“Start your own Twitter then!”
... they do.
“Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter. Apple gives them 24 hour notice to moderate more speech or be banned.”
... they do.
“Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter. Apple gives them 24 hour notice to moderate more speech or be banned.”
Shows up for me: https://www.google.com/search?q=parler
If they didn't want to get banned from the app stores, they should've at least tried to follow the TOS. There is a subreddit dedicated to cataloguing all the death threats on the app, many of which are still up today: https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/top/?t=month.
Reddit, Facebook and Twitter have entire content moderation teams for this sorta thing. Why should there be a double standard for conservative social media sites?
They still have their app and website. And you can still get to their website from a phone.
Twitter?
Are you saying that Google should follow the same rules for Twitter and Parler? I think that the argument here is that they are applying the same rules -- if you don't moderate the content users post, you're out of the store.
Funny how quickly supposed free market advocates turn against it when it doesn't do what they want.
"No, you were supposed to hurt the other side, not us!!"
What's next? Make your own routers? Lay your own cables?
If you hit a cog that's a government-granted monopoly, then I'd sympathize with that. Otherwise, I have zero sympathy for supposed market proponents who want the government to step in as long as it's in their favor.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The free market has spoken, these companies don’t want to be associated with a movement to overthrow elections and undermine democracy.
1. Create a bank for your financial interests
2. Mine aluminum for your phone manufacturing factory
Plus this IS the free market solution that American speech norms are ok with. Businesses can choose who they give their services to.
If google doesn't surface results that's their choice. Drive business to duck duck go and Bing.
VOAT, Parler, are not havens of conservative/ neo-liberal, small government economic discussion. If you want that go to an actual economics forum, or get a economist/WSJ/BB subscription.
They aren't getting removed because they have "conservative" thought. They're getting removed because people sharing death threats, Nazi apologia, holocaust denial and organizing to stop other people from existing is generally handled by anti terror teams.
While saying this is usually unpopular on boards with a largely American user base - in many other countries this wouldn't even be a question.
Additional note - many people who read these debates have never gone to those sites, and will be swayed by people who come up here and say they visit those sites.
Be wary of false reports and equivalencies. I've recently condemned the actions of the_donald, and linked to evidence of their efforts to subvert r/all.
The response I received was that organized attempts to subvert reddit, and brigade the front page are the equivalent of other subs organically having their content rise to the front page.
This is your neighbors, the shallow fixes won’t help. You need another culture who... trust doctors and democracy for a start and it needs to be pushed in education. Something is failing in US.
Authoritarianism is on the rise around the world.
Nobody banned "conservative twitter." They banned the people who have been whipping up the gullible and stupid with unfounded conspiracy theories and outright lies. Alternate realities are bad but tolerated until they lead to violence. Meghan McCain is still on twitter. Her husband, a Federalist founder, is still on twitter. There are plenty of conservatives who are still there.
Pretending that they banned a political philosophy is hilariously disingenuous.
But the whole thing is irrelevant anyway, because neither Google nor Apple filter web pages you can view in their respective web browsers, and Parlor, or anyone, can just make a normal website.
Apple's (and Google's, as far as I know) complaint is not "right wing politics is immoral" - although if it was, I'd be OK with that. Their complaint is simply "you're not moderating your users as required by our app store rules", and as a user, I'm fully on Apple's side here.
Listen, I’m center left and oppose all this craziness. But the tech giants banning these accounts is counterproductive. Violence will increase not decrease as extremists are pushed out of the public square and into echo chambers and non-public Signal groups.
“A riot is the language of the unheard” remember?
If left leaning apps permit the kind of violent talk that Parler does, by all means, ban those too.
It's no secret that Parler's ethos is largely anti-moderation, that was basically their whole brand and messaging, after all.
Which completely makes sense -- when you get an app from an app store, its content partially reflects on the store itself.
I see this claim a lot, but is it true? On the one hand, some people will move into harder to find echo chambers. On the other, fewer people will be exposed to extremist content in the first place. Both factors are in play. It isn't clear which one "wins".
Hmm doesn't have quite the same ring.
Try this one:
"We shall fight them on the beaches... we shall never surrender"
Or would you prefer appeasement?