Walkaway Banned from Facebook As Apple Threatens Parler

[TemplarKormac]

Yet the leader of the nation sponsoring and paying for its activities isn't. He essentially uses the same violent language and is allowed free rein. Why is that?

ISIS isn't a nation. Nor is ISIS Iran.

You're completely out of your depth again.

Okay, so if I hire a hitman to come to your house and kill you... who killed you, the hitman or me?

Two parties are complicit in an illegal or fatal action, they act in concert with one another, making them hand in glove, one in the same.

Simple question, not a threat of violence.

 

[Coyote]

It isn’t nipicking. ISIS is a terrorist organization, banned and blocked on a lot of social media along with similar groups.

Yet the leader of the nation sponsoring and paying for its activities isn't. He essentially uses the same violent language and is allowed free rein. Why is that?

Good question. You would have to ask the owners.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

 

[TemplarKormac]

How do you know that? Pence and his family were in the capital when it was overrun.

So was the Secret Service. That's how I know, Coyote.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It isn’t nipicking. ISIS is a terrorist organization, banned and blocked on a lot of social media along with similar groups.

Yet the leader of the nation sponsoring and paying for its activities isn't. He essentially uses the same violent language and is allowed free rein. Why is that?

Good question. You would have to ask the owners.

That is a deflection.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

Words have meaning. The word "freely" in the context stated by Twitter, means "without restriction or interference".

That tells me it is a platform designed for the sole purpose of exchanging free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR INTERFERENCE.

Pick up a dictionary. Learn the nuances of the English language. And spare me your farcical lectures.

 

[iceberg]

..lk

they're banning anything they can't control.

as for insurection and crap on parler - do you really think they'd plan something like that on an open network? get the info, details, users and the like and let the law go after them. getting them out of the store isn't about security, it's about control.

Ya...they did..

'Burn down DC': Violence that erupted at Capitol was incited by pro-Trump mob on social media

Pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol as Congress prepared to formally declare Joe Biden president-elect fomented the violence on social media.

www.usatoday.com

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready.

Insurrectionists made no effort to hide their intentions, but law enforcement protecting Congress was caught flat-footed.

www.propublica.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-telegram-violence-dc-protests/

Which begs the question...why were the Capital Police so underprepared?

If you feel there should be no censorship on private platforms, shouldn’t ISIS be allowed to operate there?

Which begs the question, why did the capital police move the barrier to let them in then open the doors for them

You miis those questions.

Yes. That is in my list of questions.

Here is another. Should ISIs be allowed free speech rights on these platforms?

And shouldn't it be up to our government to declare laws were broken and a platform "evil"?

Since when did a "private business" have that power?

A private has the right to create rules (or TOS) for users of its platform and as a private entity it has the right to boot or censor those who break it.

Are you suggesting it doesn’t have that right and must allow every and anything until the Government steps in?

So ISIS should be allowed?

Gab social media was just banned by Google now too.

Were they insurecting also?

ISIS is allowed. You keep ignoring that.

Is it?

Facebook And Twitter Face Tough Choices As ISIS Exploits Social Media to Spread Its Message

ISIS has made social media a powerful propaganda tool. The way companies have responded reflects a deep philosophical divide over principles and tactics.

www.wired.com

Well first you said you are OK with private enterprise enacting law enforcement. Wanna be sure we note that.

How did you pull THAT out of what I said?

Private entities have the right to create their own rules or TOS in regards to their property (within the constraints of US law and the Constitution). That is not enacting law enforcement. If I go into a restaurant and start dancing nekkid on the tables do you think they are going to stand by and let me do it or escort me off the premises?

And I can find pro ISIS posts all over them.

Why aren’t you reporting them?

But if parler, why Wimkin, gab, and everyone else? No one insurecting there?

The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media. (Published 2021)

www.nytimes.com

On social media sites used by the far-right, such as Gab and Parler, directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments. At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress.

When is it bullshit to you? Please, don't let it be ONLY when it impacts you. Cause it will.

It has already impacted me. We had a violent insurrection in our nation’s capital, and an attempt to overthrow our government. That isn’t bullshit.

private enterprise tried and convicted someone of illegal activity so they could shut them down.

the law should be contacted before you kill someone's business.

bit if private enterprise can do this, remember where Trump will be in a few weeks.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

Words have meaning. The word "freely" means "without restriction or interference".

That tells me it is a platform designed for the sole purpose of exchanging free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR INTERFERENCE.

Pick up a dictionary. Learn the nuances of the English language.

Again, Twitter never said they have no restrictions on speech.

Instead they laid out the argument for WHY they have restrictions in the very paragraph you quoted. And lay out all 15 categories of speech that will get you banned, with half a hundred specific types of speech given as examples.

All of which you ignored.

Your argument is that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation of why they have restrictions......that Twitter can't have restrictions.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

 

[iceberg]

It has already impacted me. We had a violent insurrection in our nation’s capital, and an attempt to overthrow our government. That isn’t bullshit.

We have very different definitions of what an insurrection is, you and I.

Perhaps, but I do not see it as anything else.

What do you suppose this mob would have done if they got ahold of Pence TK?

They would never have gotten that far. Continuity of government would make sure of it.

How do you know that? Pence and his family were in tb3 capital when it was overrun. There were too few guards, a mob including armed members who were also carrying handcuffs, and asking where Pence was. It was a MOB, not an orderly group of people...hell they even trampled one of their own.

I don’t know what continuity of government has to do with it.

if they didn't want the place to be "overrun" then leave the barricades up and keep the doors shut.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

Words have meaning. The word "freely" means "without restriction or interference".

That tells me it is a platform designed for the sole purpose of exchanging free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR INTERFERENCE.

Pick up a dictionary. Learn the nuances of the English language.

Again, Twitter never said they have no restrictions on speech.

View attachment 439849

Instead they laid out the argument for WHY they have restrictions in the very paragraph you quoted. And lay out all 15 categories of speech that will get you banned, with half a hundred specific types of speech given as examples.

View attachment 439852
All of which you ignored.

Your argument is that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation of why they have restrictions......that Twitter can't have restrictions.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

No I read the whole thing, and then asked myself

"Is this allowing a person to freely experience Twitter? Do these rules exemplify or justify the use of the word "freely" in the first paragraph? The answer is no. So why does it use "freely" in such a nonchalant manner in the first paragraph when it does no such freedom to occur on its platform?"

You are not a clairvoyant. You know nothing of what I've done.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It has already impacted me. We had a violent insurrection in our nation’s capital, and an attempt to overthrow our government. That isn’t bullshit.

We have very different definitions of what an insurrection is, you and I.

Perhaps, but I do not see it as anything else.

What do you suppose this mob would have done if they got ahold of Pence TK?

They would never have gotten that far. Continuity of government would make sure of it.

How do you know that? Pence and his family were in tb3 capital when it was overrun. There were too few guards, a mob including armed members who were also carrying handcuffs, and asking where Pence was. It was a MOB, not an orderly group of people...hell they even trampled one of their own.

I don’t know what continuity of government has to do with it.

if they didn't want the place to be "overrun" then leave the barricades up and keep the doors shut.

In all fairness, that wouldn't stop them.

 

[iceberg]

..lk

they're banning anything they can't control.

as for insurection and crap on parler - do you really think they'd plan something like that on an open network? get the info, details, users and the like and let the law go after them. getting them out of the store isn't about security, it's about control.

Ya...they did..

'Burn down DC': Violence that erupted at Capitol was incited by pro-Trump mob on social media

Pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol as Congress prepared to formally declare Joe Biden president-elect fomented the violence on social media.

www.usatoday.com

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready.

Insurrectionists made no effort to hide their intentions, but law enforcement protecting Congress was caught flat-footed.

www.propublica.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-telegram-violence-dc-protests/

Which begs the question...why were the Capital Police so underprepared?

If you feel there should be no censorship on private platforms, shouldn’t ISIS be allowed to operate there?

Which begs the question, why did the capital police move the barrier to let them in then open the doors for them

You miis those questions.

Yes. That is in my list of questions.

Here is another. Should ISIs be allowed free speech rights on these platforms?

And shouldn't it be up to our government to declare laws were broken and a platform "evil"?

Since when did a "private business" have that power?

A private has the right to create rules (or TOS) for users of its platform and as a private entity it has the right to boot or censor those who break it.

Are you suggesting it doesn’t have that right and must allow every and anything until the Government steps in?

So ISIS should be allowed?

Gab social media was just banned by Google now too.

Were they insurecting also?

ISIS is allowed. You keep ignoring that.

Is it?

Facebook And Twitter Face Tough Choices As ISIS Exploits Social Media to Spread Its Message

ISIS has made social media a powerful propaganda tool. The way companies have responded reflects a deep philosophical divide over principles and tactics.

www.wired.com

Yet... Is there.
View attachment 439825

That's not ISIS.

Given that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, yes it is.

Skylar responded to me?

how cute.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

Words have meaning. The word "freely" means "without restriction or interference".

That tells me it is a platform designed for the sole purpose of exchanging free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR INTERFERENCE.

Pick up a dictionary. Learn the nuances of the English language.

Again, Twitter never said they have no restrictions on speech.

View attachment 439849

Instead they laid out the argument for WHY they have restrictions in the very paragraph you quoted. And lay out all 15 categories of speech that will get you banned, with half a hundred specific types of speech given as examples.

View attachment 439852
All of which you ignored.

Your argument is that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation of why they have restrictions......that Twitter can't have restrictions.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

No I read the whole thing, and then asked myself

"Is this allowing a person to freely experience Twitter? Do these rules exemplify or justify the use of the word "freely" in the first paragraph?"

You are not a clairvoyant. you know nothing of what I've done.

Clairvoyant? Your laughably argument is on display for all of us to point and laugh at. You literally looked at this:

And then insisted that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation for why they have restrictions..... that Twitter can't have any restrictions.

As I've said many times before.......you're really bad at this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

Words have meaning. The word "freely" means "without restriction or interference".

That tells me it is a platform designed for the sole purpose of exchanging free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR INTERFERENCE.

Pick up a dictionary. Learn the nuances of the English language.

Again, Twitter never said they have no restrictions on speech.

View attachment 439849

Instead they laid out the argument for WHY they have restrictions in the very paragraph you quoted. And lay out all 15 categories of speech that will get you banned, with half a hundred specific types of speech given as examples.

View attachment 439852
All of which you ignored.

Your argument is that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation of why they have restrictions......that Twitter can't have restrictions.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

No I read the whole thing, and then asked myself

"Is this allowing a person to freely experience Twitter? Do these rules exemplify or justify the use of the word "freely" in the first paragraph?"

You are not a clairvoyant. you know nothing of what I've done.

Clairvoyant? Your laughably argument is on display for all of us to point and laugh at. You literally looked at this:

View attachment 439857

And then insisted that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation for why they have restrictions..... that Twitter can't have any restrictions.

As I've said many times before.......you're really bad at this.

You can keep insulting me or make your point, if you have one.

(I am a practiced speed reader, Skylar). Yes, I did read the whole thing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

..lk

they're banning anything they can't control.

as for insurection and crap on parler - do you really think they'd plan something like that on an open network? get the info, details, users and the like and let the law go after them. getting them out of the store isn't about security, it's about control.

Ya...they did..

'Burn down DC': Violence that erupted at Capitol was incited by pro-Trump mob on social media

Pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol as Congress prepared to formally declare Joe Biden president-elect fomented the violence on social media.

www.usatoday.com

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready.

Insurrectionists made no effort to hide their intentions, but law enforcement protecting Congress was caught flat-footed.

www.propublica.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-telegram-violence-dc-protests/

Which begs the question...why were the Capital Police so underprepared?

If you feel there should be no censorship on private platforms, shouldn’t ISIS be allowed to operate there?

Which begs the question, why did the capital police move the barrier to let them in then open the doors for them

You miis those questions.

Yes. That is in my list of questions.

Here is another. Should ISIs be allowed free speech rights on these platforms?

And shouldn't it be up to our government to declare laws were broken and a platform "evil"?

Since when did a "private business" have that power?

A private has the right to create rules (or TOS) for users of its platform and as a private entity it has the right to boot or censor those who break it.

Are you suggesting it doesn’t have that right and must allow every and anything until the Government steps in?

So ISIS should be allowed?

Gab social media was just banned by Google now too.

Were they insurecting also?

ISIS is allowed. You keep ignoring that.

Is it?

Facebook And Twitter Face Tough Choices As ISIS Exploits Social Media to Spread Its Message

ISIS has made social media a powerful propaganda tool. The way companies have responded reflects a deep philosophical divide over principles and tactics.

www.wired.com

Yet... Is there.
View attachment 439825

That's not ISIS.

Given that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, yes it is.

Skylar responded to me?

how cute.

Don't think he knew you had him on ignore, mate.

 

[Dana7360]

Can we repeal Section 230 before January 20th?

Why would you want to? You'd just shut this board down.

What do you think repealing 230 would actually do.....specifically?

The real consequences for repealing 230 is that those private companies to get even more strict on what is posted on their sites.

If they are going to be held liable for what's on their site they sure better be able to police their site to make sure they don't get sued.

These people want to hold those private companies liable for what other people post on their site but they want to take away that private company's right to take steps to make sure they don't get sued.

These stupid people don't understand that their demands will result in more people getting banned from social media sites. The social media site won't take the chance on being sued so will be even more strict on what can be posted and will be much quicker to shutdown pages and ban people from their sites.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I've said many times before.......you're really bad at this.

Your repeated insistences does not translate into reality, Skylar. Your arrogance is almost debilitating.

 

[Skylar]

Of course, repeating yourself is easy. A rebuttal is difficult if you don't have one.

When you're so obviously clueless, repeating the obvious is all I need to do.

Is that really all you've got?

Given I have been debating you seamlessly for the past 2 1/2 hours, no, that isn't all I have.

Taunting me now? Of course. You have nothing.

I wouldn't call ignoring the very page you link to 'debating'. Nor would I call your abandonment of argument after argument 'debating'.

Twitter has never claimed to have no restrictions on speech on its platform. Why then would it be forbidden from banning someone that violated its terms of service?

Words have meaning. The word "freely" means "without restriction or interference".

That tells me it is a platform designed for the sole purpose of exchanging free speech WITHOUT RESTRICTION OR INTERFERENCE.

Pick up a dictionary. Learn the nuances of the English language.

Again, Twitter never said they have no restrictions on speech.

View attachment 439849

Instead they laid out the argument for WHY they have restrictions in the very paragraph you quoted. And lay out all 15 categories of speech that will get you banned, with half a hundred specific types of speech given as examples.

View attachment 439852
All of which you ignored.

Your argument is that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation of why they have restrictions......that Twitter can't have restrictions.

Laughing.....good luck with that.

No I read the whole thing, and then asked myself

"Is this allowing a person to freely experience Twitter? Do these rules exemplify or justify the use of the word "freely" in the first paragraph?"

You are not a clairvoyant. you know nothing of what I've done.

Clairvoyant? Your laughably argument is on display for all of us to point and laugh at. You literally looked at this:

View attachment 439857

And then insisted that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation for why they have restrictions..... that Twitter can't have any restrictions.

As I've said many times before.......you're really bad at this.

You can keep insulting me or make your point, if you have one.

(I am a practiced speed reader, Skylar). Yes, I did read the whole thing.

So you read Twitter's explanation for why they have restrictions on speech, along with every of the 15 categories of speech that will get you banned from Twitter with more than 50 specific examples of types of speech that will get you banned......

.....and concluded that because they used the word 'freely' in their explanation of why they have restrictions, that Twitter wasn't allowed to have restrictions?

That's not a great argument.

 

[iceberg]

..lk

they're banning anything they can't control.

as for insurection and crap on parler - do you really think they'd plan something like that on an open network? get the info, details, users and the like and let the law go after them. getting them out of the store isn't about security, it's about control.

Ya...they did..

'Burn down DC': Violence that erupted at Capitol was incited by pro-Trump mob on social media

Pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol as Congress prepared to formally declare Joe Biden president-elect fomented the violence on social media.

www.usatoday.com

Capitol Rioters Planned for Weeks in Plain Sight. The Police Weren’t Ready.

Insurrectionists made no effort to hide their intentions, but law enforcement protecting Congress was caught flat-footed.

www.propublica.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/05/parler-telegram-violence-dc-protests/

Which begs the question...why were the Capital Police so underprepared?

If you feel there should be no censorship on private platforms, shouldn’t ISIS be allowed to operate there?

Which begs the question, why did the capital police move the barrier to let them in then open the doors for them

You miis those questions.

Yes. That is in my list of questions.

Here is another. Should ISIs be allowed free speech rights on these platforms?

And shouldn't it be up to our government to declare laws were broken and a platform "evil"?

Since when did a "private business" have that power?

A private has the right to create rules (or TOS) for users of its platform and as a private entity it has the right to boot or censor those who break it.

Are you suggesting it doesn’t have that right and must allow every and anything until the Government steps in?

So ISIS should be allowed?

Gab social media was just banned by Google now too.

Were they insurecting also?

ISIS is allowed. You keep ignoring that.

Is it?

Facebook And Twitter Face Tough Choices As ISIS Exploits Social Media to Spread Its Message

ISIS has made social media a powerful propaganda tool. The way companies have responded reflects a deep philosophical divide over principles and tactics.

www.wired.com

Yet... Is there.
View attachment 439825

That's not ISIS.

Given that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, yes it is.

Skylar responded to me?

how cute.

Don't think he knew you had him on ignore, mate.

she's a him?

how cute.

 

[Skylar]

As I've said many times before.......you're really bad at this.

Your repeated insistences does not translate into reality, Skylar. Your arrogance is almost debilitating.

Trump's ban from Twitter would indicate that my assessment of the situation aligns far closer to reality than yours does.