What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dorsey Stepping Down from Twitter

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
125,815
Reaction score
42,915
Points
2,290
You poor little conservatives are so mistreated.

If only one of you had the balls and the skill to make your own platform....
We had Parlor, but Bezos illegally shut it down
 

colfax_m

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
37,077
Reaction score
14,040
Points
1,465
building the platform is easy.
It's really not. Twitter and other social media platforms are built over many years learning and evolving. They are much harder to replicate than people think. I've used Parler. It's missing so many features, it's so hard to use, it's such a bad platform.
trying to do it with the current big boys keeping you down and out, that's a different story. big tech has a monopoly and isn't about to let it go. quite the opposite as they're working to become default law now and replace our current legal system with what they want to do.
No, there is no monopoly on the internet. The internet is about as free and open as it gets. Everyone has access. Everyone can get online. Everyone can use your website. The means by which the "big boys" can keep you down is extremely limited to downright nonexistent.
 
OP
iceberg

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,451
Reaction score
11,051
Points
1,410
You still have Parlor. What did Bezos do that was illegal? Has he been charged yet?
while you giggle and guffaw, google and apple kicked them out of the store and amazon said they were breaking laws and kicked them off of their web services as they were "accused" of being the launching ground for the "insurrection".

now - since when do companies such as this get to determine laws and who is guilty or not? they sure exacted a punishment for activities that were rumored to be there but it was found that the vast majority of people used FB to plan this "insurrection", yet FB never was mentioned.

this goes back to them being a monopoly and able to help keep options down and out that you giggled at but didn't address.
 
Last edited:

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
59,046
Reaction score
11,147
Points
2,070
Location
Midwest of America
while you giggle and guffaw, google and apple kicked them out of the store and amazon said they were breaking laws and kicked them off of their web services as they were "accused" of being the launching ground for the "insurrection".

now - since when do companies such as this get to determine laws and who is guilty or not? they sure exacted a punishment for activities that were rumored to be there but it was found that the vast majority of people used FB to plan this "insurrection", yet FB never was mentioned.

this goes back to them being a monopoly and able to help keep options down and out that you giggled at but didn't address.

Private companies are allowed to decide who uses their service/products/space. There is no "right" to be in a specific store or specific web server. No different than WalMart choosing not to carry a specific item
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
125,815
Reaction score
42,915
Points
2,290
You still have Parlor. What did Bezos do that was illegal? Has he been charged yet?
I thought he would not allow Parlor to use his routers...or something.

I'm not on Parlor, at least not until they offer me $19.95 per post
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
125,815
Reaction score
42,915
Points
2,290
Private companies are allowed to decide who uses their service/products/space. There is no "right" to be in a specific store or specific web server. No different than WalMart choosing not to carry a specific item
You mean like a Christian baker can refuse to bake a cake?????
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
125,815
Reaction score
42,915
Points
2,290
OP
iceberg

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,451
Reaction score
11,051
Points
1,410
Private companies are allowed to decide who uses their service/products/space. There is no "right" to be in a specific store or specific web server. No different than WalMart choosing not to carry a specific item
when you provide a service, you can't arbitrarily decide who can use it or not, esp kick them off for breaking laws they didn't break. this in effect allows a private company to determine who is and who isn't breaking the law.

the type of power you'd find in say, a monopoly.

you can argue some whacked out neutral stance all you wish but i worked for MS in the 90s and the DOJ made MS do things to their products to allow competition. things such as having to put netscape on the desktop at install, remove all internet features so the customers have to go look and not default to MS/windows. MS was forced to include competition in their product simply because they were the dominate player that was deemed to have an unfair advantage.

so, i know for a fact this happened as i had to provide internal training to MS CSE's on what was going on and why.

if i can't succeed without being in google or apples store, they can't kick out competition. again, monopoly.

so your little scenario up there doesn't hold up to reality.

care to swing again or just laugh at me and go away like you did when i asked you to prove facebook wasn't a publisher and you kept to "new info only" which really has nothing to do with it.
 

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
59,046
Reaction score
11,147
Points
2,070
Location
Midwest of America
when you provide a service, you can't arbitrarily decide who can use it or not, esp kick them off for breaking laws they didn't break. this in effect allows a private company to determine who is and who isn't breaking the law.

Sure you can, as long as you do not do it for one of the "forbidden" reasons. I do not even agree with the forbidden reasons, but they are there and if you do not do it for one of those, then the company is not doing anything wrong nor illegal.

care to swing again or just laugh at me and go away like you did when i asked you to prove facebook wasn't a publisher and you kept to "new info only" which really has nothing to do with it.

Facebook is not a publisher, a publisher pre-approves all things published by them. FB does not do this. Thus they are not a publisher.

Not sure why this is so confusing for so many of you.
 
OP
iceberg

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,451
Reaction score
11,051
Points
1,410
I think he did do something like that, but doing so is not illegal
so, to be clear you don't know what he did, but it's not illegal.

yea, this is the basis of a great honest dialog about current events, huh?

AWS, or amazon web services, allows a company to host their server(s) on their cloud and pay a fee. you then setup all the necessary servers in that cloud in order to run a service such as parler. the OS, databases, security, storage and the like. in essence your entire business is in the cloud and on these servers. they do down, your services are down.

amazon decided that parler was harboring violence and used to plan 1/6, so they terminated their agreement with parler, putting them in a mad dash to back up and move all their data. this is huge for their undertaking and never done in the real world ad-hoc or in a rush.

so as i've said before, amazon decided that parler was breaking laws and their own service agreement and ended it; yet had zero evidence to show these accusations were correct.

now im not a fan of parler and can't stand it. while i'd love an option, i don't want a right wing only nuthouse of people screaming THE LEFT SUCKS 24x7, and that's all they really are to me. not illegal, just not for me. however, for ANY private company to simply decide another is breaking laws and boots them is not a good direction i think we as a whole should be taking.

in effect, a private company can bypass courts and laws and determine which businesses can stay or go based on heresay evidence or their own motivations.
 
OP
iceberg

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,451
Reaction score
11,051
Points
1,410
Sure you can, as long as you do not do it for one of the "forbidden" reasons. I do not even agree with the forbidden reasons, but they are there and if you do not do it for one of those, then the company is not doing anything wrong nor illegal.



Facebook is not a publisher, a publisher pre-approves all things published by them. FB does not do this. Thus they are not a publisher.

Not sure why this is so confusing for so many of you.
and if those forbidden reasons are held to 1 side only, you are in effect stopping your competition. a monopoly does this and is usually held accountable. but these days it's war and people simply don't seem to give a fuck.

facebook is a publisher when it suits their purposes and when they validate what is true or not, that crosses the line. your very weak "new info only" doesn't cut it. publishers can publish a bible if they want and that's a pretty old book, but they'd still be the publisher. i've asked several times for more details and you simply poof.

i don't know why that is so confusing for you.
 

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
59,046
Reaction score
11,147
Points
2,070
Location
Midwest of America
in effect, a private company can bypass courts and laws and determine which businesses can stay or go based on heresay evidence or their own motivations.

Of course they can. One company can decide that a different company using there services/sites/locations is bad for their reputation and boot them.

Nothing illegal about it at all.
 
Last edited:

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
59,046
Reaction score
11,147
Points
2,070
Location
Midwest of America
facebook is a publisher when it suits their purposes and when they validate what is true or not, that crosses the line. your very weak "new info only" doesn't cut it. publishers can publish a bible if they want and that's a pretty old book, but they'd still be the publisher. i've asked several times for more details and you simply poof.

i don't know why that is so confusing for you.

I have not ever said anything about "new info only", I said everything they publish is pre-approved ahead of time. Why do you think "pre-approval" is the same as "new info only"?

Even with your bible example, the company publishing the bible preapproves it prior to it being published.

This is what makes them a publisher. Once FB starts to pre-approve every singled post before anyone can see it, then they will be a publisher.

Only one of us is confused, and it is not me.
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
10,697
Reaction score
17,406
Points
2,288
Location
Texas Hill Country
Private companies are allowed to decide who uses their service/products/space. There is no "right" to be in a specific store or specific web server. No different than WalMart choosing not to carry a specific item

Yet you abandon that principle when it comes to bakeries (for example) or any other private business that doesn't want anything to do with people like you.
 

Golfing Gator

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2017
Messages
59,046
Reaction score
11,147
Points
2,070
Location
Midwest of America
Yet you abandon that principle when it comes to bakeries (for example) or any other private business that doesn't want anything to do with people like you.

A few of my post from back then...




 
OP
iceberg

iceberg

Diamond Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
32,451
Reaction score
11,051
Points
1,410
I have not ever said anything about "new info only", I said everything they publish is pre-approved ahead of time. Why do you think "pre-approval" is the same as "new info only"?

Even with your bible example, the company publishing the bible preapproves it prior to it being published.

This is what makes them a publisher. Once FB starts to pre-approve every singled post before anyone can see it, then they will be a publisher.

Only one of us is confused, and it is not me.
yes you did which was the entire point of my rebuttle you eventually ran away from.

so you are saying it's pointless to discuss issues with you
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$90.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top