Apparently Bart Hanson hates free speech (Parler and Twitter censorship issue)

Bart just outright celebrated Parler going down and basically has condoned corporate censorship. I’m saddened and disgusted. Look I may disagree vehemently with people but when you embrace corporate crony censorship it’s a sad day. I might also add if you have any semblance of actual supporting free speech be prepared to give up your Apple products. They apparently are threatening to remove Parler from the App Store and disable any ability to use the app on iPhone or iPad. Again disagree politically but this is not just disgusting it’s fucking scary that the corporate leftists have no muzzle and are declaring they now get to decide what political speech is acceptable and apparently anything that doesn’t follow the leftist political slant will not be tolerated or allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Bart just outright celebrated Parler going down and basically has condoned corporate censorship. I’m saddened and disgusted. Look I may disagree vehemently with people but when you embrace corporate crony censorship it’s a sad day. I might also add if you have any semblance of actual supporting free speech be prepared to give up your Apple products. They apparently are threatening to remove Parler from the App Store and disable any ability to use the app on iPhone or iPad. Again disagree politically but this is not just disgusting it’s fucking scary that the corporate leftists have no muzzle and are declaring they now get to decide what political speech is acceptable and apparently anything that doesn’t follow the leftist political slant will not be tolerated or allowed.

---

bart hanson is a huge faggot so no surprise he hates free speech

I don't think Bart hates free speech.

I think he was just fucking with Ashley, who is a big time Trump supporter.

On a side note, Ashley was on PFA Radio some years ago, and she came off very well. We didn't discuss politics, as the segment was about something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't think Bart hates free speech.

I think he was just fucking with Ashley, who is a big time Trump supporter.

On a side note, Ashley was on PFA Radio some years ago, and she came off very well. We didn't discuss politics, as the segment was about something else.

---

he is a huge liberal stooge faggot, Bart Hanson can suck a huge cock

Corporations, small business owners and individuals are not your first amendment keepers.
Take your bad ass nut case conversations down the road. Not everything is a conspiracy, it just appears that way to high school dropouts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Corporations, small business owners and individuals are not your first amendment keepers.
Take your bad ass nut case conversations down the road. Not everything is a conspiracy, it just appears that way to high school dropouts.

---

go drink yourself to death already you fucking drunk Canadian weirdo faggot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Corporations, small business owners and individuals are not your first amendment keepers.
Take your bad ass nut case conversations down the road. Not everything is a conspiracy, it just appears that way to high school dropouts.

---

Actually, some of them are.

This was decided before most of us were born, regarding the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and TV stations. This was eventually abandoned when it became antiquated, but the concept has been long established.

If a business becomes a major source of news and information for the public, the rules can be different than for others private businesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Corporations, small business owners and individuals are not your first amendment keepers.
Take your bad ass nut case conversations down the road. Not everything is a conspiracy, it just appears that way to high school dropouts.

---

Actually, some of them are.

This was decided before most of us were born, regarding the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and TV stations. This was eventually abandoned when it became antiquated, but the concept has been long established.

If a business becomes a major source of news and information for the public, the rules can be different than for others private businesses.

---

Social media platforms are not FCC licensed broadcasters as is the case with this forum. Please illustrate instances referred to in your last sentence.

isn't the going down (crashing) caused by increased volume beyond current capacity?

when Trump was banned from Twitter a few hours ago, his followers migrated to Parler, just as they migrated to NewsMax from Fox

i believe Hanson's celebration will be short lived provided Parler has the financing to expand

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

isn't the going down (crashing) caused by increased volume beyond current capacity?

when Trump was banned from Twitter a few hours ago, his followers migrated to Parler, just as they migrated to NewsMax from Fox

i believe Hanson's celebration will be short lived provided Parler has the financing to expand

---

Google already booted it from their app store, explicitly stating that until they moderate all the violent threats and permitting posts inciting violence and public safety threats, they won't be back. Apple gave them a 24 hour warning they wont comply with, and then they'll have basically no distribution for their app anymore other than from their own site, which cuts their user base down considerably.

I don't have an account on Parler, and don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

However, let's not pretend this isn't political.

Parler being banned from app stores and Twitter removing certain high-profile right wing accounts sends a clear message that only one ideology is welcome there.

You can't even say that Twitter is banning extremism, because they are only banning one side of the aisle. Their bias has been super-obvious for awhile now. The banning of the NY Post, and banning of all users sharing that Hunter Biden article, was particularly egregious. Even their explanation ("violation of hacked materials policy") was nonsense, because they were fully onboard with allowing the NY Times article about Trump's stolen tax info to be published.

Censorship of so-called "dangerous" people or ideologies is a really, really bad idea. "Dangerous ideas" has long been the excuse for ideological censorship in fascist regimes. The "private company" explanation is nonsense, because major social media has become the equivalent of a huge public square, and needs to be treated like one. Anything they suppress is very much censorship, even if it's not government-mandated.

Even the ACLU, which has become a lot more pro-censorship in recent years, isn't happy with this:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status...33211179343872

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't have an account on Parler, and don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

However, let's not pretend this isn't political.

Parler being banned from app stores and Twitter removing certain high-profile right wing accounts sends a clear message that only one ideology is welcome there.

You can't even say that Twitter is banning extremism, because they are only banning one side of the aisle. Their bias has been super-obvious for awhile now. The banning of the NY Post, and banning of all users sharing that Hunter Biden article, was particularly egregious. Even their explanation ("violation of hacked materials policy") was nonsense, because they were fully onboard with allowing the NY Times article about Trump's stolen tax info to be published.

Censorship of so-called "dangerous" people or ideologies is a really, really bad idea. "Dangerous ideas" has long been the excuse for ideological censorship in fascist regimes. The "private company" explanation is nonsense, because major social media has become the equivalent of a huge public square, and needs to be treated like one. Anything they suppress is very much censorship, even if it's not government-mandated.

---

Fuck you, you laughed at my countries version of free speech, meaning free speech without malice. You've been given plenty of opportunity to explain your position and you have not produced one bit of truth.
There is no free speech, there is no two dollar gallon of gas.
You get what you pay for and and when you pay nothing you better not complain.

---

Capatalism is just great on the drawing board. Let the market decide. The market has decided and
“we” are the losers

Your little society of individual wannabes is crumbling around you.
Is that not obvious?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

isn't the going down (crashing) caused by increased volume beyond current capacity?

when Trump was banned from Twitter a few hours ago, his followers migrated to Parler, just as they migrated to NewsMax from Fox

i believe Hanson's celebration will be short lived provided Parler has the financing to expand

---

Google already booted it from their app store, explicitly stating that until they moderate all the violent threats and permitting posts inciting violence and public safety threats, they won't be back. Apple gave them a 24 hour warning they wont comply with, and then they'll have basically no distribution for their app anymore other than from their own site, which cuts their user base down considerably.

---

Most people seemingly believe free speech means you can say whatever you want. You actually can’t, so says the Supreme Court. You’re smart so I’m sure it was no accident that you and Parler both pointed out “ violent threats and permitting posts inciting violence and public safety threats” aren’t allowed. Those types of things are NOT protected under the free speech umbrella. Parler is using free speech as a guise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly

Google already booted it from their app store, explicitly stating that until they moderate all the violent threats and permitting posts inciting violence and public safety threats, they won't be back. Apple gave them a 24 hour warning they wont comply with, and then they'll have basically no distribution for their app anymore other than from their own site, which cuts their user base down considerably.

---

Most people seemingly believe free speech means you can say whatever you want. You actually can’t, so says the Supreme Court. You’re smart so I’m sure it was no accident that you and Parler both pointed out “ violent threats and permitting posts inciting violence and public safety threats” aren’t allowed. Those types of things are NOT protected under the free speech umbrella. Parler is using free speech as a guise.

---

I've received violent threats on Twitter and Facebook. Both times, the user doing it wasn't banned.

Should they be deleted from the App Store?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Most people seemingly believe free speech means you can say whatever you want. You actually can’t, so says the Supreme Court. You’re smart so I’m sure it was no accident that you and Parler both pointed out “ violent threats and permitting posts inciting violence and public safety threats” aren’t allowed. Those types of things are NOT protected under the free speech umbrella. Parler is using free speech as a guise.

---

I've received violent threats on Twitter and Facebook. Both times, the user doing it wasn't banned.

Should they be deleted from the App Store?

---

If I was Apple, I’d understand there’s a line of demarcation. I personally believe Parler was created for the sole purpose of allowing or promoting these ideals. It’s a majority of their existence. Facebook and Twitter are both 90% people posting their kids playing soccer. Facebook does have rules against violence. They have steps they take against it. Probably inadequate steps but steps nonetheless. It’s wholly different when Parler is promoting it.

Is it your stance that no app should be removed irregardless of the content?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've received violent threats on Twitter and Facebook. Both times, the user doing it wasn't banned.

Should they be deleted from the App Store?

---

If I was Apple, I’d understand there’s a line of demarcation. I personally believe Parler was created for the sole purpose of allowing or promoting these ideals. It’s a majority of their existence. Facebook and Twitter are both 90% people posting their kids playing soccer. Facebook does have rules against violence. They have steps they take against it. Probably inadequate steps but steps nonetheless. It’s wholly different when Parler is promoting it.

Is it your stance that no app should be removed irregardless of the content?

---

My stance is that the standard should be applied fairly. Unless you can state that incitement or advocacy of violence is mostly thwarted on bigger apps, it's bullshit to remove a smaller app for this reason, especially if that isn't the primary focus of that app.

I don't believe Parler is a hate app which is characterized by a majority of violent content and outright racism. I think it probably has some of this stuff, much like the bigger platforms do.

For example, how much was Twitter and Facebook used over the summer to justify the violent riots going on? I saw a ton of it on my own feeds, so I can only imagine how much was on the entire platforms.

I don't think a left-wing version of Parler would have been removed. That's my problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsearles22

If I was Apple, I’d understand there’s a line of demarcation. I personally believe Parler was created for the sole purpose of allowing or promoting these ideals. It’s a majority of their existence. Facebook and Twitter are both 90% people posting their kids playing soccer. Facebook does have rules against violence. They have steps they take against it. Probably inadequate steps but steps nonetheless. It’s wholly different when Parler is promoting it.

Is it your stance that no app should be removed irregardless of the content?

---

My stance is that the standard should be applied fairly. Unless you can state that incitement or advocacy of violence is mostly thwarted on bigger apps, it's bullshit to remove a smaller app for this reason, especially if that isn't the primary focus of that app.

I don't believe Parler is a hate app which is characterized by a majority of violent content and outright racism. I think it probably has some of this stuff, much like the bigger platforms do.

For example, how much was Twitter and Facebook used over the summer to justify the violent riots going on? I saw a ton of it on my own feeds, so I can only imagine how much was on the entire platforms.

I don't think a left-wing version of Parler would have been removed. That's my problem.

---

Agree to disagree. I believe Parler is characterized by those things. And I believe a far left app would face likewise scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Corporations, small business owners and individuals are not your first amendment keepers.
Take your bad ass nut case conversations down the road. Not everything is a conspiracy, it just appears that way to high school dropouts.

---

Actually, some of them are.

This was decided before most of us were born, regarding the "Fairness Doctrine" on radio and TV stations. This was eventually abandoned when it became antiquated, but the concept has been long established.

If a business becomes a major source of news and information for the public, the rules can be different than for others private businesses.

---

Broadcasters use the RF spectrum which by law belongs to the people, and require licenses to operate. They are subject to regulation from the FCC. This is why they were able to implement the Fairness Doctrine.

At the present time social media are not regulated in the same way. That doesn't mean they can't be. If you want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, and apply it to Big Tech as well, that's not necessarily a bad idea if it holds up in court. An equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine that applied to newspapers was struck down by the court because newspapers do not use up a finite resource (RF spectrum), do not require licenses to operate, and are open to theoretically limitless competition. So you would expect a similar challenge from Big Tech.

Generally it was conservatives who were opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. It was Reagan's FCC that abolished it. The Democrats considered bringing it back about a decade ago, but Republicans opposed it because they saw it as an attack on right-wing talk radio. Would you like to see the Fairness Doctrine applied to Fox News?

We will not be stopped.