Parler

[KAPA]

Been reading apple has now banned Parler and get this, tomorrow Amazon Web Service is cutting Parler off so that will take them offline completely.

[Great-Kazoo]

It's interesting.
The same people who tell you. We're not going to take your guns away.

Have literally suppressed opposing voices, from being heard.

[MrPrena]

Maybe the Samsung App might have em.

Again,welcome to billionaire world. Many of them don't like Republicans. They get rich off of lobbying and stricter restrictions. They are ones who would rather pay 3-5% more on taxes and make 100% more in revenue.

Poorer becomes poorer.

[hollohas]

This is getting NUTS.

[eddiememphis]

This is getting NUTS.

Is it?

[Nagant1984]

Hmmmm, this is a real Libertarian dillemma. Should companies have the freedom to set their own rules in how they do business or not? I recall Tucker Carlson standing with Jack Philips, the baker here in Colorado (the gay wedding cake fiasco) who took his fight against having to serve gay customers all the way to the Supreme court. So if Jack should have the freedom to make a decision on his religious / moral code and decide the type of customers he wants to serve, why should Apple, Twitter, Facebook or Google not be afforded those same freedoms? Just because they are larger? This isn't preventing anyone from using Parler. This would just make it less convenient as you wouldn't have the shortcut to get it off their stores. You'll have to use a web browser instead. Big deal. They can't prevent you from accessing the site, but they also don't have to make it easy for you. Facebook, Apple, Google etc etc are all capitalist companies. They aren't government regulated utilities like power, roads, postal services, etc. You can't force a company to partner with your product.

Whether you or I agree with what Google or Apple or any other company does in this fashion, I think you have to be consistent in your idea of freedom in the business world. I don't like hypocrisy and I think a lot of people expect to have their cake and eat it too (See what I did there?).

[sako55]

I am constant but they are provided protections under a law that no longer applies to them

[TFOGGER]

Hmmmm, this is a real Libertarian dillemma. Should companies have the freedom to set their own rules in how they do business or not? I recall Tucker Carlson standing with Jack Philips, the baker here in Colorado (the gay wedding cake fiasco) who took his fight against having to serve gay customers all the way to the Supreme court. So if Jack should have the freedom to make a decision on his religious / moral code and decide the type of customers he wants to serve, why should Apple, Twitter, Facebook or Google not be afforded those same freedoms? Just because they are larger? This isn't preventing anyone from using Parler. This would just make it less convenient as you wouldn't have the shortcut to get it off their stores. You'll have to use a web browser instead. Big deal. They can't prevent you from accessing the site, but they also don't have to make it easy for you. Facebook, Apple, Google etc etc are all capitalist companies. They aren't government regulated utilities like power, roads, postal services, etc. You can't force a company to partner with your product.

Whether you or I agree with what Google or Apple or any other company does in this fashion, I think you have to be consistent in your idea of freedom in the business world. I don't like hypocrisy and I think a lot of people expect to have their cake and eat it too (See what I did there?).

It goes to wielding monopoly power (the only 2 real choices for phone OSes) to further a political agenda. There are dozens of bakers that would have been happy to bake that cake, but the plaintiffs chose him specifically because they knew it would cause a kerfluffle. Phone users don't have that luxury when essentially all competitors have been forced out of the market, and the 2 players left are colluding.

[brutal]

Hmmmm, this is a real Libertarian dillemma. Should companies have the freedom to set their own rules in how they do business or not? I recall Tucker Carlson standing with Jack Philips, the baker here in Colorado (the gay wedding cake fiasco) who took his fight against having to serve gay customers all the way to the Supreme court. So if Jack should have the freedom to make a decision on his religious / moral code and decide the type of customers he wants to serve, why should Apple, Twitter, Facebook or Google not be afforded those same freedoms? Just because they are larger? This isn't preventing anyone from using Parler. This would just make it less convenient as you wouldn't have the shortcut to get it off their stores. You'll have to use a web browser instead. Big deal. They can't prevent you from accessing the site, but they also don't have to make it easy for you. Facebook, Apple, Google etc etc are all capitalist companies. They aren't government regulated utilities like power, roads, postal services, etc. You can't force a company to partner with your product.

Whether you or I agree with what Google or Apple or any other company does in this fashion, I think you have to be consistent in your idea of freedom in the business world. I don't like hypocrisy and I think a lot of people expect to have their cake and eat it too (See what I did there?).

You missed the part about AWS shutting down Parler because they accused them of inciting violence?

The platforms are provided protection under the law with Section 230. They are not even pretending to be a platform only provider with their blatant censorship. For that reason they should either not receive those protections or be held accountable. If they don't hide behind 230, then they can do what they hell they want. Until then, they have no right to censor the content
.

[GilpinGuy]

Check your emergency notifications on your phone. Apparently Apple and Google have disabled them just in case Trump wants to send something out. Incredible. My settings are grayed out and can't be changed. This is so 1984.