I'm glad someone gets it.
Well, the government sure handed them that. I thought we had monopoly laws.
@Asker twitter is not a monopoly
They're an oligarchy, she wasn't too far off. And effectively, when working in tandem with one another (which they are), it's not much different, if at all.
@crmoore they aren't an oligarchy as facebook, twitter, and snapchat are all its worst enemies. how can a group of enemies form an oligarchy with each other
@___nik Who is Twitter's competition?
twitter is in competition with snapchat, facebook, tiktok, pinterest, linkedin, tumblr, reddit, ning, instagram, quora, whatsapp, and kakao. there's much more as well.
They're all working in harmony, currently. Just as a recent example, Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores, while Amazon kicked Parker off of their servers. This all happened simultaneously. Also, Facebook and Twitter both banned Trump together. I don't mean to come across so strongly, but they're definitely working together.
Kicked Parler off*
@crmoore you have absolutely no knowledge of business if you think they are working together. for example, instagram just introduced reels, a complete ripoff of tiktok, and advertised it as separate. this does not support your argument at all. just because two companies kicked off a problematic app doesn't mean that they are in cahoots with each other lmao
And I just learned that the attack on the capitol was organize on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. So how are they not to blame for what happened?
there is no SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to back up your CLAIM. Donald Trump was kicked off of twitter because of his violent statements and divisive language which incited the riots. please get some common sense next time you decide to chalk up a response which you know is bullshit.
I'm not a business man but I'm aware of competing features among apps, nearly everyone is. It's very silly of you to assume otherwise. That being said, just because they're implementing similar features, doesn't mean they aren't working together.Additionally, you're attempting to dilute my argument. It's not "they just happened to do both do the same thing" it's "they 'happened' to do the same thing at the same time multiple times." Also, Mark Zuckerberg openly admitted to working with people like Twitter (as well as others) when he was testifying under congress. I also find it funny that rather than refuting all evidence I provided, you only acknowledge a single part of it (that being the removal of parler from the play stores) but didn't mention how Amazon also removed them from their servers and that Trump was banned from two sperate platforms all simultaneously. This didn't happen gradually and at different times on each platform, which would indicate a lack of connection between them all, no, instead it all happened together, which does indicate a connection and harmony throughout them.Also, I assume your superior common sense would be able to provide a quote of Trump's violent statements?Additionally, if Trump having supposedly said violent things, what does that mean for people who solicited donations for people arrested for rioting, such as Kamala Harris? Should this known riot-supporter be banned from Twitter and Facebook?
@crmoore read this article about his incitement of violence. not just the riots, but his history of promoting violence : https:// www. vox. com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speechand Kamala solicited donation because peaceful protestors were getting wrongfully arrested, and there's enough video evidence to see that they were, but i'm guessing you haven't seen any of that because you're too bigoted to try and see other people's lives getting ruined. and you're statement about companies kicking off parler, YES THEY DID BECAUSE PARLER IS A PROBLEMATIC APP. parler literally encourages hate speech and does not have any moderation, and from both a business and ethical standpoint, it's garbage. its garbage business wise because the lack of moderation it has, causing literally anything to pop up on the app, including lynchings, suicides, gore, rape etc. which doesn't really draw sane customers in. it's garbage ethically because WHY WOULD YOU WANT AN APP SO YOU COULD SPEW HATE TOWARDS PEOPLE OF COLOR, THE LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY, AND MORE UNLESS YOU WERE A PIECE OF SHIT
Alright, I'll read this article. Here's my take on it. The first 5 paragraphs of the article regard the incident at the capitol, and wrongfully attribute the actions of those people to Trump. Trump told them to protest, not to riot. Trump quite literally did not incite violence, here. Additionally, if what he did could be considered inciting violence (which it reasonably can't) what do we call it when Joe Biden meets with BLM, of which goes on to continue rioting for months afterwards? Did he not support a movement that got violent (not to mention, they had been violent before him meeting with them)? But of course you don't consider that an incitement of violence, because it is you, ironically, who is bigoted and unable to see things clearly. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
The 6th paragraph says "Trump has been connected to documented acts of violence" without explicitly naming any in particular. They proceed by saying "perpetrators claimed he was their inspiration." Not only did they not say who said this, nor when (though it is possibly in the link at the end of the paragraph, which I will speak on later in this paragraph), but even if they did, this doesn't mean Trump has incited violence. There was a shooter in New Zealand who cited Spiro the Dragon (a children's video game character) as their inspiration. Unless you can show evidence that Trump encouraged the violence, some nut job being infatuated with someone doesn't make that someone responsible for some nut job's actions. As for the link to the "54 cases" supposedly connecting Trump to violence, you can tell me whether or not you want me to read it after you see how ridiculous and unsubstantiated THIS link is that you had me waste my time reading. Though I'd hope that you have an ounce of dignity and won't request that I break down that link of 54 cases after I've shown you that each and every one of the cases mentioned in THIS link that you've provided are complete and utter bullshit. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
The 7th paragraph mentions four cases of violence, none of which Trump incited. Again, they just wrongfully attribute the actions of these people to Trump. In these four particular cases, Trump literally had no connection to them. They're just 4 random civilians who did awful things and said they did it for Trump or something of that nature. But I'll mention all four of these specifically so you know how ridiculous this link you provided is. The first one is a man who threatened his black neighbors with a knife and told the officers "Donald Trump will fix them." So in what way did Donald Trump incite this violence, exactly? The second one is a man who threatened to burn down a house because a Muslim family bought it, he claimed that in his defense "Trump's Muslim Ban made it a reason for concern." But obviously since I'm too bigoted to see realty (according to you) I'm sure you and your self-proclaimed superior common sense would be able to find the part in the Muslim Ban policy that incites violence against Muslims? (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
The third guy mailed 16 inoperative explosives to Democratic leaders and regarded Trump as his "surrogate father." Needless to say Trump is not his surrogate father, Trump likely has no idea who this man is. It's just some nut job who is infatuated with Trump. The last one is even the LEAST credible because this one didn't even mention Trump. The article mentions a shooting in Texas and then says that the manifesto of the shooter "parroted Trump's rhetoric." This one is particularly pathetic because the manifesto doesn't even mention Trump, nor does it directly parrot things Trump has said, it just parrots "rhetoric" about immigrants. And if you aren't familiar with what that means, they're saying "the things he says about immigrants sounds similar to the things Trump says about immigrants." Yet apparently this is supposedly evidence that Trump incited this violence. 🤣🤦♂️ Funnily enough, none of these four have been incited by Trump. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the 8th paragraph, they say "Trump denounces the violence, but he often walks back such statements." As (supposed) evidence of this, they say "in August, he defended a teenage supporter who shot three people at a Black Lives Matter protest." And then linked to the Kenosha incident, where three people attacked a literal kid and tried to rip his gun from his hands (I actually have the footage saved, if you want to oppose that notion). During this incident, one of the attackers puts their hands up, indicating they mean no harm or aggression, being the normal, decent person the Kyle was, he then lowered his weapon because he thought this person meant him no harm. But once Kyle lowered his weapon, the man who a moment ago indicated he meant no harm, lunges for the weapon. During this tussle for the gun, Kyle pulls the trigger and if I recall correctly, this guy has his bicep blown off. Not to mention, all three people who fought Kyle written house, and were subsequently shot by him, all happened to be terrible people (but do we expect much less as BLM riots?). Here's a link about all three of the men shot, - www.renegadetribune.com/.../ - but since I assume you won't read the links I provide (as I am now doing for you), I'll give you a little synopsis. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit
The first guy was a convicted child molester, the second guy was a domestic abuser who used strangulation and suffocation during this abuse (seemingly being charged with domestic abuse on 6 different occasions), the third guy, who has a pistol in his hand (photo evidence provided in the link) was a convicted felon for burglary and due to his criminal record, was not allowed to possess a gun (despite him doing so during this riot). I find it really interesting how this link will say "Trump says he doesn't like violence, but sometimes he dedend it" but doesn't mention that he "defends violence" when that "violence" is self defense when three genuinely terrible criminals are attacking you. This is like saying if someone is being raped and you support the victim punching the rapist in the face to daze them so that the victim can run away, then you support violence and if you have denounced violence in the past then you're a hypocritical liar. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the same paragraph as the one mentioning the self-defense above, they mention "at the first presidential debate of the 2020 election, the president shocked many viewers when he was given an opportunity to condemn white supremacists, but declined." This is literally false. When asked if he would denounce white supremacy, Trump said "sure." With admittedly is a very weak condemnations, but a condemnations none the less. The statement that he "declined" to denounce it is indisputably false. Not to mention, prior to him being asked to denounce it, he had already denounced it over a dozen times (at least). Which could explain his lack of enthusiasm (but if you ask me, I do think Trump should have definitively denounced them). (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the 9th paragraph, they say "he equivocated on condemnation of the domestic terrorists who allegedly planned to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, after Trump had stoked outrage over the state’s pandemic safety measures. He criticized Whitmer when the kidnapping plot was revealed and fished for compliments." Funnily enough (no surprise), they don't quote his "equivocation" of condemnation, nor do they link to anything. They literally just say he did it. Real convincing. 😂 As for criticizing Whitmer when the kidnapping plot was revealed, that's not inciting violence. Saying "Whitmer SHOULD be kidnapped due to A, B and C" would be inciting violence. In the sentence "He criticized Whitmer when the kidnapping plot was revealed and fished for compliments" the words "fished for compliments" are hyperlinked, and link to what I presume to be Trump's Twitter account which is now suspended, so we can't see what he said. But I find it funny that his "equivocation" of condemnation, "criticism of Whitmer" allegedly in such a way that incites violence, aren't hyperlinked and aren't supported with any evidence, but the one thing they do support evidence for and hyperlink is Trump fishing for compliments. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the 10th paragraph, they claim Trump refuses to see the reason behind all this violence, that being hatred due to a tense political climate that he has helped cultivate. And I actually agree with this, Trump has helped cultivate this tense political climate. But what I don't agree with is to what extent they're implying. Trump has been divisive, but the media has been exponentially more divisive. So divisive and influential that people like you think that someone saying "I'll stab someone in the name of Trump!" means "Trump incited violence!" In the 11th paragraph, they say "Trump’s campaign rallies have always been incubation grounds for violence, sites where Trump spewed hate speech that encouraged physical harm against dissenters." But provide no quotes, nor links. Again, they're literally just making a claim and providing no evidence. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the 12th paragraph, they say that the following is a timeline of "Trump's hateful rhetoric." Due to how the following is formatted, I will now be regarding "sections" rather than paragraphs, because if I remain regarding each paragraph, some paragraphs will literally just be headers for the following paragraph. So the first section here claims "Trump announces presidential bid and quickly suggests violence is the answer to opposition." And then says that in his first speech, he incited fear and hate. But, again, no quotes, and no links (I'm starting to notice a pattern, here). Then they say that critiques say that his speech led to violence (but didn't state or link to what violence), and in some cases acrs of violence were directly linked to Trump's words. Still no quotes, no links, and funnily enough, even if they DID provide links to acts of violence being linked to Trump's words, that isn't Trump inciting violence unless he is actually encouraging it to happen. This link thus far has been a giant nothingburger. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the second section they say Trump made disparaging comments about Mexicans. They say he repeatedly insulted them, and these insults have "incited violence" towards immigrants in the following years. Insulting someone isn't inciting violence on them. This section also goes on to say that "Trump's claims are almost entirely false" and provide a hyperlink to an article that regards "immigrants" and their connection to crime, not "illegal immigrants," which Trump was referring to. All illegal immigrants are immigrants, but not all immigrants are illegal immigrants. So it's a semantic, technical game they're playing to deceive their readers. Rather than referencing illegal immigrants and their connection to crime, they regard statistics of all immigrants, including law-abiding legal immigrants. (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
In the third section, they mention how Trump called Bernie Sanders weak for letting BLM activists rio the microphone from his hands and the he said "That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will." This, too, isn't inciting violence. Firstly, it's self defense. If someone tries to rip something out of your hands, they're attacking you, or st least being incredibly aggressive. "Fighting back" when someone is doing this isn't inciting violence. And saying "I don't know if I will or if others will" isn't inciting violence, either. The most likely fit for "others" doing it is that security will do it, and this isn't even telling security TO do it, he's saying security might do it." And even if security does do it, that's their job. They prevent people from getting on stage, they prevent people from ripping the mic from others (or they're supposed to). If I said "I don't know if I will sit down at that table, or if others will" is not "inciting people to sit down at that table." (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
So obviously this is getting EXTREMELY long already, and according to the scroll bar, I'm only 1/8th of the way through. Thus far, everything has been bullshit. So how about instead of me reading the article, you can dig through the article and then quote it or tell me where in the article it is, and then we'll talk about whether he incited violence. But as for the rest of your remark, I assume you can provide evidence of peaceful protesters being arrested? (Response continued in the following comment to overcome the character limit)
Because I can provide evidence of rioters being arrested. I can even provide evidence of rioters being arrested who have very serious criminal records, like several convicted rapist and sex offenders, people who shot at swat teams (yes, with guns), a girl who stabbed her friend to death (those last few are all in this link: thefederalist.com/.../ ), and last but not least a guy who was arrested for domestic abuse, had his bail paid for, and then returned home to KILL his wife (link: www.foxnews.com/.../st-louis-man-accused-of-killing-wife-after-release-on-bail ). Thank you, Kamala Harris (and several of Biden's campaign staff who donated to the freedom fund). You claim parlor encourages hate speech, but can you provide a link regarding an official parlee personnel encouraging it? Or maybe a policy or rule that parlor has that encourages it? I'm of the understanding they ALLOW free-speech, not ENCOURAGE hate speech. You also say they have no moderation, but here is the Parler CEO talking about bankable offenses, of which "threatening to kill" someone is included (link: twitter.com/.../1277941967402553345?s=20 ).
oh my gosh in your entire response your trying to play mental gymnastics to get away from the point that trump either incited the violence, sympathized with the perpatrators, or contradicted himself in his condemnation. and he has NOT condemned white supremacy genuinely either. there are plenty of rioters who got convicted for simply protesting, my friend was one of them. she does not have a criminal record and got arrested at a peaceful BLM protest, so please stfu. and parlor literally CONDONES hate speech, it's an app encouraging "free speech" and liberals who joined it have reported that they have been kicked off for simply stating their views, even when the app's main purpose is to do that. you're an idiot and a piece of shit, congrats
I'm not playing mental gymnastics. The article is playing mental gymnastics. The article literally used "a white man threatened their black neighbors with a knife and said Trump would fix them" is support that "Trump incited violence." Where? Where is the incited violence? Do you know what incited means? I've asked you to take a quote from the article that you provided that demonstrates Trump inciting violence. But oddly enough, you didn't do that. Not a surprise. And parlor supports free speech, hate speech (usually, but not always) included. That doesn't mean they ENCOURAGE free speech, which is what you said earlier. Now you're backpedaling and saying the "condone" it. I guess this is your way of admitting you were wrong.
the literal point of the app was to make a space where regulations weren't in place so anyone could say anything. and when people have the freedom to say anything they want, they'll say the nastiest shit possible. it's basic psychology. so why would the creators of parler make an app with "no regulations on speech" other than to promote and condone hate speech. also, the article i sent you does not only show his incitement of violence, but how he is linked to it as well. stfu
So that oppressed people could have a voice. You do realize freedom of speech played a key role in the abolishemnt of slavery and the rights of gay people, right?
And let it be known you still have quoted Trump inciting violence
who tf are the oppressed people lmao. its white privileged people who had all of the people they wanted representing them in government. stfu
Oh so we should not have free speech until someone IS oppressed? Then we flip the free speech switch on or something? Also, do you have an ounce of civility in you? What's with all this "stfu" and "you're an idiot and a piece of shit" stuff. It's very childish.
aww did you're feelings get hurt? white people have never been oppressed, ever, in history. they have historically been the oppressors and now, mature white people can own up to the things that their ancestors have historically done and work for change, while immature victimizers sit there and call themselves oppressed.
My feelings certainly haven't been hurt. I'm 25. Like I said, you're being very childish, and if you think childish antics can hurt the feelings of an adult, then I think that speaks volumes to your mental caliber.And that's debatable and it's also not the point. Free speech is an important tool to have, so Parler made a platform with it in mind (and for the record, they didn't make to specifically for white people, so the point you're making about white people never having been oppressed doesn't refute any notions about Parler's validity).
you specifically said in one of your replies that parler was made "So that oppressed people could have a voice." what oppressed people are you even talking about? racists? homophobes? transphobes? yea, that speech was banned so that people could use twitter, facebook, and more without feeling like there was a group of people that hated them for literally being their identity. it's so selfish of you to call these people "oppressed" when you know that the majority of the users of parler are white alt-right racists that need a platform because their toxic garbage isn't tolerated anywhere else, and then you get mad when big companies call them out on their bullshit.
You're incorrect. You asked me "why would the creators of Parler make an app with 'no regulations on speech' other than to promote and condone hate speech" of which my answer was "so that oppressed people could have a voice." I didn't say "Parler was made for it" you asked me why someone would implement free speech, and I gave a reason. Not to mention, even if parler WAS made specifically for oppressed people, if non-oppressed people join it, does that mean it wasn't made for oppressed people? Your logic is all over the place. What you're saying is akin to someone saying "since people use lead pipes to kill people, lead pipes were made to be used as a weapon." Just because someone uses your creation in a way that you didn't intend, doesn't mean your creation was intended for however those people are using it.
don't act stupid. you know exactly why parler was founded. if it's "to give everyone a voice" why is Rebekah Mercer, a raging conservative, the co-founder of this app? and why is the demographic of this app white-conservatives? i appreciate you trying to play dumb so you don't look as bad as a person, but it doesn't work here.
I'm a conservative and I think everyone should have a voice. I'm not sure why you imply that can't be. And yes, currently, the people who are being banned from speaking are typically white conservatives. I'm sure that if the people who were being banned were Hispanic or gay, Parler's base would be different.
i'm saying people shouldn't have a voice when they use their platform for hate speech. what's so hard to understand
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Without mentioning the news, the press who were against him and people who made fun and silly cartoons about him...
So true. He's got four days left. Maybe he's got a surprise for us. I'd love to see Twitter and Facebook go under.
I'm not a U. S citizen and i never hated any U. S president before as much as i hate sleepy joe...Back to Bill Clinton, i was neutral!George W bush, i liked this man!Barrack Obama, well he wasn't bad!Donald Trump, he's the man and the leader, he loved his country and he truly wanted to make it great again!Now about joe biden, i don't like this man at all, not because he's a democrat, i look at the man and see his views and ideology about life than judge him and this guy is someone i never liked, it's just my opinion! Maybe others see him as a savior!
The funny thing is that he's Catholic and claims to be a strong believer while everything he does is against his church and the teachings of god!He was even kicked out by his own church, when he went to pray on his late son, people from his own church gathered and shouted that they do not want him to be a part in their community!We know who wants him! Only the lgbtq+ society and the radical feminists and all the other corrupt citizens whom he can benefit from his policies!
No one voted for Sleepy Joe, they just voted against Trump. We just got the worst president ever. I'm glad you like America and you like Trump. He tried to Make America Great Again, but they fought him every step of the way.
They probably sensed the devil inside him.
I do like America because it's a great country and no one can denies it!They called it the land of freedom and the land of opportunities...My uncle and his family lives there in Washington, DC but i felt sorry for them voting for biden and kamala harris!It's a disgrace! Anyways people are free and different from each other!I do agree with you that no one really voted for biden, they were going to vote for anyone or even to vote for satan as long as he's against trump!Joe biden said that muslims do cause any danger to his country, well look back at the european countries who welcomed the refugees, what happened? Act of terrorism day yes, day no! The majority of terror groups are led by fanatic islamists...I'm not saying that muslims are all like that but we can't deny the fact that are a lot of fanatic muslims who cause a threat to the foreign countries that they are in!He said that the American schools should teach more about islams religion, it made me laugh! Like wth man, 1st let them teach the bible than teach them some islam, is there any muslim country who teaches christianity? NO! so just stop brushing and scrubbing just to appear as a saint on the media and so that you get support from outside!When president trump held the bible in his hand in front of the church, biden sent him a message where he said "you should read what the bible says instead of just holding it and not knowing what's inside it" as if he knows what's inside it since all his policies and his ideology contradicts what's in the bible!
They said trump is a womenizer, can't you see actions of pervy joe? A pedophile touching every woman he sees without mentioning that he likes women's hair in which he appears caressing women's hair in many of his photos at this age! 😏If i'll continue, the list would be endless, but people wanted to search or even make up stories on Trump just because they hate him while when it comes to biden they chose to be blind and even if they saw something wrong, they'll just make excuses for it or pretend that it ain't exists at all!
The left wing media will be praising and kissing Joe's ass for the next four years. Joe could decide to build a second wall, and the media would say how great of an idea it is.
All conservatives should dump their accounts and wait for something else to come along. And it should be a web site, because you can't trust Apple and Google. If you make an app, they can just pull it like they did Parler.
Websites are apps, it's all the same thing. It wasn't getting pulled from the app store that killed Parler.Parler fucked up by hosting all their servers with Amazon and so when Amazon pulled the plug the site just disappeared. If it was just the app store then they would just have a download link on their website and everyone would get the app from there or use the website like normal. They would have taken a hit, but would have been okay eventually -- especially with the Twitter purge going on. But again, the Amazon thing is what killed them. Not sure they can comeback from that.
A website is different from an app. And the Google play store pulled the app, and I heard that Apple did also. And I know about Amazon. All three things happened. And another guy on this thread agreed with me that they're going to have to make a website. Google and Apple can't touch that. And that guy mentioned a company that's offered to host them.
The website and the app were not different here. You could already access Parler through their site before. So they already had a website. They're going to need to make a *new* website is the thing.I worry that even if they get new hosting, I'm not sure people just come back and build up their following all over again. It probably depends on what Trump chooses to use in the near-future.
OK, so it must have been like GAG. I'm on there website right now. I don't usually use the app unless I have to. If Parler makes the site, then I'm sure conservatives will have to choice but to switch to it. Twitter is going to be silencing way more than Trump.
And yet the kept the Ayatollah of Iran who Slaughters gays and women.
Yeah, I guess there isn't enough public outrage over this, I suppose. Does the Ayatollah post about slaughtering gays and women in his feed? Genuine question since I don't have Twitter.
That and him wanting to kill all Jews.
Oh yeah, they should definitely ban him then.
I agree, it's so stupid.
we should switch to chinese sites. they won't ban us if we disagree with their ideology. yes they will probably spy on us but well... facebook, twitter, google and the nsa definitely already spy on us anyway, so that's not much better.
That's interesting. I didn't now they had sites for this. And, yeah, Google knows what I had for breakfast.
yeah and the nsa knows every single thing you ever said on the phone.
One day Google said I'll arrive at work in 20 minutes. I didn't think anything of it at first, and then it hit me. How the fuck does Google know where I work?
your phone has internet and gps. not only google knows where you work. also the network service providers, cause by your phone constantly trying to find the strongest signal of multiple sources, they can triangulate your position very precisely at any time.
So you think the damage is done, and there won't be more losses for them because of this?
Nah, it's not the damage. They will bounce up in a couple months. This is like fluctuations. They don't mean anything.
That would require Biden to take the lead on this, and he's right in the swamp with them.
So Twitter is at approximately the level they hit in the beginning of December, Facebook at about the end of September and Snapchat at about the begin of January 2021. They’ll all be fine
That's a good video. I've never even heard of Rumble. I'll have to check it out.
Wow, that would be like Budweiser saying that men were scum. Real bright. I just heard Jack Dorsey say that a lot more people were going to be banned from Twitter, and this was going to go on for a long time. Welcome to communism.
Well they are shooting themselves in the foot.There are a lot less snowflakes than normal people.
They needed to do this to help usher in the new world order. Some ding dong on CNN said that Republicans need to be sent to reprogramming camps.
Ted Cruise asked the CEO of Twitter if they have an effect on elections and he said, no. Fucking liar.
everybody knows it. Even Uganda. That's why they just banned Twitter and all social media until after their election, because they were attempting to effect the election directly. lol. They're in a lot of trouble.
Jack Dorsey is interesting because he wants a decentralized media and supports the ethos of bitcoin... yet he pulled this Trump ban. I don’t get it lol
I wish we could have done that in the US.
@Not_Average And how is it OK to have a monopoly?
I’m not agreeing with their decision. Trust me. I’m working on decentralized protocols using blockchain technology right now to combat again tyranny like this. Parler just got an offer from the co-founder of Ethereum to host their platform on. I think blockchain and decentralization is our only chance to fight this. Jack Dorsey is just interesting because he’s contradicting himself so much.
@Not_Average If that company hosts Parler, won't it only work for people who already have the app? Because both app stores pulled it.
It’s a decentralized protocol. It’s not an app. It’s like a world computer that developers build projects on. Amazon shut down their servers/cloud and that powers their entire platform. Ethereum can host. As far as the apps, well they’re going to have to only be a web page based platform for a while.
What do you mean about "moral?"
Agreed. It would be different if they were holding everyone accountable, but they're not. I'm sure Maxine Waters still has her accounts in tact.
Same with all of the BLM and Antifa accounts that they used to organize the riots.
And those groups talking about killing cops.
Even a crappy lawyer could win this in court for Trump.
They value who they value. They fake as hell.
I thought we had monopoly laws in this country.
Well, there SHOULD be an antitrust investigation, but we are no longer a nation of laws due to Democratic corruption and control of the federal bureaucracy and law enforcement agencies. Also, don't forget that Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer threatened Supreme Court justices last year, and it's unlikely that was the only time, so we can't count on an independent judiciary, especially not the far left ideologues appointed mostly by Democratic presidents.
And amazingly, the brain-dead sheep in the world and on this site, just worry about Trump's hair. Fucking idiots.
They are useful idiots for the CCP and the Democratic oligarchs and politicians, but's that's only part of the story.
I seriously doubt there will ever be another legitimate election again in America. A smart guy yesterday told me that both sides wants term limits. I challenged him to ask the question on here, but he didn't. I told him that he's dreaming. The people are too dumb to want term limits. Chuck and Nancy are counting on the sheep to be good sheep. I'm debating whether or not to ask myself, but I know it will be a shit show. They will mostly be against term limits.
Many others on Twitter did and do the same thing and they get to stay. I just read a story that countries all over the world are mad about this, because hate groups all over the world haven't been banned.
Well someone in the office controlling this is not doing their job. If I violate anything on Instagram my account will be deleted. Now, I have one strike and learned before but some people make mistakes over and over and never learn. They’re back up with a new account.
The Ayatollah of Iran wants to murder all the Jews, and they didn't ban his accounts.
Must be working together and may be biased against Jews.
Groups on Twitter can also call for killing cops, and they don't get banned.
Depends who is running the site and who is in charged. Some people get away with murder and others don’t. We can't always have it our way. Though it is for the greater good.
We need more competition in social media.
They have always been a complete scam. Now they own the government.
I already did my part to defund them.
What does Elon hate about Facebook?
I don't know but he even deleted the pages of his companies from on there.
I'll have to look into it.
Like that one time he said global warming was manufactured by the Chinese so they can make manufacturing non competitive
I don't even know what that mean, but if you can find a link, I'd love to find out what it means. LOL
Pretty sure he deleted it but here’s an article about it lolll www.google.com/.../...rump-climate-change.amp.html
He never deleted it, Twitter deleted him.OK, this is what he meant. Everyone knows the climate changes, and it's been doing that for billions of years. What Trump is calling a hoax, is that politicians think that they can fix it. They can't. But America will crack down on companies, and put many restrictions on them. But China won't do that, because they don't give a shit about the climate. Therefore, they will have a great manufacturing advantage over us. And in reality, American don't give a shit about climate change, because they keep buying stuff made in China, who's polluting the world. And not only that, Americans just move their companies to China, so they don't have to give a crap about polluting the world. So, I agree with what Trump said.
Chinese are actually doing more for environment conservation these last few years more than America ever did lol try to sound smart at least if you aren't xD
@RohitLakra Don't make me fucking laugh. China along with Indonesia and India are the worlds top ocean polluters. Yet we were paying out the most to other countries for that Paris summit bullshit. Were not the world's piggy bank and Trump was trying to get people to realize that but y'all wanted to vote for the asshole who will put us right back into that position.
I would love to see all conservatives dump them.
And most are too stupid to see it.
Because they're anti free speech
What was the tweet that got him canned? Or was it multiple?
No clue, they just said he called for the riots, which he didn't
So do I. Their reason for dumping him is complete bullshit. They need to pay for this.
Sued for what?
Using their site to incite a riot. Which leads to murder...
People keep asking for someone to provide the quote of that, and so far no one has.
Quote of what?
What did he say to incite violence?
Go to the Capitol (like five times), use strength not weakness, fight for your country or lose it.
To a liberal reading that quoteGo=destroyStrength=violence
I would love to see you go into court and get a jury to agree with you that that language incited anyone. Kamala, Maxine Waters have said much worse. And what about the Ayatollah of Iran? Did he lose his Twitter account for want to kill all the Jews?
That’s what trials are for. Maybe liberals are smarter...
LOL. You can twist that into whatever you want. And I don't know who those people were who stormed the Capitol, and neither do you.
You don’t believe the audio of them shouting “stop the steal” and footage of them waving Trump flags?
He's still going to claim that Trump incited violence and that BLM protests were absolutely peaceful
@marish01 Blm protests didn’t burn down buildings. Rioters did. Your inability to grasp this is worrying.
Were those rioters alliens that came to earth to give a bad name to blm activists? I'm curious when you will stop acting stupid. Don't pretend that you don't understand that the violence during the protests were comitted BLM activists
Trump supporters didn't storm the Capitol, rioters did. LOL
@marish01 They can twist the words into anything they want. I would have much more respect for Twitter and Facebook if they just say they hated Trump.
@marish01 He understands, and he's just acting as dumb as Jerry Nadler. Jerry said that the 4 months of daily rioting in Portland was a myth.
@asker They not only hate Trump but also conservatives. I have seen many political pages on insta that have been taken down because they were conservative.I have no doubt that they rigged the election because their hatred is big enough to do that.They have that so many pretty things just to rain Trump's reputation. They couldn't because trump have too many supporters and then they decided to rig the election.
If Obama called for BLM to “show strength” and then they rioted you’d call his hanging.
@marish01 Anyone with a brain agrees that BLM and Antifa have been rioting for a year, and the election was rigged. The establishment hates that Trump isn't corrupt, so they needed to get rid of him. They needed someone they could control, so they chose dementia Joe. No one wanted him in the primaries. I did a poll on this very site, and overwhelming the left wanted Tulsi. So how did Biden win?
The left wants to convince us that what we saw was not real. They want to convince us that b l m didn't burn buildings when we saw them burn buildings.
"If Obama called for BLM to “show strength” and then they rioted you’d call his hanging."No, I'm a conservative, not a liberal. I'd be calling for the hanging of the people who did it. And that's what you should be calling for. Just like if a black guy gets killed by a cop, I'd be calling for the cop to be put in prison. I sure the fuck wouldn't condone morons burning down thousands of businesses. That's the difference.
@marish01 I love that news clip where you can see the rioting and burning in the background, but the moronic CNN reporter is looking into the camera and saying it's a peaceful protest.
"Blm protests didn’t burn down buildings. Rioters did. "Trump supporters didn't storm the Capitol, rioters did. LOL"👍🏻
I have talked to many liberals they have tried to convince me that blm didn't burn buildings even after I provided them links of them burning buildings.Do you think they will not rig the election in 2024 again?
@marish01 You gotta fight fire with fire. :)
They are not fire they are disaster
@marish01 I don't think we'll even have elections anymore. What could we do about it if they just let Kamala just run again without an election?
@marish01 That's true.
Nothing. Governmrnt can do whatever it wants. Just like instagram can ban whoever they want
@marish01 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook are banning conservatives. I just learned their was a Twitter alternative called, Parler, but Apple removed it from their app store, and so did Google. And Amazon played a role in shutting it down. It was said to be conservative friendly, so the had to get rid of it. That's why I posted this question. I want people to know that they are cutting their own throats. The left now controls all branches of government, and most all the news outlets, and all Social Media. Welcome to the new communist America. And what I find funny is, why the hell would the government give any of those freebies out? They no longer need those useful idiot votes.
You two are getting along.
You do realize you're useless here.
@marish01 i agree, I gave up teaching special ed a long time ago.
The government should use sanctions for violating the 1st amendement. Only at that time big Tech will start respecting different views.
@marish01I know he couldn't answer this question, but why is the left trying so hard to deny the existence of Antifa, and the rioting? I realize that many people are far to stupid to realize that BLM has nothing to do with black lives mattering, so I'll leave them out of it. Why would the left want rioting, looting and businesses burnt to the ground. Hmmmm What could it be?
Omg, we never deny the rioting, and can’t condemn it enough, dummies. Jeez.
I saw how a BLM Supporter insulted my black follower because he's not conservative. And I have seen many Commons where BLM supporters called black conservatives disgrace of their race. I also had a conversation with a blm supporter who said that any conservative black person who supports Trump deserves to die.
You mean YOU, not WE. I've seen tons of people deny it, just like Jerry Nadler, dummy.
You have been praising rioting and violence during the floyd's protests. It's just recently you decided that violence is not a good thing. Why? Because now violence doesn't benefit you
@marish01 And yet the left supports these terrorists. It's absolutely insane.
Because those terrorists belong to the same cult. People who belong to a cult always justify the most insane wrong doings of the members of the cult.
@marish01 I predict that the rioting is going to get way worse, then they'll dump Biden, and Kamala will throw all the rioters in prison. She loved and supported them when they were making Trump look bad, but she'll not tolerate that shit when she's the president. I also predict she's going to crack down on illegal aliens, because she no longer needs their votes. And if we ever have elections again, no one will be allowed to question the outcome.
@marish01 And that dummy claims that no one denied the riots were happening. MSNBC never even covered them. To them it was all peaceful protests.
Which liberal media condemned riots? LolThey only condemned the attack of the capitol
@marish01 And when Kamala praised the rioters and tried to get them bailed out, Twitter and Facebook didn't do shit. When I ask idiots on this site how they know who it was that stormed the Captitol, they give me some crap about the flags they had with them. I just can't imagine what it's like to be that stupid.
I think in their case stupidity is a mental disorder. When Trump said fight for your rights liberals said it means burn the capital
@marish01 It's so stupid and petty. I hope Biden gets impeached and Nancy gets hit by a bus.
They will not impeach biden or harris.Senate house and congress belong to demoncraps
@marish01 True. So I wonder how Kamala is going to get rid of Joe.
When I 1st saw her that was when she accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.From that moment I hated her.
@marish01 I think that was the most embarrassing political stunt in US history. Never before in history was a person guilty until proven innocent. I hope all of those assholes rot in hell. Oh, and when I mentioned Biden getting impeached, what I met was, the Republicans should start talking about it right now. And they should also say that Russia was meddling in the election and trying to get Joe elected.
Even in the most underdeveloped countries guilty until innocent doesn't have a place in courts.Conservative say that the election was with the liberal say that they deserve to get banned from social accounts for spreading lies. To liberals if you accuse them of crimes and wrongdoings regardless of whether they actually have committed them or not then you ought to shut up otherwise they will do their best to silence you
Rigged not with *I used speech to text.
@marish01 Oh, they're going to be absolute snakes after the 20th. And Joe will have zero say in the new agenda. And the only chance Kamala has in becoming the president, it to push Joe off a cliff. Because Joe won't be able to do a second term, and I think that will mean they will have to have a primary. And no one wanted Kamala in the last primary, and I really think no one will want the pit viper in four years.
2nd term?If only they succesfully rig the election again
@marish01 They will rig them all from now on, because there's no one to stop them. They're working really hard to to get FOX taken off the air. If that happens they will control it all. Impeaching Trump twice, rigging the election and now silencing conservatives, is probably going to get us into a civil war.
Good work girls!
I hope so.
I hope Parler wins the lawsuit, and all the conservatives dump Twitter.
I dumped twitter a long time ago. It’s a cesspool
I dumped them all, and I just dumped Amazon prime for what they did to Parler.
I hope you're right.