily Stormer" (actual Nazi site) is still online despite the owner being in hiding abroad to duck lawsuit judgement against him.

 

[cytg111]

It will probably stay online indefinitely now. "The Daily Stormer" (actual Nazi site) is still online despite the owner being in hiding abroad to duck lawsuit judgement against him.

Jfc, thats like the donald but dumber. My eyes... my eyes.

 

[Lanyap]

Are these the same conservatives that ban books, pr0n and stuff like that because it's bad but then they get their own forum where they talk about doing worse stuff?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Are these the same conservatives that ban books, pr0n and stuff like that because it's bad but then they get their own forum where they talk about doing worse stuff?

Yup, those ones

 

[blackangst1]

Are these the same conservatives that ban books, pr0n and stuff like that because it's bad but then they get their own forum where they talk about doing worse stuff?

I support talk. Talk about whatever you want. The minute it goes into action, where it affects people or companies, I think they should be convicted to the full effect of the law. But I support them being to talk about anything they want.

OP: does this affect your life at all? Or just outraged by it?

 

[Fenixgoon]

I support talk. Talk about whatever you want. The minute it goes into action, where it affects people or companies, I think they should be convicted to the full effect of the law. But I support them being to talk about anything they want.

OP: does this affect your life at all? Or just outraged by it?

So threats are ok as long as no one actually gets hurt?

 

[blackangst1]

So threats are ok as long as no one actually gets hurt?

Example Parlor made threats?

 

[fskimospy]

Example Parlor made threats?

Sure, this is why Amazon dumped them to begin with. Amazon told Parler they were hosting violent content that violated AWS terms of service and asked them to moderate it. Parler refused, so they got the boot.

These are the violent threats that made Amazon drop Parler

Be warned: this is ugly stuff.

www.theverge.com

“AWS reported to Parler, over many weeks, dozens of examples of content that encouraged violence,” the company argues in the filing, “including calls to hang public officials, kill Black and Jewish people, and shoot police officers in the head,”

I for one support Amazon’s first amendment right to decline to transmit death threats. Conservatives appear to think the only first amendment rights that matter are theirs.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure, this is why Amazon dumped them to begin with. Amazon told Parler they were hosting violent content that violated AWS terms of service and asked them to moderate it. Parler refused, so they got the boot.

These are the violent threats that made Amazon drop Parler

Be warned: this is ugly stuff.

www.theverge.com

I for one support Amazon’s first amendment right to decline to transmit death threats. Conservatives appear to think the only first amendment rights that matter are theirs.

And I for one dont support censorship. Difference of opinion.

edit: Let me clarify this. I think if someone posts Im gathering people to storm the capital and kill as many people as possible. Sure. Fine. But if you do it? Just as we have laws for extending hate crimes punishment, I believe if threats are carried out there should be an additional sentence imposed. I honestly dont care what people "say" until it gets to where it affects other people or property.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Sure, this is why Amazon dumped them to begin with. Amazon told Parler they were hosting violent content that violated AWS terms of service and asked them to moderate it. Parler refused, so they got the boot.

These are the violent threats that made Amazon drop Parler

Be warned: this is ugly stuff.

www.theverge.com

I for one support Amazon’s first amendment right to decline to transmit death threats. Conservatives appear to think the only first amendment rights that matter are theirs.

Since it's a business to business relationship, 1A doesn't even apply.
The only way it would come into play is if Parler asked the courts (govt) to force amazon to host them, which would be the government then violating someone's free speech by forcing them to carry specific content.

And I for one dont support censorship. Difference of opinion.

This never gets old: https://xkcd.com/1357/

 

[ch33zw1z]

And I for one dont support censorship. Difference of opinion.

edit: Let me clarify this. I think if someone posts Im gathering people to storm the capital and kill as many people as possible. Sure. Fine. But if you do it? Just as we have laws for extending hate crimes punishment, I believe if threats are carried out there should be an additional sentence imposed. I honestly dont care what people "say" until it gets to where it affects other people or property.

Sure, and since right wingers account for 3/4's of domestic terrorism and events have been ramping up under trump, AND they carried out such actions prior to parler getting booted by AWS, then I'm sure you'll agree that since people and property were affected....it's not really a problem, and definitely not a free speech issue.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure, and since right wingers account for 3/4's of domestic terrorism and events have been ramping up under trump, AND they carried out such actions prior to parler getting booted by AWS, then I'm sure you'll agree that since people and property were affected....it's not really a problem, and definitely not a free speech issue.

Thats....not what I said...at all.....

 

[ch33zw1z]

Thats....not what I said...at all.....

Umm, sure it was, maybe you don't think it is, but that's what you're saying. But go ahead and explain the difference.

People and property were affected when people's violent rhetoric was out into action.

And, its no coincidence that it was on a website that caters to violent people with a persecution complex who flocked there because not being violent, racist assholes was too much to handle.

 

[blackangst1]

Umm, sure it was, maybe you don't think it is, but that's what you're saying. But go ahead and explain the difference.

People and property were affected when people's violent rhetoric was out into action.

And, its no coincidence that it was on a website that caters to violent people with a persecution complex who flocked there because not being violent, racist assholes was too much to handle.

And what did I say about when talk into action? Or did you skip over that?

 

[Pohemi420]

And I for one dont support censorship. Difference of opinion.

But...you support forcing another private company to accept this violent and hateful speech against their wishes and legal ToS simply because the people posting it are entitled to do so? Or did I get that wrong?

 

[blackangst1]

But...you support forcing another private company to accept this violent and hateful speech against their wishes and legal ToS simply because the people posting it are entitled to do so? Or did I get that wrong?

Yeah you got it wrong and inferred something I never said. They have a ToS. Sometimes I disagree with that, but I dont disagree with them having it. If some website forum has "there shall be no negative talk about POTUS Biden", thats their right. But in general, Im against censorship. Just because Im against it doesnt mean Im naïve enough to think it doesnt exist.

 

[ch33zw1z]

And what did I say about when talk into action? Or did you skip over that?

No, read it, I stated that. Surely, you'd agree.

 

[blackangst1]

No, read it, I stated that. Surely, you'd agree.

Link specific posters to the surge on the capital then yeah. Punish them without impunity. If not, who cares. Let them talk. Link specific posters to acts fo violence then yeah. Punish them without impunity. If not let them talk.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Link specific posters to the surge on the capital then yeah. Punish them without impunity. If not, who cares. Let them talk. Link specific posters to acts fo violence then yeah. Punish them without impunity. If not let them talk.

Ok, so you just didn't read the link from fski.

Do you think AWS just booted them willy nilly, without evidence of widespread violent rhetoric, and then words turn into actions in the form of a hostile takeover of the federal Capitol complex?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Everything you need to know about Parler.

 

[guidryp]

Link specific posters to the surge on the capital then yeah. Punish them without impunity. If not, who cares. Let them talk. Link specific posters to acts fo violence then yeah. Punish them without impunity. If not let them talk.

No one is stopping them from talking. Stop pretending someone is.

 

[fskimospy]

And I for one dont support censorship. Difference of opinion.

edit: Let me clarify this. I think if someone posts Im gathering people to storm the capital and kill as many people as possible. Sure. Fine. But if you do it? Just as we have laws for extending hate crimes punishment, I believe if threats are carried out there should be an additional sentence imposed. I honestly dont care what people "say" until it gets to where it affects other people or property.

I’m confused, what censorship is taking place here?

 

[Pohemi420]

No one is stopping them from talking. Stop pretending someone is.

I’m confused, what censorship is taking place here?

I'm not sure either, which is why I made the stretch to assume he believed AWS was in the wrong...

 

[fskimospy]

No one is stopping them from talking. Stop pretending someone is.

What’s really bizarre is he seems to believe that Amazon has some obligation to carry and amplify their speech and it’s somehow wrong if they choose not to.

Again as I said earlier he only seems concerned with the first amendment rights of certain people.

 

[pmv]

And what did I say about when talk into action? Or did you skip over that?

How far do you take this absolute distinction twixt "words" and "actions"? I don't see that the boundary between them is as clear cut as you imply.

If someone offers someone else a large sum of money to kill a third party, is that 'talk' or 'action'? Are you saying that should only be a crime if and when the killing actually happens?

How about copyright violations? Repeating someone else's words or music is just 'talk', surely?

What about espionage? I assume you have no problem with wikileaks confidential-document dumps? Or with someone publically publishing your passwords for things? It's just 'words', right?

How about fraud? Is that fine as long as it only involves words, even untrue words?