Parler

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,446
Reaction score
2,553
Points
113
I'm on record, I do not want Silicon Valley and the social media and data companies regulated. Even though they are my political enemy, I want them to maintain their freedom. I love Twitter, I think it's a genius platform, but it is run and influenced heavily by absolute radicals, and they have been caving to that pressure. I have been hoping like heck for a competing platform to arise, and confident that it would, the more the anger against Twitter grew.

Looks like that day has arrived with Parler? Yes, it is unfortunately going to start out as a conservative/libertarian bubble (not that i"m complaining). But I have joined and I recommend you do too. Not quite as slick as Twitter yet, but good enough. And as more people join, I'm sure the user experience will improve as well. I'd love it if it became widely popular and left wingers joined as well. Competition is good, and competition is the answer to most problems. I also use Duck Duck Go for web searches over Google, and never liked or much used Facebook, but Zuck seems to get the big picture more than these others and is for intellectual freedom. Amazon is an amazing company, maybe a little suspect, but I bet some major competitors will emerge in their space as well.

Anyway, off soap box. Link
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,753
Reaction score
3,755
Points
113
I'm on record, I do not want Silicon Valley and the social media and data companies regulated. Even though they are my political enemy, I want them to maintain their freedom. I love Twitter, I think it's a genius platform, but it is run and influenced heavily by absolute radicals, and they have been caving to that pressure. I have been hoping like heck for a competing platform to arise, and confident that it would, the more the anger against Twitter grew.

Looks like that day has arrived with Parler? Yes, it is unfortunately going to start out as a conservative/libertarian bubble (not that i"m complaining). But I have joined and I recommend you do too. Not quite as slick as Twitter yet, but good enough. And as more people join, I'm sure the user experience will improve as well. I'd love it if it became widely popular and left wingers joined as well. Competition is good, and competition is the answer to most problems. I also use Duck Duck Go for web searches over Google, and never liked or much used Facebook, but Zuck seems to get the big picture more than these others and is for intellectual freedom. Amazon is an amazing company, maybe a little suspect, but I bet some major competitors will emerge in their space as well.

Anyway, off soap box. Link
I think that conservatives need to stay and fight on twitter but it is good that Parler is there, as an outlet. Be cautious. It may be that twitter wants to be able to claim that Parler is competition so that they can avoid consequences for what they have been doing. Twitter has been allowing Parler to trend- and that's not normal for twitter. I am suspicious.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,446
Reaction score
2,553
Points
113
I think that conservatives need to stay and fight on twitter but it is good that Parler is there, as an outlet. Be cautious. It may be that twitter wants to be able to claim that Parler is competition so that they can avoid consequences for what they have been doing. Twitter has been allowing Parler to trend- and that's not normal for twitter. I am suspicious.
The consequences for Twitter sucking are: take your business elsewhere. Economic freedom is good.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,082
Reaction score
3,711
Points
113
I'm on record, I do not want Silicon Valley and the social media and data companies regulated. Even though they are my political enemy, I want them to maintain their freedom. I love Twitter, I think it's a genius platform, but it is run and influenced heavily by absolute radicals, and they have been caving to that pressure. I have been hoping like heck for a competing platform to arise, and confident that it would, the more the anger against Twitter grew.

Looks like that day has arrived with Parler? Yes, it is unfortunately going to start out as a conservative/libertarian bubble (not that i"m complaining). But I have joined and I recommend you do too. Not quite as slick as Twitter yet, but good enough. And as more people join, I'm sure the user experience will improve as well. I'd love it if it became widely popular and left wingers joined as well. Competition is good, and competition is the answer to most problems. I also use Duck Duck Go for web searches over Google, and never liked or much used Facebook, but Zuck seems to get the big picture more than these others and is for intellectual freedom. Amazon is an amazing company, maybe a little suspect, but I bet some major competitors will emerge in their space as well.

Anyway, off soap box. Link
 

Panthadad2

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
2,709
Reaction score
762
Points
113
I'm on record, I do not want Silicon Valley and the social media and data companies regulated. Even though they are my political enemy, I want them to maintain their freedom. I love Twitter, I think it's a genius platform, but it is run and influenced heavily by absolute radicals, and they have been caving to that pressure. I have been hoping like heck for a competing platform to arise, and confident that it would, the more the anger against Twitter grew.

Looks like that day has arrived with Parler? Yes, it is unfortunately going to start out as a conservative/libertarian bubble (not that i"m complaining). But I have joined and I recommend you do too. Not quite as slick as Twitter yet, but good enough. And as more people join, I'm sure the user experience will improve as well. I'd love it if it became widely popular and left wingers joined as well. Competition is good, and competition is the answer to most problems. I also use Duck Duck Go for web searches over Google, and never liked or much used Facebook, but Zuck seems to get the big picture more than these others and is for intellectual freedom. Amazon is an amazing company, maybe a little suspect, but I bet some major competitors will emerge in their space as well.

Anyway, off soap box. Link
I got an account recently. Competition is healthy. Nothing Twitter does is groundbreaking in terms of the user experience other than user numbers. The shrill "shaming" network that is Twitter forced me to look elsewhere. That said, Parler won't be my "go to" until a critical mass of major responsible publications use it routinely in their push feeds (e.g. WSJ).
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
5,114
Reaction score
1,848
Points
113
I think that conservatives need to stay and fight on twitter but it is good that Parler is there, as an outlet. Be cautious. It may be that twitter wants to be able to claim that Parler is competition so that they can avoid consequences for what they have been doing. Twitter has been allowing Parler to trend- and that's not normal for twitter. I am suspicious.
The consequences aren't breaking up a monopoly, so Parler's existence doesn't help in that sense. The potential consequences are that you can (a) either be a platform where others share information and in that case you are protected from lawsuits such as being libel from slander; or (b) you can be a publisher where you can choose the content in your platform and then you are responsible for that content. Twitter, Google, Facebook and others want to have it both ways, where they choose what gets published and they are protected from lawsuits. The Republicans are threatening to take away that protection, which is a reason these firms are doing everything they can to try to keep Republicans from winning in November. The filtering is going to get much more pronounced in the coming months.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,082
Reaction score
3,711
Points
113
The consequences aren't breaking up a monopoly, so Parler's existence doesn't help in that sense. The potential consequences are that you can (a) either be a platform where others share information and in that case you are protected from lawsuits such as being libel from slander; or (b) you can be a publisher where you can choose the content in your platform and then you are responsible for that content. Twitter, Google, Facebook and others want to have it both ways, where they choose what gets published and they are protected from lawsuits. The Republicans are threatening to take away that protection, which is a reason these firms are doing everything they can to try to keep Republicans from winning in November. The filtering is going to get much more pronounced in the coming months.
Great analysis, except for it's based on a completely flawed understanding of Section 230 that only Josh Hawley, and people who think he knows what he's talking about, believe.

Section 230 prevents Twitter from being sued for NOT moderating content. There's nothing that says they're not allowed to moderate content, and there wouldn't be even if Sec 230 didn't exist.



 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
42,753
Reaction score
3,755
Points
113
Spell out for me what statement you are trying to make. I hope you aren't arguing with a straight face that Twitter is not extremely biased. That's an argument you will lose.
He doesn't mind losing. It's a daily thing for him. It's admitting it that justwon'thappen.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,082
Reaction score
3,711
Points
113
Spell out for me what statement you are trying to make. I hope you aren't arguing with a straight face that Twitter is not extremely biased. That's an argument you will lose.
The President gets preferential treatment. The garbage and abuse he tweets would get any other user suspended.

That's proven.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,446
Reaction score
2,553
Points
113
The consequences aren't breaking up a monopoly, so Parler's existence doesn't help in that sense. The potential consequences are that you can (a) either be a platform where others share information and in that case you are protected from lawsuits such as being libel from slander; or (b) you can be a publisher where you can choose the content in your platform and then you are responsible for that content. Twitter, Google, Facebook and others want to have it both ways, where they choose what gets published and they are protected from lawsuits. The Republicans are threatening to take away that protection, which is a reason these firms are doing everything they can to try to keep Republicans from winning in November. The filtering is going to get much more pronounced in the coming months.
Twitter doesn't have a monopoly. And the only way they could get a monopoly would be with government help. These companies are little more than a decade old. Things change fast. Don't regulate them or get them in bed with government. That's the worst think you could do. If they're awful, and they are, let someone compete with them.
Let's champion freedom, not government control. Twitter and Facebook and Google should be free to operate however they want. Don't use them.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,082
Reaction score
3,711
Points
113
Counterpoint
OK, I shouldn't have said "any other user." I should have said, "any regular user." But they did outright remove a Khamenei tweet last year. They're definitely inconsistent.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
7,253
Reaction score
2,362
Points
113
Counterpoint
I'm not sure this proves they have an axe to grind as much as it shows that any attempt to moderate that forum is like playing whack a mole. It's like unmowed lawns in St. Paul--nobody is looking for them, they city only acts upon a complaint. And usually the complaint has nothing to do with the lawn.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,446
Reaction score
2,553
Points
113
I'm not sure this proves they have an axe to grind as much as it shows that any attempt to moderate that forum is like playing whack a mole. It's like unmowed lawns in St. Paul--nobody is looking for them, they city only acts upon a complaint. And usually the complaint has nothing to do with the lawn.
That's absolutely true. But also absolutely true is a) that they have much different standards for the right vs the left and b) their efforts to censor POTUS have been laughable
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,446
Reaction score
2,553
Points
113
OK, I shouldn't have said "any other user." I should have said, "any regular user." But they did outright remove a Khamenei tweet last year. They're definitely inconsistent.
Their bias is strongly skewed one way. The people whose job it is to moderate tweets are mainly left wing activists.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,568
Reaction score
1,283
Points
113
The consequences aren't breaking up a monopoly, so Parler's existence doesn't help in that sense. The potential consequences are that you can (a) either be a platform where others share information and in that case you are protected from lawsuits such as being libel from slander; or (b) you can be a publisher where you can choose the content in your platform and then you are responsible for that content. Twitter, Google, Facebook and others want to have it both ways, where they choose what gets published and they are protected from lawsuits. The Republicans are threatening to take away that protection, which is a reason these firms are doing everything they can to try to keep Republicans from winning in November. The filtering is going to get much more pronounced in the coming months.
I find this interesting and am interested in exploring. In scenario a), above, let's say, for instance, someone tweets veiled (or unveiled) violent threats to the President or some random guy in Poughkeepsie and that tweet gains traction and things start happening (just go with this - it's my question! ;-)) Are you saying that 1) Twitter should be fine legally speaking to leave the tweets up and 2) If they take them down because their CEO doesn't want to be part of that, then they put themselves in some other legal category?

I am not a lawyer. Clearly.......
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,611
Reaction score
3,995
Points
113
Lol. In all fairness....the old dillhead rednecks that are flocking to parler so that they can message their fellow klan members without restriction.....are still getting used to the internet.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
18,762
Reaction score
2,460
Points
113
Lol. In all fairness....the old dillhead rednecks that are flocking to parler so that they can message their fellow klan members without restriction.....are still getting used to the internet.
My god man, do you ever post anything without flame throwing? Try having an intellectual exchange once in a while. There must be parts of your brain that are completely unused.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,611
Reaction score
3,995
Points
113
My god man, do you ever post anything without flame throwing? Try having an intellectual exchange once in a while. There must be parts of your brain that are completely unused.
Oh....is intellectual exchange what you do? Sure....lots of advanced thought coming from you....a Trump loving hyper partisan shill. Fortunately for you....there are several other right wing extremists here that have sacrificed a large number of brain cells in the name of Trump.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,082
Reaction score
3,711
Points
113
Great analysis, except for it's based on a completely flawed understanding of Section 230 that only Josh Hawley, and people who think he knows what he's talking about, believe.

Section 230 prevents Twitter from being sued for NOT moderating content. There's nothing that says they're not allowed to moderate content, and there wouldn't be even if Sec 230 didn't exist.



I love how in 4 short months we've gone from "Section 230 prevents Twitter from banning users!" (which was incorrect) to "we must eliminate Section 230."


As I noted in my post above, if Section 230 were repealed, there would still be nothing whatsoever preventing Twitter from banning users or deleting tweets. Nothing.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
725
Points
113
Great analysis, except for it's based on a completely flawed understanding of Section 230 that only Josh Hawley, and people who think he knows what he's talking about, believe.

Section 230 prevents Twitter from being sued for NOT moderating content. There's nothing that says they're not allowed to moderate content, and there wouldn't be even if Sec 230 didn't exist.



> Section 230 prevents Twitter from being sued for NOT moderating content. There's nothing that says they're not allowed to moderate content, and there wouldn't be even if Sec 230 didn't exist.

Thanks for that clarification, as that, in a nutshell, is absolutely what's wrong with Section 230 as it is currently written.

The current Section 230 gives the (de-facto) monopolizing and (de-facto) leftist Big Tech companies dual protection: On the one hand, nobody can sue them for NOT moderating content, but on the other hand, nobody can (currently) sue them for improperly moderating content.

We're going to need them to moderate content in some capacity, just because we know that due to the naturally downward tendency in human morals, somebody is going to post something that is totally horrible or an incitement to try to get others to commit acts that are totally horrible, such as murder and mayhem. We clearly need these companies to do some sort of moderation of content.

And we also need them not to be in the same boat as news media (who may be sued for libel, etc.). So we really do need the Section 230 coverage in some form or fashion. Getting rid of Section 230 completely is not an option.

The problem is, that these Big Tech internet (de-facto) monopolies over the "electronic public square" that we need for discourse on a lot of topics, are now being allowed to have their cake and eat it too. They are legally protected from NOT moderating their content, but they do not have any public-standards-based control whatsoever over what and how they DO moderate their content. We can agree that they do need to moderate in some sense. But the argument is basically over the fact that these Big Tech companies are getting their ass covered on one half of the equation, but on the other half of the equation, they are allowed to do political- and pseudo-science based censorship all over the place, and that is both wrong and unhealthy for democracy. It's tantamount to having an "electronic public square" in which the Antifa are given fully-implemented capability to shout down any speakers on the square who are not sufficiently leftist.

Right now, the leftist owners of these Big Tech companies are censoring the electronic media to an extent that may well be sufficient to swing the election to that duo of nincomoops, Biden and Harris.

So the proper thing to do is to modify and/or rewrite Section 230 in a manner that retains the positive aspects of the current law, but remedies the negative aspects, which are largely things that should have gone into the law, but the Congress was not sufficiently intelligent to put them into the original Bill.

Right now, AG Barr and staff are working on an effort to suggest ideal legislation to correct the currently faulty Section 230 code. That is exactly what we need, revision of the law, not repeal of the law. I have not had enough time to even look at this proposal (if it's even final, of which I do not know), let alone to ponder whether the suggested modifications are sufficient to do the job. But I certainly trust Barr to do a better job than anyone appointed by Biden would do.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
4,925
Reaction score
2,388
Points
113
I'm on record, I do not want Silicon Valley and the social media and data companies regulated. Even though they are my political enemy, I want them to maintain their freedom. I love Twitter, I think it's a genius platform, but it is run and influenced heavily by absolute radicals, and they have been caving to that pressure. I have been hoping like heck for a competing platform to arise, and confident that it would, the more the anger against Twitter grew.

Looks like that day has arrived with Parler? Yes, it is unfortunately going to start out as a conservative/libertarian bubble (not that i"m complaining). But I have joined and I recommend you do too. Not quite as slick as Twitter yet, but good enough. And as more people join, I'm sure the user experience will improve as well. I'd love it if it became widely popular and left wingers joined as well. Competition is good, and competition is the answer to most problems. I also use Duck Duck Go for web searches over Google, and never liked or much used Facebook, but Zuck seems to get the big picture more than these others and is for intellectual freedom. Amazon is an amazing company, maybe a little suspect, but I bet some major competitors will emerge in their space as well.

Anyway, off soap box. Link
Wtf does social media add to your life?
Twitter and genius????

I don't see social media improving the human condition in any way. Looks more destructive than helpful, colassal waste of time, just like this place. Why am i here? This place gives me absolutely horrible thoughts. Such a good thing for society, lol...
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
46,446
Reaction score
2,553
Points
113
Wtf does social media add to your life?
Twitter and genius????

I don't see social media improving the human condition in any way. Looks more destructive than helpful, colassal waste of time, just like this place. Why am i here? This place gives me absolutely horrible thoughts. Such a good thing for society, lol...
Excellent points.
 
Top Bottom