Parler shuts down indefinitely

[Jill 31,812]

1 minute ago, TimisaMonster said:

Good but they'll just move on reddit or some other forum to talk and conspire...

Yeah and Reddit will shut their asses down like they are doing for the past few days.

[LaLuna 12,732]

3 minutes ago, ThisGuyTony said:

Imagine if they redirected all the effort to relaunch this stupid site into helping the nation’s homeless populations, underfunded schools, and containing the virus. 

But you forget, the virus is either a hoax or no more dangerous than the common flu 

[Queen Bitch 10,513]

13 minutes ago, Jill said:

With every time they shut down one platform, the less users will migrate to another one. Eventually, there'll be no more far-right agitators willing to put on the work of signing up yet again (much less going to the dark web, which is pretty far from a casual internet user's grasp). That's the first thing.

The second thing is that Amazon, Google, and Twitter are all privately held companies (stock has nothing to do here, they're still private), and if they reached the conclusion that not hosting these kind of platforms is better for business, they are free, under capitalism, to shut them down for breach of contract. That's what they did, and they may or may not consider your point of "you can't keep shutting them down", but reached the correct conclusion that to not shut them down is the worst option. For two reasons: first of all, the paradox of tolerance, which other user already explained through an image here, and second of all, these people will not just stay within Parler (or an alternative) and just keep it to themselves there. That's not their objective. Their objective is to spread conspiracy theories at best, and to install a new world order at worst. Doesn't matter if you believe they're capable of doing that or not, that doesn't mean it isn't their objective, and I think many of the comments and personalities of the people that sign up to these kind of websites signal that that being their objective is quite evident.

If you don't shut them down, you'll end up with more problems than choosing the contrary: you'll be hosting (in Amazon's case, for example) a website full of hatred, discrimination, and unfounded claims that not only is in direct violation with everything you want the world to see when they see your company, but that is actively planning for real-world attacks to undermine real-world institutions. Does that sound like people who will just stay put if you let them have a platform? I don't think so. 

I mean, I'll admit that is some great points. There are some things I did not consider.

In the end it is up to businesses what they want to do. Big tech can ban anyone they want. I fully believe that, make no mistake about that. 

17 minutes ago, Jill said:

And lastly, but not least (and sorry for referencing another one of your comments) but I happen to remember a thread where we were encouraged to post our desktop and browser wallpapers and you posted the image of a yellow and black flag and said that that was your browser background, if I'm not mistaken. Is there any chance you identify yourself as an anarcho-capitalist? Since that flag is traditionally related to that ideology. If that's not the case, sorry, I'm mistaken, but if it is, don't you think it is a little counterproductive to criticize the decisions of private companies when private companies are the ones who decide virtually everything in the system you desire to live in? 

I consider myself a libertarian. And no I don't think it is counterproductive to criticize decisions made by private companies. I support their right to make any decision they want, but I don't think that I have to like their decisions or can't criticize it. Social media absolutely has a right to ban anyone they want to, but are you really going to tell me that just because I support that, it means that I cannot criticize their reasons for banning someone? And I'm not referring to the crackdown on alt-righters here, but business decisions in general. If I were to be banned on social media for being a libertarian, I would think that would be very strange. But even though I may disagree with their decision, I still support their right to make it. 

[PunkTheFunk 125,719]

32 minutes ago, Jill said:

With every time they shut down one platform, the less users will migrate to another one. Eventually, there'll be no more far-right agitators willing to put on the work of signing up yet again (much less going to the dark web, which is pretty far from a casual internet user's grasp). That's the first thing.

They don't even need the internet though. Word of mouth, be it through text messages or phone calls is more than enough to wreak havoc. How else were mobs/riots organized before the internet? 

[Jill 31,812]

3 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

I consider myself a libertarian. And no I don't think it is counterproductive to criticize decisions made by private companies. I support their right to make any decision they want, but I don't think that I have to like their decisions or can't criticize it. Social media absolutely has a right to ban anyone they want to, but are you really going to tell me that just because I support that, it means that I cannot criticize their reasons for banning someone? And I'm not referring to the crackdown on alt-righters here, but business decisions in general. If I were to be banned on social media for being a libertarian, I would think that would be very strange. But even though I may disagree with their decision, I still support their right to make it. 

By libertarian, I'm assuming a right-wing libertarian, is that correct? If you agree with the existence of private companies, then I think I'm assuming correctly. First of all, I'm not saying that because you believe social media has the right to ban people that you shouldn't be able to criticize their reasons, you should be able to do so, but I believe that, if the State didn't exist, and if private companies were to absorb the role the State has today, that criticism to the choices a company makes will be heavily restricted depending on the size of the company, since the bigger the company, the bigger chance you'll end up being employed by them, consuming their products, etc. Under capitalism, I think it's hypocritical to start criticizing the right for private companies to decide this stuff, but if we leave capitalism to the side, if we think about the possibility of private companies not existing, of centralized, proprietary products reigning our communications not being able to do so anymore, then I think the decision-making ability of today's companies is unjustified. With that being said, the bottom line: it's okay if you believe that and if you reserve the right to criticize them for it nevertheless, but I don't think that right will translate well in a world where the State doesn't exist.  

[Jill 31,812]

7 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

They don't even need the internet though. Word of mouth, be it through text messages or phone calls is more than enough to wreak havoc. How else were mobs/riots organized before the internet? 

It will be much harder, though, and the other side will have the upper hand because internet connection makes organization way way easier.

[27monster27 15,922]

1 hour ago, TheAlexer said:

 

This is a really good example of the issues at hand. Thank you for posting this.

[Chromatican 4,046]

Lol, so much for this Republikkkan “safe space”