Parler

[ITS BK]

Violating Twitter's terms and conditions, a contract you enter of your own volition, and suffering the consequences is not censorship- no matter how much you wish it was the case so you could play the victim.

"So you could play the victim" , not hardly, but that's a strategy used by the brainwashed not free thinking people. I'm no victim and I will never kneel to the left' way of thinking...victim my ass !
it is censorship and you are also correct that they have the right to censor you, (feel better now), but having the right and doing the right thing are two different things. The globalist corporation billionaires (backed by the dems) have colluded to silence speech they deem "hate" or whatever
!
If you don't think that stinks, I still do.

 

[CSAg03]

 

[Longneck 80]

Violating Twitter's terms and conditions, a contract you enter of your own volition, and suffering the consequences is not censorship- no matter how much you wish it was the case so you could play the victim.

Not talking about twitter vis a vis Parler. You are letting your biases cloud your view of the shear magnitude of collusion perpetuated against Parler and the purpose for it. It spans censorship and anti-trust violations.

Pay attention to congressional support for "media literacy". Who said "We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation"? Who is the "We're" she refers to?

If you haven't read 1984, you should. When government committees define truth for us we have a defacto Ministry of Truth.

 

[bcg_2006]

Not talking about twitter vis a vis Parler. You are letting your biases cloud your view of the shear magnitude of collusion perpetuated against Parler and the purpose for it. It spans censorship and anti-trust violations.

Pay attention to congressional support for "media literacy". Who said "We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation"? Who is the "We're" she refers to?

If you haven't read 1984, you should. When government committees define truth for us we have a defacto Ministry of Truth.

Ironic that you'd quote a democratic socialist then go on to reference a book written by a democratic socialist.

Companies moderating their own platforms and services to the letter of the terms Parler agreed to is not collusion. But of course, there has to be a hysterical stretch. The views and actions of Amazon Web Services and others are their own and have nothing to do with AOC or a government committee. 1984 dealt with government totalitarianism and not the quarrels of private business- but you knew that.

 

[Longneck 80]

It's more nuanced than you are willing to acknowledge, hardly hysteria.

What is the irony?

 

[oldag1980]

Ironic that you'd quote a democratic socialist then go on to reference a book written by a democratic socialist.

Companies moderating their own platforms and services to the letter of the terms Parler agreed to is not collusion. But of course, there has to be a hysterical stretch. The views and actions of Amazon Web Services and others are their own and have nothing to do with AOC or a government committee. 1984 dealt with government totalitarianism and not the quarrels of private business- but you knew that.

To tie it together for you, the liberals and progressives in the government are cheering on what the private companies did. The government individuals and pretty much as a group are beginning to ask the questions of how they can get involved and do the same thing to speech and opinion they do not like. If left to their own accord they will keep trying until they succeed. We need to push back on them even considering censoring anyone's opinions.