Its like a a half dozen interdependently owned companies each choosing on their own to not associate with Parler.
If you piss off everyone at the same time and everyone decides to not do business with you, thats not a monopoly issue.
Everybody can see that in the last few years banning got centralized, there’s no real competition between the big companies anymore on free speech. Like others have written it, it’s a cartel at this poimt.
Of course the CEO's answer was all non-answers. Nobody was surprised of that.
Then Mark was asked personal questions and he was shocked...the same questions that he knows about everybody in the world.
that's patently untrue. it's untrue in the simplistic sense that you can access the internet with non-mobile technology, and its even untrue in the slightly less simplistic sense that an organization can provides its online presence as a website (gasp!) so as to avoid the need to have an app available on corporately-controlled stores.
Not to mention the fact that if you're kicked out of only one of the two you're basically finished if you live on network effect. If Google decided to kick Whatsapp out of the Android store, even those who have iPhones would have no reason to use it any more.
Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.
"a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler."
So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection.
13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.
He did not make this assertion in the article. Quote:
>Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler. The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.”
Oh? Where did he say that? I'd like to read what he said with context.
Edit: on reading the article, his source for the assertion seems to be Parler employees: "Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler."
He reported that on Twitter as "Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler? Zero."
I think that's bad journalism even if you agree with his conclusions. It's single-sourced and the source has every reason to downplay their involvement in the events of January 6th. I think that at the very least, Greenwald should have checked those 13 users to see if they had active Parler accounts, rather than just taking Parler's word for it.
Further, the number is inaccurate. The DoJ press release (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/thirteen-charged-federal-cour...) says 13 people were charged in federal court, and 40 were charged in superior court. That was as of Friday; I can't quickly find info on whether or not more people were charged over the weekend, but then again, I'm not a professional journalist.
Parker was destroyed when their business partners exercised freedom of association and cancelled on them.