Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
Apple released a commercial in 1984 how it was the renegade, breaking through big brother (at the time IBM). My oh my how times have changed. Now Apple is being forced to kneel and fall in line in its censorship of Parlour.https://youtu.be/VtvjbmoDx-I
Apple released a commercial in 1984 how it was the renegade, breaking through big brother (at the time IBM). My oh my how times have changed. Now Apple is being forced to kneel and fall in line in its censorship of Parlour. - MDIRADS,?I>---------------How do we know Apple is being forced? They are as "woke" as the rest of Big Tech and very well could be a willing participant if not an outright instigator.
Forced or willful...doesn’t matter. Their entire perspective has flipped 180 degrees. That is a fact and not open to dispute.
And Google's first company slogan was, "Don't be evil". It really was. We all believed them. Now they are developing AI to monitor and report on everyone, and censor what they are allowed to see.
Parler has done nothing, but Google kicked them out of the Android store anyway. Big Tech has ripped off the mask.
Parler has done nothing, but Google kicked them out of the Android store anyway.It was a Quid-Pro-Quo. Start censoring in 24 hours or you're out.
Parler has done nothing. That's the point. Parler did nothing to stop the criminal activity on Parler, and so might get kicked out of the walled garden.
Well, Parler has done this:https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/9/parler-inter...
So, there is a line for them somewhere.
Ok....here's the 2021 Superbowl commercialA 20-something woman wearing a cross around her neck, no body art and standing next to a husband and small child is staring down the scrolling 'compliance agreements' of 4 major social media giants; Microsoft, Facebook, Apple and Twitter. To gain access, she must click on the bright blinking 'agree' button. There is page after page of compliance standards for each that scroll down the screen continuously too quickly to actually read. Juxtaposed to this on a separate stationary screen is a single agreement required of Parler: "Do you agree to abide by the 1st Amendment of The US Constitution while respecting the views of others including children?" The young mother looks at her family, contemplates her alternatives, and in one smooth motion, rips down the scrolling conditions of the social giants and places her hand of allegence on the First Amendment with one hand while holding the combined hands of her spouse and child in the other. The scene fades with the superimposed message..."it's your choice"BruceM
These companies are not public utilities or a communally owned town square. They are publicly traded held by shareholders and run be elected boards and officers. You have the right to use their property and platforms but by their rules. If circumstances warrant (armed insurrection for instance) rules may change to make the service less incendiary and conspiratorial. It's the decision of the officers and boards and is not subject to First amendment guarantees. TMF is somewhat similar. Abide by the rules or content gets pulled and you may earn a time out. Are you complaining about your First Amendment rights here? Will you protest? Section 230 (which trump wants turned over) gives social media the right to censor and the right provide content, both, without being liable for litigation for either act. Twitter was not silencing conservative voices. It was following its guidelines for best practices under changing conditions.Jack Dorsey has done at least some work on trying to tread the fine line between heavy handed interference and prudent pruning. trump abused Twitter mercilessly and was given huge latitude. The final two posts/Tweets got him cut. He continued to applaud the "giant voice" of the rioters and urged them to continue to be heard. He then assured them he would not be in harm's way Jan 20 and would not be in DC.How did Twitter interpret this? As permission to continue planning more riots and to rest assured their leader would remain safe and out of the way. That was enough to cut trump off from his potential 88 million unhappy aggrieved "protestors" who were likely to believe his words were another invitation to come to DC for a wild time at the inauguration.Do you think this was an abuse of terms of agreement and just like 1984?
"The final two posts/Tweets got him cut."Do you have the exact tweets handy?
here they are: "The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!"Twitter said this tweet "is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an 'orderly transition'".In the next, the president tweeted: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55597840
In the next, the president tweeted: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."So Trump not going is secret code to storm the capital? Sure, Twitter. They wanted/needed an excuse to start The Purge, and the Capitol riot gift wrapped one for them. Let’s stop kidding each other by pretending otherwise.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |