As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

from the that-did-not-take-long-at-all dept

Well, that did not take long at all. On Friday we predicted that just like every other social media platform out there, the new favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives, would start taking down content and shutting down accounts just like everyone else. Because, if you run any sort of platform that allows 3rd party speech, sooner or later you discover you have to do that. In Friday's post, we highlighted Parler's terms of service, which certainly allows for it to take down any content for any reason (we also mocked their "quick read on Wikipedia" style understanding of the 1st Amendment).

What we did not expect was that Parler would prove us right so damn quickly. Over the weekend, Parler was apparently busy taking down accounts.

And he was not the only one.

There's a lot more as well. Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what's not great is the site continues to pretend that it's some "free speech alternative" to Twitter when it's facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler's quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down "left" leaning accounts, but as with Twitter's content moderation, I won't say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.

What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he's joining Parler because it doesn't have "censorship," he's wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about "free speech." It's got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it's pretty silly for Parler's CEO to refer to Twitter as a "techno-fascist" company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that "If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York." (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.

As I've said before: I think competition is good. And, personally, I'd prefer there to be many more competitors (though, I wish they were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but...). So, I have nothing against Parler existing. In fact, I think it's an excellent demonstration of why the concerns about "dominance" by Twitter or other platforms is silly. It's possible to create alternatives, and Parler has shown that it's able to attract a bunch of users. At least for now.

But what no one should do, is think that Parler is somehow any more "pro-free speech" than Twitter is, or that it doesn't pull down content and accounts. Because it does.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bans, content moderation, free speech
Companies: parler


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:30pm

    The part you're missing is that it's only censorship if it silences speech you like. When speech you don't like is censored that's just common sense, silly. What are you, some sort of commie mutant traitor?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:34pm

      What are you, some sort of commie mutant traitor?

      Calm down, Senator Kelly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Orn Eagle, 30 Jun 2020 @ 3:12pm

        Re:

        All these commies bitching are Hillary strikers and Bite-Me lickers; can't you tell?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:26pm

      Re:

      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Elijah Smith, 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:24pm

      Re:

      No, it's just that libs and leftists are such dicks--like that "Respectable (oxy-moron) Lawyer" retard lol.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:29pm

        "libs and leftists are such dicks"

        And with that single line of text I can see exactly how you came to such a conclusion.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 5:41pm

        Re: Re:

        What are libs and leftists?
        Who are they, how do you tell?
        Does everyone use the same definitions?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Eikinkloster (profile), 8 Sep 2020 @ 5:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you need to ask, chances are you are it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Shawn Pittman, 7 Nov 2020 @ 7:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          People on the ‘left’ usually are pro-choice, for bigger govt, gun control, amnesty, open borders, and they are the one’s that call people racist, or homophobic. They watch MSNBC and CNN.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2020 @ 9:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            General stereotypes are fun and usually full of assumptions.

            Many who voted for Biden did so not because they like neocons, but because they realize Donald is a dictator wannabe and is running a slow motion coup - or at least trying very poorly.

            Now, if one were to ask a liberal lefty whatever your derogatory term of choice my be, I doubt that any one particular person would hold all of those stated opinions.

            Not all weapons are owned by right wing conservative types.
            Amnesty for what?

            I like the bigger government thing - that is a laugh and a half. Conservative are for small government when they are not in control, otherwise it is open flood gates.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Bobbybrownbb, 11 Nov 2020 @ 5:31pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              We also know they're leftist when they call Trump a dictator but can't think of dictator policy signed by Trump

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Nov 2020 @ 9:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It's hazardous to presume that a person's behavior or position defines who they are.

                As for Trump's dictatorial policy, his declaration of a national emergency due to alleged invaders from the southern border (id est, immigrants and refugees) was pretty dictatorial, as was the re-appropriation of funds from schools for military children and for maintaining harbors in order to build his wall. But then the whole wall program was typical of an tyrant who governs based on whimsy rather than research into state affairs.

                Then there's the whole thing of selling access to himself to foreign powers through his hotels and clubs. Profiteering off of one's position as head of state is pretty dictatorial.

                Then there's the nepotism within the White House, going as far as giving his kids security clearances for which they did not qualify (and are and remain a national security risk.) That's classic dictatorial material right there.

                Oh yes, and leaving Puerto Rico without relief after Hurricane Dorian was a dick move, the kind for which usually one has to be a banana-republic dictator to pull. But that may more be an indictment of how low the US has fallen in letting Trump get elected in the first place.

                Whether you can't think of Trump's dictatorial maneuvers, Bobbybrownbb or you choose to ignore them, it's terrifying either way. That you don't bother to look that crap up demonstrates your own indifference to your civic responsibility, but that's not unique to you, and again is an indictment of our nation.

                But that's not the only thing not unique to you. More than seventy million other Americans appear voted for Trump even after he botched the COVID-19 response (and continues to do so). Moreover our Republican Senators can't seem to scrape together an ounce of personal integrity, but that's a natural outcome of allowing an elected President serve as a dictator.

                It's the crimes against humanity that break my heart, not that Trump did them and is not (yet) held accountable, but that such a mass of American population are perfectly okay with the kids left orphaned and the Kurds left to be massacred and the Muslim ban.

                I don't know why people like you can't recognize the intrinsic hazards that come with tolerating our fascist police state and our captured federal government, as we're all on the purge list (unless you're buddies with a billionaire).

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2020 @ 2:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Clear and concise, thanks

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 5 Dec 2020 @ 2:54pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  fag

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2020 @ 4:21am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You regurgitated all that is msm. Wow. Not a single original thought.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Dec 2020 @ 12:32pm

                    Mainstream media

                    Not a single original thought

                    Of course not. I'm not here for the art. The facts color President Trump as a dictator-wannabe. I'm not making shit up or coming to conclusions that were not come to by countless others, both in the mainstream media sector and out.

                    Also, just because someone you don't respect says a thing doesn't make it false or true. It just means you don't respect it as a data source.

                    I get my data from multiple sources, which means if you give a fuck, you can confirm it yourself with a couple of websearches.

                    Or not, because you're comfortable in your data bubble and you're too afraid to see things that might stress your worldview.

                    That is cowardice, incidentally, and makes you exactly the kind of chump that Trump likes to exploit.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 3:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Exactly what has Trump done that would make you call him a dictator? Or is it just policy that you don’t agree with? Nothing he has done would reflect a dictator.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 4:23pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Whelp, you can add instigating a coup d'etat to the list of dictatory actions by President Trump. Elizabeth from Knoxville Tennessee, believed she was participating in a coup and got a facefull of pepper spray for her involvement.

                    Feel free to actually look up what Trump has done, starting with the Muslim Ban.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      nobody, 11 Jan 2021 @ 7:40am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      I see idiocy on both sides in this comment section, but how the hell was this a coup? Thousands were there that had nothing to do with it (the same rational separated BLM protesters from rioters all year who did much worse, now it doesn't apply I guess). Trump told everyone early to go home and they banned him. And now this article looks real dated since everyone has banned Parler (Twitter is a competitor to a Parler while Google and Amazon are a provider, all 3 of whom operated in unison just now).

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jan 2021 @ 2:26pm

                        "How the hell was this a coup?"

                        Keep on the news. More evidence is uncovered every day.

                        Though the whole stop the process that will remove our guy from office thing totally makes it antagonistic to the current transfer of power. Ergo, a coup d'etat.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          nobody, 11 Jan 2021 @ 4:03pm

                          Re: "How the hell was this a coup?"

                          Evidence of what? And that definition doesn't fit for a coup, otherwise you could say that of anyone who challenges the vote of an election (which is absolutely allowed by the constitution, and it would be typical of those wanting power to label those challenges as a coup). But if you want to remove all context and discretion and go by the dictionary, well then there have been dozens of coup attempts this year that went unchecked. And as far as "evidence", while it was certainly NEARLY ALL Trump supporters who broke in, there were some notable exceptions, and were finding out that the capital police were oddly unprepared for potential escalations when compared to many other (and much smaller) protest gatherings. It was a travesty and absolutely should be called out as a riot, but not some organized insurrection, not even close. It's fine to not like Trump, I get it, but NO ONE should be in support of these opportunistic, Orwellian actions being taken in response (be they legal or not).

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jan 2021 @ 7:17pm

                            Re: Re: "How the hell was this a coup?"

                            anyone who challenges the vote of an election (which is absolutely allowed by the constitution) [would be a coup d'etat]

                            The Constitution doesn't allow for military or violent challenges to the election. Litigation, yes. Strong-arm assault, no. The Wednesday assault was violent. New revelations are showing it was significantly violent. Discussions on Parler have revealed that there were directions to use force. Materials brought by the raiding crowd indicate an intent to use deadly force.

                            Not just the pipe bombs.

                            Complain here all you like, but judges and juries will decide if the attack should be described as a coup d'etat, and what an appropriate punishment should be.

                            It's a good thing there are tons of photos and video footage.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              nobody, 12 Jan 2021 @ 4:23am

                              Re: Re: Re: "How the hell was this a coup?"

                              My line about the constitution was in response to your secondary definition of a coup. Yes, OF COURSE a violent takeover would count, but if the sheer amount of people involved and the level of organization is not taken into account at all, then SEVERAL local coup attempts have happened the past (yes I said local, clearly for the whole country, the scale would need to go up). It's funny you say "military or violent" as that sounds like we both know what a coup ACTUALLY looks like. The soviet coup in '91 involved tanks, for god's sake, with military and political leaders, not people getting high or being half-naked with horns (and again, a couple were either antifa or BLM, weird company for this organized assault by Trump supporters). But fine, there were some who were armed and some explosives found, and individuals organization what TO THEM was coup, for sure. But again, if that's the standard then all those who used Twitter and Facebook to organize attacks over the past year should either be charged or have their existing charges elevated.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Jan 2021 @ 1:19pm

                                Patience is paying off

                                Yesterday's word of the day was premeditation. Also the Parler videos with GPS tags in or near the raid (time and place) are now accessible to the public.

                                It's looking less and less like a protest and more like a coup d'etat with every hour.

                                📺🍿

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Jose D, 18 Jan 2021 @ 6:50am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      According to the lefftards not all the Muslim are bad but all the Trumpers are Terorrist ! Who,s side is burning and looting , wreck the national flag all this years?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 18 Jan 2021 @ 12:40pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        According to the lefftards not all the Muslim are bad but all the Trumpers are Terorrist !

                        No one is saying that all Trump supporters are terrorists. Just that an alarmingly large number of them appear to at least want to be terrorists and that the people who stormed inside the capital last week were Trump-supporting terrorists.

                        Who,s side is burning and looting , wreck the national flag all this years?

                        The alt-right and some dissatisfied blacks, generally after being assaulted in the latter case. Well, actually, I don’t know of anyone wrecking the national flag, not that it matters as that is protected speech so I don’t care.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2021 @ 4:32pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          2020 ELECTION WAS RIGGED ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THEIR RALLYIES TO SEE A TRUMP RALLY IS LIKE GOING TO WOODSTOCK, A biden rally is like going to a funeral

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            bhull242 (profile), 27 Jan 2021 @ 3:05pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Rally sizes are not a reliable indicator of election results, especially during a time when many voters, especially on one side, are fearful of catching a highly infectious disease and both they and the people organizing the rallies for that side are taking precautions (like social distancing) to reduce the spread of said disease. And that’s not getting into the fact that a lot of people who voted to elect Biden were doing so not because they like Biden or were Democrats (the type of people who’d attend Biden’s rallies) but because they dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 27 Jan 2021 @ 4:24pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Yeah, according to Politico and FiveThirtyEight Trump voters really like the racist dog whistles (more accurately, the racist dog tubas). So while I went to great lengths to give Trump voters the benefit of doubt, yeah, it turns out I was wrong and they just mostly (over 90%) want to purge the brown people.

                        They still do in 2020.

                        Incidentally, now that the FBI's arresting Boogaloo Bois for burning and looting during BLM demonstrations, Trump's own people have contributed to the ambiguity regarding violence during demonstrations. BLM demonstrations are still unlikely to be violent, even when the police go in, guns and grenade-launchers blazing.

                        Just like the civil rights, the left doesn't have to do anything before law enforcement opens hostilities. Only now, smartphones with cameras are ubiquitous. And they're streaming to the internet, and being watched. We don't have news agencies as a gateway anymore (and boy are they pissed off over it).

                        So maybe look at the videos and face the truth, if you dare. The FBI has already determined white supremacists and far right nationalists are the greatest terror threat in the US.

                        I bet they're looking for recruits, if you're interested.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2021 @ 4:45pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          you are a fucking moron.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Uriel-238 (profile), 6 Jun 2021 @ 10:59pm

                            Fucking morons

                            That's what US Secretary of State Tillerson called Trump in a moment of candor. We can't be sure that was the last straw that motivated Tillerson's ouster. Rumor has it Tillerson had written his resignation already and Pence convinced him to hold out a bit longer.

                            I suspect fucking moron is a prerequisite to work for Trump, To be a MAGA or a Q... or a Proud Boy. FBI plants must me losing their goddamn minds saturated in and forced to mimic the banality.

                            But I get the implication and appreciate it. As a youngster, I too yearned for a cause in which the bad guys wore black hats and the good guys wore white. I, too yearned for a cause greater than myself. But then I had to face the horrifying revelation that sides are what we take in hours of desperation and scarcity. And the ones painted to be the culprits is not the ones on the propaganda posters.

                            Besides which, everything Trump stands for, everything his MAGAs and Qs and goon squads stand for is contrary to the promise of the United States. And contrary to societal fundamentals I would argue are essential in a modern nation. So no thank you. I'm glad you didn't ask outright.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 8 Jan 2021 @ 5:07pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    He’s tried to discredit the media, fired anyone who doesn’t do exactly what he says, favors loyalty to him over loyalty to the country or the law, has tried to shut down investigations into him or his cronies, claimed to have absolute power, calls for law and order while holding himself to be above the law, claimed that the election was rigged if he wasn’t elected, and instigated an attempted coup to keep him in power. He may not actually be a dictator, but it’s not for a lack of trying.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  william, 8 Jan 2021 @ 6:42pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Where do fucktards like you come from? Same lame talking points which prove you have zero clue what you`re even babbling on about.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2021 @ 2:16am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  What a F-ing coward! Meet me in the street bitch! You must be a transgender. All homos, trannies, lesbians, illegal aliens, libtards, abortionists, will be thrown into the lake of fire on judgement day. Now that is a movie I can't wait to see. Watching your carcass being dropped into the fire. Trump is God's messenger for this wicked generation. To even speak evil of Trump is blasphemy against Jesus Christ who is God almighty manifested in flesh

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jan 2021 @ 2:30pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Break the skin of civilization and you find the ape, roaring and red-handed. -- Robert E. Howard

                    When you chose not to participate in a society that respects the underclasses, you can't really complain when you learn too late you are far outmatched by the ravenous tiger.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2021 @ 4:43pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      sounds like you elevator wasn't even installed

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 26 Jan 2021 @ 8:12pm

                        Elevator

                        As sharp as a bowling ball

                        Several crayons short of a box

                        Not the brightest bulb on the string

                        Calling me dumb isn't an argument. Trying to discredit me by any means isn't an argument.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 11 Jan 2021 @ 3:32pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Is this sarcasm?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Terry Kennedy, 11 Jan 2021 @ 3:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You are obviously educated beyond your intelligence

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Scarygary, 12 Jan 2021 @ 7:33am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Please go to the cdc website and see the latest video on how hospitals have lied about covid deaths to the tune of 130k. Why, because the receive money for every reported death and case. All this does is give tyrannical politicians ammunition to exert their power under the excuse that they are saving humanity. BS.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    bhull242 (profile), 12 Jan 2021 @ 5:42pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    I would address this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article, so I’ll just assume it’s spam.

                    In case you were wondering, this is about Parler’s claimed and actual moderation policies. I’m more than willing to go beyond that and go for closely related topics like social media, moderation, Twitter, Reddit, §230, allegations of conservative bias, etc. However, the pandemic, while an important issue to discuss, has no relevance to the article.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  noname, 12 Jan 2021 @ 10:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  @Uriel-238 Trump selling access through his clubs?? You are more of a conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones. Pop Pop Biden has been selling influence for decades. Now we know how his son got rich. Hunter's so arrogant he won't even pay the taxes because he thinks Daddy will save him. Wake up fool. You don't need to wear the black Nikes and track suit. What flavor is the Kool aid that they gave you?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Jan 2021 @ 1:26pm

                    White House access via the DC Trump Hotel

                    Start here. I'm sure this rabbit hole goes further than you want to dig.

                    Your turn. Show me the goods regarding Joe and Hunter Biden.

                    PS: Biden's not my guy. I know he's old establishment. But like Clinton his corruption is less by orders of magnitude than Trump ever was, and we knew this in 2016.

                    You were played. We've all been played.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2021 @ 5:47am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You have intelligently been programmed (brain washed) in your whole way of defining and recognizing right from wrong and good vs evil.

                  I can most likely be assured that you do not believe in one God and the Bible or your thought process would not be so skewed and deranged.

                  May God’s Holy Spirit touch your soul and awaken you.

                  Love you brother

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Jan 2021 @ 1:49pm

                    "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

                    Oh I can assure you that I do not believe in God. And doubly so for the Abrahamic mythology. Heck the notion that the universe is but Azathoth's dream is more credible than the overworked, mistranslated mess that is 21st century Christianity (and its ~40,000 schisms).

                    I am not Christian nor claim to be. But having a solid grasp on truth based on evidence is way more important to me than adhering to comforting fables based on credulity and faith.

                    As I've noted regarding the allegiance to Trump of Christian voters in contrast to the national average, Christians are eager to see sin and waggle their fingers at other people. They give themselves and each other a mulligan.

                    Not all Christians are this way, but enough of them are that the Supreme Court of the United States is now skewed to exalt institutions over people, and to confine women and LGBT+ to an underclass.

                    So I am entirely unimpressed with Christianity as a source of moral compass. I'll keep my own council as what is right and wrong, and self awareness enough to know I'm still just an ape acting more on instinct than rationality. We all are.

                    Don't be a sucker, and don't rely on the wrath of some angry all-father to drive you to social propriety. Do right for right's sake, because doing so has material benefit for all.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Jeff, 29 Jan 2021 @ 11:28am

                      Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

                      "Do right for right's sake"

                      So playing devil's advocate for a minute. Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it. For example is sex outside of marriage right and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it's not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on. Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Jan 2021 @ 11:54am

                        Re: Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

                        Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it.

                        Are you honestly suggesting that without "God" telling you what's right you are unable to determine for yourself the difference between right and wrong? That's ridiculous.

                        Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.

                        Going to definitely need a citation on that one...

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jan 2021 @ 2:17pm

                        Divine Command Theory

                        Without God [telling us how to behave in society] how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it?

                        It's a pedantic nit (from a philosopher's perspective) that the role of guiding humankind is not necessarily integrated with the role of creating the universe. Not a big deal, but in most faiths, the two roles are separate.

                        For one thing, we've worked out (multiple times) divine command theory hasn't been all that great for us serfs. Divine right of kings has invariably resulted in a John of England, a Caligula or a Trump† who sets progress back generations. When we're lucky, it results in social movements away from religious decree and toward anthropocentric forms of leadership-selection.

                        So what do we do when God isn't telling us what to do (or we highly suspect scripture is really some ancient-era version of Dienetics)? We figure out better ways. This is where we delve into notions like utilitarianism or contractrarianism (see also, the Social Contract). Having been screwed over by God-ordained creedalism (deontological ethics when ethicists talk about them) we work out better ways. Trial and error. When oligarchs aren't trying to force us back into feudalism, they can work pretty well.

                        But another thing: We don't care. Even when we are devoutly religious. Even when we are ethicists, the human ape tends more to do what he (she) feels like doing, rather than what he believes he is morally obligated to do. Black churchgoers voted (mostly) for Clinton in 2016. White churchgoers voted (mostly) for Trump. They all felt justified. And even the wackos that raided the Capitol on January 6th felt they were entirely vindicated and justified in their assault. The religious leaders and political leaders of the US routinely engage in peculation despite their (alleged) upstanding moral qualities, and our religious gladly engage in partisanship when choosing who to forgive and who to condemn.

                        So without God telling us what to do we'd be... doing what we do now, most likely.

                        † Yes, Trump was elected, not appointed, but only though non-democratic means, and the religious blocs defied their own morality (trump's less-than-pure character and history, for which other politicians have been routinely condemned) as if it were a mandate from God. It was at least a mandate from their respective religious institutions, and blind obedience contributed to Trump's electoral victory.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jan 2021 @ 2:29pm

                        Extra-marital sex

                        Is sex outside of marriage right?

                        Firstly, the institution of marriage has its own problems. We've long established that marriage is not merely a license to procreate, and yet the resistance to give LGBT+ folk the right to marry (and access the extensive library of state benefits for married couples) was a long, hard fought battle with opposition largely among the gatekeepers, so marriage itself is less a device of social function and more of a device of social control. This is affirmed by the fact that children are still being married in the United States, often to older partners (and are then expected to perform their marital duties). Nine-year-olds were being (legally!) married as recently as the 1990s, and I know of a thirteen-year-old married in 2018, so marriage doesn't serve to assure functional matches or to protect children.

                        Then, modern medical science regards premarital sex as healthy and functional despite the social expectation that brides will be virgins. a robust sexual routine has a number of health benefits, and premarital sex promotes sexual self-awareness, so a person knows what she (he) wants, what turns her on and gets her off, which makes for more communicative, longer lasting relationships.

                        Extra-marital sex can serve when two partners have mismatched libidos, have to spend a lot of time apart or just have mutual appetites to play the field. Emotions like jealousy can be a matter (often more an issue of inclusion than possession), but also can be navigated with communication.

                        So, despite the common believe that open marriages are fragile, It's deception and imbalanced negotiations that cause those relationships to break down, not the sex. Plural relationships have to be win-win(-win-win-win) and not like our click-through telecommunications term-of-service contracts.

                        (Speaking of which, it's difficult to create a society that respects consent when most of our other interactions are about one side trying to graft the other side. But that's a criticism of late-stage capitalism, not of sexuality.)

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        bhull242 (profile), 29 Jan 2021 @ 4:10pm

                        Re: Re: "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

                        Now, I’m a Christian, but I cannot abide by such faulty arguments.

                        Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it.

                        First off, as a social species, humans have evolved to have empathy, giving them an intuitive sense of right and wrong, at least in broad strokes. This empathy is often strongest for those who are most like the subject. We also evolved to have a sense of fairness for similar reasons, which similarly provides guidance to our individual sense of morality.

                        Second, we can basically come up with a society-wide set of morals by agreeing on certain goals to work towards, like maximizing well-being and happiness for as many people as possible while minimizing harm to as many as possible, and some sort of priority system. Actions that help us approach those goals are “good”, while actions that push us further from those goals are “bad”. Obviously, some of the details are not agreed upon, which leads to gray areas.

                        Really, that’s basically what morality is: things that progress us towards some goal we like are “good”, while things that push us away from that goal are “bad”. And it can get pretty subjective and relative. Even if we just look at Christian philosophers, there is a lot of disagreement among them because they can’t agree on some things like goals and which things are more important. And there are a lot of gray area and many exceptions to generally accepted rules.

                        On a side note, playing a different sort of Devil’s advocate, let’s say that there is a real God who created humanity and provided a code of conduct. 1) That’s not an absolute morality as there are still exceptions to some of the rules. 2) It’s also not an objective morality because it’s based on the views of a personal being (God). 3) If it’s so perfect, why has it changed over time? I go into more detail later with some examples, but the morality most American Christians follow today, even the most devout Evangelical ones, is not the same as the one in Biblical times or even in early American history or just a few decades ago. 4) Again, if it’s so perfect and an absolute truth, why is it that so many Christians cannot agree on what that truth is? And what about the other religions with their own rules? What puts Christianity above them?

                        Since there is no way to definitively prove or disprove the existence of any God, gods, or goddesses in general, which God, gods, or goddesses exist (if any), which of the many holy texts is/are an accurate description of the “true” morality, or which interpretation of the “true” holy text(s) is the right one, if any, until after death, and there is no provable way for the dead to come back and tell us (and the stories of those that claim to have done so or that they witnessed someone else do so) are contradictory or unhelpful in these matters, as a practical matter if nothing else, it’s best to treat morality in general as relative and largely subjective.

                        For example is sex outside of marriage right

                        In my opinion, it depends on the particulars. Is the sex consensual by all involved parties? If so, was that consent informed and not coerced? Is either party dating or married to someone else? If so, is the married/dating party’s significant other aware of and consenting to the act? Is this an exclusive relationship (that is, limited to a subset of a relatively small, known group of persons that are also only sexually involved with a subset of that same group) that is just not formally recognized by some sort of authority? If not, or if any sexually involved party(s) may or do(es) have some STD(s), are they taking precautions to prevent the transmission of STDs? Are they taking actions to prevent pregnancy? If not, have they adequately planned for the possibility of a pregnancy, and if so, what is that plan and how well prepared are they for it? What are the ages of the parties? Is there a command relationship between the parties outside of the bedroom? Does this relationship lead to a conflict of interest or favoritism in their professional/political capacity? Has either party vocally condemned sex outside of marriage during or prior to the affair? Did they lie about the affair, and to whom?

                        I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong or dangerous about sex outside of marriage, so it depends on the particulars. That actually applies to a lot of statements as broad as this one. The answer to such broad questions is often, “It depends.”

                        (Note: I personally have no intentions of actually having sex outside of marriage, but I don’t judge the morality of others’ behaviors based solely on mine.)

                        and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it's not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on.

                        That’s where psychological and sociological studies come in, though it’s also worth noting that it also depends on how one defines “damage to society” and “broken adults”.

                        We can determine some measurable indicators of “damage to society” and “broken adults” and measure those against the questioned behavior (in this case, sex outside of marriage). If there’s a statistically significant correlation, more studies can be done to determine the likelihood of a causal connection between them and what direction that causality goes as well as the possible existence of confounding factor(s). If so, then we can determine what and how much, if any, “damage to society” is done by sex outside of marriage and, if there is any, how much of it is preventable without disallowing sex outside of marriage altogether. Of course, these studies would have to be compared to sex within marriage and a mixed group of both.

                        Again, though, this depends on how we define “damage to society” and “broken adults”, which are in turn based upon some predetermined goal(s) upon which to base our morality. It also depends on our threshold for “damage to society” before we determine something is “bad”.

                        And then there’s what you said about envy, gluttony, pride, etc. Again, those would have to be tested for “damage to society” before we could even determine those to be “bad for society”.

                        Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn't exist" is the reason for 99% of society's current ills.

                        [citation needed]

                        First, you presuppose that there are long-established written religious rules of conduct that were followed more often before than they are now. Given the fact that there have been numerous disagreements throughout history on what those written rules actually are even within a given faith and the diversity of faiths throughout history, each with their own written rules of conduct, and the fact that many of those pushing these rules are often guilty of breaking them, this is a questionable assertion.

                        Second, you also presuppose that there has been an increase in “society’s ills”. Again, I don’t see any evidence of that. There has actually been a decrease over the past several decades in crimes committed in general and in violent crimes in particular. I suppose it depends on how one defines “iils” in this context, but then people can’t seem to agree on that.

                        Third, you presuppose that there has been a relaxation of the aforementioned rules that is because of people asserting that “God doesn’t exist”. 1) Many religious people have a more relaxed interpretation of the rules than their ancestors did that has nothing to do with other people saying that God doesn’t exist. 2) You assume that religious people are more likely to follow these rules than atheists, and I haven’t seen evidence that this is the case. 3) You forget that sometimes the rules have gotten stricter; for example, slavery used to be condoned, but no longer is; polygamy was once allowed and is actually explicitly allowed in the Bible, but now it’s condemned; racism and sexism were previously commonplace but are now strongly discouraged.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jan 2021 @ 4:57pm

                        Devil's advocate

                        My response to the first question (How do we sort out what's right without Divine Command Theory?) got delayed for moderation, probably because I linked to too many Wikipedia pages.

                        And it's Friday, so it'll probably surface on Monday.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2021 @ 7:37am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Blah blah im a commie... We get it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2021 @ 11:42am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Eat a bag of dicks...Leftist! Projection is what leftist Communist do best!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 21 Jan 2021 @ 6:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Cry baby liberal, screw you and humanity. Let people work and take care of themselves.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Jan 2021 @ 3:21pm

                    Baby liberal

                    I'm not the one squealing like a caffeinated toddler who just had his puppy taken away.

                    You folks are having a bad week. Maybe take a break from the old internet.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                kyle, 17 Nov 2020 @ 2:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                well his series of tweets about winning the election when he clearly did not, calling the very fabric of our democracy into question? that's dictator 101

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2020 @ 2:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "they're leftist when they call Trump a dictator"

                Funny that you did not mention me calling Biden a neocon, must be ok with it then.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 7 Feb 2021 @ 7:04pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Amen

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Reg, 11 Nov 2020 @ 11:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              If you think General Stereotype is fun...Check out the real General...If we can’t believe a retired 3 Star General McInerney …who can we believe ???

              https://fastly.cloudinary.com/wvw/video/upload/v1591934042/kgtefrv3nicl6i0hxbgu.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1 kSGd-ud08GyzCc4I4wx1x51Vqr3GOJ3V5k4IE9TRZ_-Q0DvzfYXRuYuo

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 5:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                How do you use an app to change votes when the machines aren't even connected to the internet?! Do all the machines have this "app" installed? Wouldn't it be easier to just change the machines to read the votes differently instead of leaving obvious evidence on the devices storage? At least making the machines read differently would be harder to find and if it was found, it could just be blamed on an error. Why hasn't this app been found during the investigations?

                Sometimes you gotta use a little logic to see that something doesn't add up. Logic won't make you right, but it will tell you when something is wrong...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 8:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Nothing wrong with Hugo's machines? Then why not let us look?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              spankyinyourface, 15 Nov 2020 @ 7:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              sure you're right. anyone can see a demented racist criminal commie owned by china can be trusted with our nuclear codes. good job libtards. The rest of us need to research all the great things that can be acco
              mplished with DRONES.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 15 Nov 2020 @ 10:23pm

                Every accusation a confession

                Wait, are you talking about Trump and his undisputed Russian connections that he lied about during his 2016 campaign?

                We're not out of the woods yet with that. He's still President until January.

                Care to reassure the rest of us Trump is not going to scorch the earth on the way out? I'm not so sure.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 29 Nov 2020 @ 12:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                anyone can see a demented racist criminal commie owned by china can be trusted with our nuclear codes.

                You mean Trump? He’s pretty demented, clearly racist (see for example the Muslim ban, the Wall, and his promise to keep suburbs white), plausibly a criminal, and is “great friends” with the heads of communist China and North Korea.

                good job libtards.

                Oh, then I guess you mean Biden, who seems quite intelligent, not at all racist, not a criminal, not communist, and not connected to China… You sure you don’t mean Trump?

                The rest of us need to research all the great things that can be acco[]mplished with DRONES.

                Did Trump actually stop the drones? I’m asking honestly. I also don’t recall him criticizing Obama for drone use.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Nov 2020 @ 1:12pm

                  Trump's use of drones

                  Candidate Trump very much endorsed drone strikes and the introduction of drone strike programs into other theaters. He also endorsed increased use of drones by law enforcement (though he never said law-enforcment drones should be armed.)

                  Other than the attack (Assassination? I'd call it a targeted killing) on Qasem Soleimani, we don't have reports of strike programs outside Pakistan and Afghanistan, but this is not to say they don't exist, just they haven't been leaked.

                  I do know that drone pilot teams burn out hard, with a battery of symptoms akin to the PTSD seen in front-line combatants. It is one of the arguments that people can tell the difference between video games and real life, and are profoundly affected by the latter. So the current programs are having trouble finding new crews.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2021 @ 8:56pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Biden clearly has a low level of demitia that will most likely get worse, he has voted and supported rasict legislation, he has very real ties to China and was highly favored by them over Trump.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              bobwhite, 16 Nov 2020 @ 5:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Conservatives are ALWAYS for smaller government. Republicans, however, vary widely. Far too many Big Government Republicans (Conservatives used to call then RINO's).

              The Donald has no desire to be a "dictator." That is a stupid smear or the result of strong hallucinogens. Dictators never, ever reduce regulations or lower taxes. Dictators never, ever try to keep immigrants OUT of their countries. It is true, however, that The Donald has narcissistic tendencies.

              Leftists in government, however, almost always have a totalitarian streak.

              Centralized power = Leftists and Fascists
              Decentralized power = Conservatives

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 16 Nov 2020 @ 11:17am

                "Smaller Government"

                Except that smaller government has always been about gutting welfare programs and social safety nets. When it comes to the military, even the Fiscal Responsibility crowd like the Tea Party were glad to put more money into laser planes and active camouflage. This disdain for the serfs continues into the shit-tier care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has been a major counter-recruitment selling point since the Reagan Years: if you get half-way blown up, the US military or USMC is happy to leave you homeless and begging on the sidewalk.

                So no, I call bullshit.

                But then, you're arguing conservatives want to decentralize power, which runs contrary to the DeLay era K-Street Project policy of keeping Republican officials in lockstep by nothing short of extortion, which lead to the total divisiveness and lockdown of federal legislature today. Also, George W. Bush's notorious use of signing statements (all saying in boilerplate legal screed I will enforce this only if I feel like it ) both of them demonstrate a consolidation of power to the executive and the heads of the congressional bodies.

                Feel free to argue that the GOP from the Reagan Years forward are not true conservatives. It'll be amusing, at least. But since you're trying to condone Trump, whose authoritarianism ran thick through his whole administration, I have to assume you're willfully divorcing your comments from facts, which is on-brand for current self-identified conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2020 @ 3:00pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "Conservatives are ALWAYS for smaller government. Republicans, however, vary widely. "

                You should have quit right there.

                The rest of your comment is full of mistruths and outright lies. If you are interested, perhaps The Dictators Handbook would be helpful.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                bhull242 (profile), 29 Nov 2020 @ 11:50am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                There’s a lot wrong with what you said, but this part is ridiculous:

                Dictators never, ever try to keep immigrants OUT of their countries.

                Yes, yes they do. Russia is very strict about who comes or goes, as does Turkey.

                Then there’s this:

                Leftists in government, however, almost always have a totalitarian streak.

                Nope. Look at Canada and France, both run by leftists, yet neither are totalitarian. There are two different extreme radical left-wings: communism and anarchy. Only one of those ever goes totalitarian. Furthermore, fascism is well established as the extreme right-wing of politics. Look at the nation during WWII: of the major totalitarian nations, only one (the Soviet Union) was leftist; Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan were ultra-right-wing. (China, Vietnam, and North Korea didn’t become communist until after WWII). Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France were democracies, the former run by a relative liberal, the other two with some socialist policies. And then there was Switzerland, a primarily socialist government that was and still is not totalitarian.

                I think you’re confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Conservativism (in the US) favors order; libertarianism favors freedom; liberalism favors equality, then freedom.

                Ultimately, the modern Republican Party combines small-government conservative, libertarian, evangelical, racist, sexist, pro-corporation/anti-Union, and fascist people in one party. This is why you have contradictory goals.

                Finally, to briefly address this:

                The Donald has no desire to be a "dictator."

                He has openly admired dictators like Putin, the head of China, and Kim Jong Un for their power; he has openly defied Congress; he has tried to pressure the media and state officials into doing his bidding; he calls anything he doesn’t like “fake news”; he has tried to make the part of the government spreading free information across the world into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet; he has turned the AG into his personal lawyer; he has fired everyone who doesn’t immediately do what he wants when he wants; he is right now trying to overturn the results of an election because he lost. And remember the positions he’s taken over how powerful the president is. And yet you don’t think he wants to be a dictator? Give me a break.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 29 Nov 2020 @ 3:56pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yes, and lets not forget he thought that he would get more than two terms in office. Oh, and the nepotism - dictators never do that, lol

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Arielle, 15 Nov 2020 @ 3:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I have Liberal friends, and they have everyone of the beliefs, that you just mentioned ! I cannot even have an intelligent conversation with them about Politics, because they think they are RIGHT, and I am wrong ! Of course we KNOW that THEY are wrong, but you can't convince them of that !

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 15 Nov 2020 @ 4:23pm

              "we know they are wrong"

              This raises the question of exactly how you know your liberal friends are wrong? I assume there's more thought to it than well, I know I'm right or _because what they argue just feels wrong.

              Most of my liberal aligned opinions are informed by fundamental principles: we are all Americans and human beings.We are all deserving of equal rights, equal liberties and equal treatment by the legal system. We all should have food security, housing security, security of family, job security and so on, since not having these things makes the population crazy and want to purge each other (into mass graves, ultimately). It should be okay to be nonwhite, non-christian, LGBT+, goth, punk or identify as part of any counterculture imagineable.

              Do you disagree with any of these notions? That might be why liberal friends disagree with you.

              What do you think should be different?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2020 @ 3:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "I have Liberal friends, and they have everyone of the beliefs, that you just mentioned ! "

              Which ones do you agree with?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 26 Jan 2021 @ 5:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              after talking to these kind of people for 30 seconds you can tell their elevator has NEVER WORKED

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2021 @ 9:08pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Facial Recognition Software Finally Gets Around To Getting An Innocent Person ArrestedNorth Carolina Cops Fired After Their In-Car Camera Catches Them Talking About Wiping Black People 'Off The (Expletive) Map'
          As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't LikeOverhypefrom the that-did-not-take-long-at-all deptMon, Jun 29th 2020 12:08pm — Mike MasnickWell, that did not take long at all. On Friday we predicted that just like every other social media platform out there, the new favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives, would start taking down content and shutting down accounts just like everyone else. Because, if you run any sort of platform that allows 3rd party speech, sooner or later you discover you have to do that. In Friday's post, we highlighted Parler's terms of service, which certainly allows for it to take down any content for any reason (we also mocked their "quick read on Wikipedia" style understanding of the 1st Amendment).What we did not expect was that Parler would prove us right so damn quickly. Over the weekend, Parler was apparently busy taking down accounts.And he was not the only one.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Uncle Mike, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:45am

      Re:

      Commie Mutant Traitors, sounds like a great saturday morning cartoon.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 6:24pm

        Commie Mutant Traitors

        Does someone still play Paranoia?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Jul 2020 @ 7:13am

          Re: Commie Mutant Traitors

          "Does someone still play Paranoia?"

          Used to be a fun game...but with first GWB and now Trump that game suddenly took on a very much darker shade of Poe. A mission briefing in that game held by an unimaginative self-serving bureaucrat with a severe case of dunning-kruger and the attention span of a small child is now nothing more than switching on a newscast and catching ten seconds of a bona fide real life white house press briefing or a speech by an attorney general.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:05pm

        Re: Re:

        Forgot 'teenage'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Also, think I just had an epiphany. Are all these replies to original posts marked with re: and then RE: RE: RE: etc, the basis of the leftists saying REEEEEE meme?
          Eureka!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Your Master, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:08pm

      Re:

      Its not free speech when i can't go and threaten to murder people for their views!

      Communists are the stupidest people on the planet. An entire group of envious losers who are either incapable of, or don't want to earn anything themselves.

      But sharing is caring right?

      Capitalism separates those who are smart and those who are poor. I hope you try your revolution, i want to be able to slaughter righteously.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cranial screw top method, 1 Jul 2020 @ 6:46am

      Re:

      If you can say it on the street on NYC, someone will probably kill you for saying it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Martine, 10 Nov 2020 @ 12:16pm

      Re:

      They never said they would allow people to do anything they wanted. The only people that get banned are people who use a huge amount of profanity, to who post pornographic images. they never ever ban anyone because they post liberal comments. aid someone wants to prove to me that they have done so, then show a screenshot of it happening. Just like it is a lie that they charge any fees, or ask for a driver's license. They do neither of those things. All You need to be on Parler is an email.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2020 @ 1:01am

      Re:

      Fuck you leftist nazi pig!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Whocares, 21 Nov 2020 @ 10:57am

      Re:

      You can spot a liberal fairly easy..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2021 @ 4:44pm

      Re:

      And here I thought that freedom of speech wasn't freedom from consequences.

      Silly me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        stgewizard, 13 Jan 2021 @ 3:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Freedom is not Free just like Healthcare, Food, Clothing, And everything else you feel you deserve for being a lazy slug.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 13 Jan 2021 @ 8:02pm

          [what] you deserve for being a lazy slug

          a) If you have to withhold basic necessities to get your people to work, you're doing it wrong (and they will piss in your soup and knife you in the dark). And...

          b) A well fed, warmly dressed, safely sheltered people will gladly work and pay their taxes (Roman senators mocked the plebes and slaves for needing only bread and circuses and not having the sophisticated delicate tastes of aristocrats.) Your feudal lords could have totally kept their position if they just could remember the serfs are human beings too, and need care.

          Your shadowy plutocratic masters have had capitalists telling them all this time (for decades) they should take better care of the peons, and if they only would, they'd continue to serve with little complaint. But no. Your upper management decided greed is good, that short-term profits and golden parachutes were more important than a sustainable labor force. So your puppetmasters totally fucked up their own paradise.

          And anyone who does laze about like a slug, even when they're adequately sorted probably suffers from depression And the US has entirely shit the bed when it comes to managing mental health. Now the whole nation is a madhouse.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Jason In TN, 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:43pm

    The point of free speech

    Enough hypocrisy to go around?

    Our Marxist friends who are more than happy to tout Twitter's ability to ban and shadow ban speech the left labels as "fascist" are now upset about Parler?

    The left has Facebook and Twitter running plenty of interference. In a competitive market, leftists who state "all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks" are essentially stating their purpose was to dilute the platform - not participate. There is a good faith element here, and I saw multiple Parler accounts which were only established to toss out hatred for those who think differently than them.

    The point of free speech is that you can speak, and the Marxists have basically the entire public square. That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:47pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      The point of free speech is that you can speak, and the Marxists have basically the entire public square. That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.

      Please provide an example of your position that you can't discuss on Facebook and Twitter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:57pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19. And Reddit removes posts that criticize "Black Lives Matter." That's just the tip of the iceberg.

        Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates. Now you are censors.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19.

          Interestingly, because people on the left say that Zuck is biased towards conservatives. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kj3n3/facebook-apparently-thinks-left-wing-bias-is-as-bad-a-prob lem-as-hate-speech

          > Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates. Now you are censors.

          So you're saying a shop that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Mask, No Service" is a censor, because you're describing private actors and not the US government.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            Nice try at deflection and smugness. There's an Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive,' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They already think they know everything."

            http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              Nice job on not answering any of my points.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                Comparing it to a shop sign is dilatory and non-serious on your part, which is oh so typical of today's "progressives" who are demanding censorship of anything you don't like. Liberals used to be the strongest advocates of free speech, and now you are censors. That worm can turn.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:14pm

                  You’ve played yourself if you think the censors only exist on the liberal “side”.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    icon
                    TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:26pm

                    Re:

                    Nice dodge. Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through their teeth, and now the major social media platforms are censoring the right wing. And you are all for it, not stopping to think that once your wish comes true, that worm can turn overnight.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:35pm

                      Re: Re:

                      That you think the Washington Post is "far-left" shows how far to the right you are.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:36pm

                      Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through their teeth

                      Counterpoint: Fox News.

                      the major social media platforms are censoring the right wing

                      Counterpoint: Gab, Parler, Voat, and every website for conservative/right wing political news and opinions that have yet to be taken down on orders from “the major social media platforms”.

                      you are all for it

                      If Twitter, YouTube, etc. want to ban hateful speech from their platforms, and conservatives are more likely than liberals to be dinged under those service’s TOS agreements, the issue isn’t with the TOS agreements.

                      once your wish comes true, that worm can turn overnight

                      At which point I’ll be more than happy to find a service that will host my speech. (I left Tumblr without issue once the porn ban went into effect, after all.) Twitter, YouTube, etc. aren’t the alpha and omega of Internet services.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:43pm

                      Re: Re:

                      Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through
                      their teeth

                      Unlike Faux News and the yello Cheeto. Really?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                  Comparing it to a shop sign is dilatory and non-serious on your part

                  Comparing getting kicked off of private property to going to jail for printing something the government doesn't like is "dilatory and unserious" if you ask me.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    ArmchairAnalyst, 30 Jun 2020 @ 6:12am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                    Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. When the banning of supposed hate speech includes widely heard opinions and ideas, there is a problem. When social media is shitting people down for saying they think there is a biological difference between men and women, or that surgery can’t change ones sex, or all lives matter is considered racist, or freedom of speech is somehow an alt-right idea, you’ve lost the argument. Parler does have terms of service and community standards and a point system. When you violate the terms, you accrue a point. They do tell you what your violation is. When you reach 20 points, you’re banned. The idea that the are only banning liberals, or they are banning liberals for their ideas - as opposed to violating the community standards, is nonsense.

                    Twitter censored a post from the president stating he would enforce the law. That’s literally his job. He is the head of the US military, and Twitter pretended he was threatening random act of violence. And there has been rampant vote by mail fraud - see the news stories just this week. That’s one they deemed false, but it’s not. Twitter created community standards in which the closely held religious beliefs of every major religion is a violation of standards.

                    The difference for me is that Parler gives anyone a chance to speak their ideas while Twitter keeps looking for ways to silence ideas they don’t agree with. Twitter has community standards that are ideology based. Parler doesn’t. This entire screed of yours is full of lies and innuendos. I still believe you have a right to say what you have.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 6:43am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                      You don't have to be sorry. You have to be a proud American to post like you post. You're a great writer, and we're happy to see you here. I hope you will come more often.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Trump, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:30am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                        Boyfriends

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:44am

                      The idea that the are only banning liberals, or they are banning liberals for their ideas - as opposed to violating the community standards, is nonsense.

                      Replace “liberals” with “conservatives” and you can say the same thing about Twitter. That it has community standards aimed at greater inclusiveness — standards meant to encourage the speech of marginalized groups such as trans people — doesn’t mean it has a political bias. And if you want to claim anti-trans speech as the domain of conservatives by saying “banning anti-trans speech is banning conservative speech”? That isn’t a Twitter problem.

                      Twitter censored a post from the president stating he would enforce the law.

                      I didn’t know that “adding speech to a tweet” is “censorship” nowadays. Mind explaining the logic behind that thought process, champ?

                      there has been rampant vote by mail fraud - see the news stories just this week

                      “Rampant” implies a far higher amount of instances of mail fraud than the news has reported. Fraud concerning mail-in ballots is still proportionately rare, and it doesn’t happen at levels that would sway (or have swayed) an election — especially the national presidential election.

                      Twitter created community standards in which the closely held religious beliefs of every major religion is a violation of standards.

                      That says more about the beliefs of those religions than it does about the standards set up by Twitter.

                      Parler gives anyone a chance to speak their ideas while Twitter keeps looking for ways to silence ideas they don’t agree with

                      Twitter admins keep looking for ways to keep the most people on the service. That’s it. If that means setting rules that might shut up a few homophobes and transphobes but let queer people speak without fear of harassment (in large amounts)…well, it is what it is. Don’t like it? Go to Parler; I’m sure its standards don’t have a problem with someone referring to queer people with anti-queer slurs.

                      I still believe you have a right to say what you have.

                      Twitter users have every right to say what they want. And Twitter admins have every right to boot people from the platform if such speech breaks the TOS. Don’t like it? Find a site with a TOS you do like and stay there. You’re not owed, entitled to, or guaranteed a spot on Twitter.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2020 @ 6:14am

                        Re:

                        "Transphobia" means the belief in scientific facts and reality. You are saying people should be banned merely for stating common-sense facts?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Jul 2020 @ 12:07pm

                          Common sense and facts

                          I've yet to find common sense that is actually common, unless you are talking about those specific things that can be demonstrated with readily available scientific observation. (id east things fall. birds can fly.)

                          As regarding matters of science of sex and sexual identity, I do recommend familiarizing yourself with intersex as well as what gender is before you start asserting scientific facts and reality associated with transphobia.

                          This is your one chance to do some fucking research before you reveal yourself to be a fool and a jerk.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 13 Jul 2020 @ 2:37pm

                          Re: Re:

                          Are you unfamiliar with the following scientific facts?

                          • Some people with XX chromosomes have male primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.

                          • Some people with XY chromosomes have female primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.

                          • Some people have neither XX nor XY chromosomes but instead XO, XXX, XXY, or XXX chromosomes.

                          • Some people with male primary sex characteristics develop female secondary sex characteristics.

                          • Some people with female primary sex characteristics develop male secondary sex characteristics.

                          • Some people have a mix of male and female primary sex characteristics.

                          • Some people have a mix of male and female secondary sex characteristics.

                          • Some people lack some primary and/or secondary sex characteristics for either gender.

                          • Transgender people (even before any sex-changing or hormone-replacement procedures are performed) have been found to have brains far closer to that of the gender they identify with than the sex they were assigned at birth.

                          • Going through sex-change operations and/or hormone replacement therapy is often recommended for transgender people, and it is virtually always recommended that they present as the gender they identify as and that family and friends try to accept them as they are. This is far better for their mental health in the long-term and does no real harm.

                          How about these bits of reality?

                          • Transgender people have high rates of suicide and depression based either on bullying/harassment for being transgender or on not being allowed to transition.

                          • In most cases, a transwoman presenting as a woman is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a ciswoman while they’re dressed.

                          • In most cases, a transman presenting as a man is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a cisman while they’re dressed.

                          • Due to the previous two facts, unless you’re their doctor or having sex with them, you should never know whether or not someone presenting as a woman was born male or female.

                          • A number of transgender people today were actually born with partial and/or complete sex organs for both sexes or were of nonexistent or indeterminate sex at birth and were simply assigned a sex at birth arbitrarily by doctors, often with surgery and frequently without the parents’ knowledge or consent. Basically, doctors would make (sometimes educated) guess as to the infant’s sex and would often be wrong.

                          • Sex and gender, while often correlating well, aren’t exactly the same thing.

                          These are all facts. They may not all be “common-sense facts,” but common sense isn’t all that common, anyways, and science and reality don’t really conform very well with common sense to begin with; many absolutely true facts are counterintuitive.

                          As for your definition of “transphobic”, you forgot that one of the comments at issue equated transition treatments with conversion therapy, which is far from being a scientific fact, reality, or a common-sense fact. It’s also not exactly borderline.

                          But let’s set that all aside for a moment. You ask whether or not we’re saying people should be banned from a privately-owned platform like Twitter by the owners of said platform for making such comments. That’s not necessarily what is being said. We’re saying that corporations like Twitter should absolutely have the right to ban people for making such comments regardless of whether we personally would do so, and that those people are not entitled to be able to say whatever they want on a privately-owned platform like Twitter, certainly not without consequence. There’s also the fact that it’s hardly surprising that people would be banned for making such comments, and I’m not all that sympathetic to them, but that’s separate. The point is that if you don’t like it, show your lack of support by using a different platform or by simply not using Twitter.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Dafuqusay, 15 Sep 2020 @ 8:51am

                            Re: Re: Re:

                            Some...
                            You keep mentioning "Some"
                            Some like a mean, or an average or a mode? What is this "some" you speak of.

                            Firstly let's talk intersex. By definition intersex people are approximately 1.7% of the population.

                            That's not enough for a classical study to rule this out as anything more than genetic aberration. It certainly doesent classify to be "some" but rather an extreme few.

                            Since we classify creatures by similar traits and not by genetic defects from a taxonomy perspective the aberration of a population of 1.7% would be nothing more than genetic lottery. And would not classify a species to have a new gender. Any more than a 7 legged spider to be a new species.

                            How you "present" yourself to the world does not and cannot change this fact of nature.

                            You are picking a tiny subset of a species and saying "ah ha I have found a new gender because this monkey was born without a penis."

                            When all you have done is point out gene expression.
                            Unless you want to argue that genetics is completly wrong.

                            When you average out 2% of the population as a margin of error you have 2 distinct genders. With 2 unique gene expression, and organ sets. Along with bone density, muscle mass, and cognitive abilities even before the child is introduced to society.

                            Maybe you should learn about how genes work before you claim there are 70+ genders.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 15 Sep 2020 @ 3:02pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              1. I never claimed anything about the number of genders at all, only that which gender a given individual is isn’t always clear cut. I certainly never claimed 70+ genders. (I’m not saying there aren’t, either; the exact number is immaterial to my argument.)

                              2. “Some” means “there exists” in logic and statistics. That they exist among humans necessarily means that, biologically speaking, not every human fits neatly into exactly one of two sexes, let alone genders (there’s a difference). I was disproving an absolute statement; any number of counterexamples would suffice.

                              3. We’re not talking about classifications of species, though I should point out that there is no strict definition for what makes two organisms the same species or not. There are organisms in the same species unable to reproduce with each other but able to reproduce with some others, while others where they are different species but are able to produce fertile offspring together. Besides, we don’t classify humans the same way we do other organisms; no other species has an equivalent to race or religion that we can tell from which we can distinguish individual groups of the same species.

                              4. My point was that determining the gender of a given individual, especially at birth, isn’t always easy. It’s not black and white. You may consider it a “rounding error”, but given the sheer size of the population, 1.6% is actually quite a few people.

                              5. Even outside of intersex individuals and transgender individuals, there are a number of cisgender, nonintersex females who appear fairly masculine and cisgender, nonintersex males who appear fairly feminine. That’s not even getting into androgynous individuals. Why do I bring them up? Because it means, as a practical matter, identifying someone’s birth sex by appearance is very error-prone. So basically, why do you care if their identity differs from their assigned sex at birth? How would you even know for sure?

                              At any rate, my main point wasn’t even all that. Whether or not Twitter made the right call here in our opinions is immaterial to the point I and others were focusing on: Twitter has the legal right to make whatever decision they want when it comes to moderation.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2021 @ 1:26am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Sexual perverts need to stay in their closets rather than inflict themselves on the rest of us.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 6:44pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Define “perverts”. I don’t see how transgender and intersex people are necessarily “sexual perverts”. Nor is homo-/bisexuality.

                                Also, my (lesser) point is that, for the most part, you can’t even tell a transgender person from a cisgender person. Most don’t broadcast their sex-assigned-at-birth. They aren’t forcing anything on you.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:05pm

                                  Perverts

                                  People in the BDSM community often refer to themselves as perverts.

                                  Also 4Chan restricts furry porn to /b during nighttime hours (7pm to 8am PST, I think).

                                  Some people are afraid of others who like their sexual fantasies and porn too spicy.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    bhull242 (profile), 10 Jan 2021 @ 7:42pm

                                    Re: Perverts

                                    I never really understood why people have a problem with what people do indoors with consenting adults. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to look at it or do it yourself.

                                    At any rate, if that’s what they meant by “sexual perverts”, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion up to that point. We were talking about gender, genetics, and biological sex on the internet. Furries and BDSM are a separate issue, as well as sexual activities, though it’s still the platform holder’s prerogative on what to do with them.

                                    P.S. Odd to have a time-based restriction on a website like that. Isn’t /b where all the controversial stuff goes, anyways? Kids and the easily offended shouldn’t really be there at any time of day.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Jan 2021 @ 1:22pm

                                      Re: Re: Perverts

                                      From the Rules of the Internet

                                      8. There are no real rules about posting
                                      9. There are no real rules about moderation -- enjoy your ban

                                      I'm pretty sure the 4Chan policies were made ad-hoc with no attention to consistency in format, hence MLP posts are highly restricted and Furry porn is restricted by time. The channels generally are a casual place that don't take too seriously the moderation process.

                                      It's one of those seedy dives that has a sign:

                                      No spitting!
                                      We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason!
                                      No anal sex in the common area until after 10pm!

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Zephyrius, 13 Jan 2021 @ 6:57am

                            Re: Re: Re:

                            The chromosomes argument is flawed, as most people have no clue what it actually is, and probably never find out.

                            Transwomen presenting as a women externally is indistinguishable wearing clothes...so what you're saying is the wide range of makeup and clothing can actually disguise what someone really looks like? That's some ground breaking information right there...who would have thought?

                            Again, stating very rare situations/genetic flaws does not equate to their being more genders....it just means the baby was born "incomplete" or with a "mutation". Like are we going to teach kids in school that 4 fingers and 1 thumb is not normal either because 2% of the world was born with an extra finger? Like where does it stop? This is the problem with your mindset...you just take everything logical and throw it out the window for the sake of 2%. It's mindblowing. We're not saying to burn them at the stake, we are simply saying we can be nice to everyone...but don't force/teach this crap to our kids and to also use completely different language. Freedom of speech means I can call you whatever I want, and I don't need you, or Twitter, or Facebook telling me it's correct or not. That is what CENSORSHIP is...and were not living in fucking China.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Uriel-238 (profile), 13 Jan 2021 @ 12:45pm

                              "Don't force/teach this crap to our kids"

                              And yet my grandson's father was pressuring him to man-up(not cry, stuff his emotions) when he was four. We have a society in which men are super protective of their roles, and women don't want to share their spaces.

                              Abolish gender entirely and the whole transgender conversation becomes nearly moot. It's what we should have done in the 1970s. Instead, we have religious fanatics claiming it's a communist plot. And child abuse because toddlers aren't tough.

                              LGBT+ Is over 10% of the population and outnumbers us left-handed folk (and I am more than annoyed at the limited left-handed or ambidextrous offerings that free-market capitalism gives us). Transgendered persons (if 2% is correct) is more than the first-nation peoples in the United States, who are also terribly underserved.

                              And considering that power and recognition is only getting worse and floating to the wealthiest, the US is sucking more every day then you too will find yourself an underperson (or even an unperson) as time moves forward.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              bhull242 (profile), 13 Jan 2021 @ 3:36pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              The chromosomes argument is flawed, as most people have no clue what it actually is, and probably never find out.

                              Irrelevant. The point is that there are more than two options.

                              Transwomen presenting as a women externally is indistinguishable wearing clothes...so what you're saying is the wide range of makeup and clothing can actually disguise what someone really looks like? That's some ground breaking information right there...who would have thought?

                              What it means is that there is no good reason to discriminate against transgender women. Additionally, there are a number of men who naturally look like women without makeup and vice versa. So, again, whether or not they identify as the gender corresponding to their sex-assigned at birth is none of your business. That’s the point.

                              Again, stating very rare situations/genetic flaws does not equate to their being more genders....it just means the baby was born "incomplete" or with a "mutation".

                              I never said anything about the number of sexes. I was talking about whether biological sex is strictly two possibilities without intersection or exceptions. While the majority fit neatly into one of two categories, not everyone does.

                              Like are we going to teach kids in school that 4 fingers and 1 thumb is not normal either because 2% of the world was born with an extra finger? Like where does it stop?

                              As John Oliver said, “Somewhere.” Also, I don’t see why it matters what we teach about what is normal about hands. I’m not discussing normality at all. That seems to be the problem here. You’re thinking I’m trying to change “normality”. I simply don’t care about some random person’s definition of “normal” and don’t believe that we should exclude anything outside of “normal”.

                              This is the problem with your mindset...you just take everything logical and throw it out the window for the sake of 2%. It's mindblowing.

                              No, we’re recognizing that some things aren’t black-and-white as shown by the existence of 2% (which is significant, BTW, given the size of the population). Why should we exclude the 2%? How does it hurt you?

                              What you call “logical” appears anything but to me. It’s not “logical”; it’s simple and traditional. Unfortunately, life and reality aren’t always simple, and I’ve never been a fan of traditions for tradition’s sake, especially if they exclude people.

                              We're not saying to burn them at the stake, we are simply saying we can be nice to everyone...but don't force/teach this crap to our kids and to also use completely different language.

                              What “completely different language”? I’m not talking about going overboard; I’m talking about basic decency. You don’t want to use the made-up pronouns like “xe”? Fine. If they prefer “he” over “she” or vice versa, use what they prefer. Otherwise, or if you can’t abide by that, use singular “they”. Nothing I’m suggesting involves saying anything complex or outside the English language. I’m not even asking you to use complicated rules for your speech. These are very simple rules that are very easy to abide by.

                              No one is asking you to “force” anything on your kids. A lot of transgender people knew they were transgender without even knowing that it was a thing, anyways. As for teaching, if it doesn’t come up, then I don’t have a problem. However, when I was a kid, we were taught about genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia and extra or missing fingers. What’s wrong with teaching about transgender and homosexuality stuff or sex-related genetic disorders later in life? Why is it so offensive to you to know or teach that not everyone fits in the category of “normal”, and that’s okay?

                              Freedom of speech means I can call you whatever I want, and I don't need you, or Twitter, or Facebook telling me it's correct or not.

                              Freedom of speech does mean you can call me or anyone else what you want without fear of violence or government intervention (for the most part, at least), but it does not give you the right to say it without me, Twitter, or Facebook telling you whether it’s correct or not. In fact, freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to tell you whether you’re right or not. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of your speech or freedom from social consequences for your speech.

                              You don’t have to like it, but the very essence of free speech involves one person saying something and another person disputing it. That back-and-forth is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

                              That is what CENSORSHIP is...and were not living in fucking China.

                              How the hell is saying, “You’re wrong,” censorship by any meaning of the term?

                              And while we’re on the subject, let’s get back to the original point under discussion: Facebook and Twitter’s treatment of what they feel to be transphobic speech on their platforms. That’s not censorship, either, though it’s a hell of a lot closer than the criticism of your speech. Censorship means you can’t say it at all without government interference. A platform holder telling you to take speech they dislike somewhere else is not censorship; it’s moderation of their privately owned platform, something they have every right to do. If you don’t like their rules, take your ball somewhere else. You don’t have the right to force Facebook and Twitter to host your speech if they don’t want to.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      dunce, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:13am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                      thanks for being cogent and at length.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2020 @ 1:08pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                      Explain how I was banned from Parler WITHOUT posting a damn thing, because I sure didn't receive a reason from Parler!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Name, 14 Nov 2020 @ 9:04pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                      Please provide links to the 'rampant vote by mail fraud' new stories you mention, because my head is in the sand and I have not seen them.
                      Unlike most people, I can read and judge for myself based on the merits of the news stories.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Bob dole, 30 Jun 2020 @ 6:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            This is really funny.

            You are saying censorship based on ideology is a myth - I try to read this thread and for a while see ONLY your comments - condemning an invisible person.

            Eventually I see your debate opponent is hidden. I expand his comments - partisan, maybe, but no profanity much less random epithets.

            It literally got flagged because someone (you? Author?) disagreed.

            So you want to revise your position or are you a professional liar?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Toom1275 (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:18pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              Did it really not occur to you that gaslighting and lying about the very thread you're posting in, where all it takes to debunk your false narrative is reading anything that surrounds your disingenuous post, is a massively stupid and obvious bad-faith tactic?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 1 Jul 2020 @ 11:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              It took you that long to realize you could actually see the hidden comments? And how is that censorship? If you can still see the content, and no one has been punished by the government for it, it hasn’t been censored.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:04pm

          Facebook constantly censors content

          Is Facebook stopping people from posting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 on Twitter or Mastodon or anywhere else? If not, it ain’t censorship. Facebook has an absolute right to moderate speech — and that includes speech such as, oh I’unno, conspiracy theories about COVID-19 that could lead to further erosion of public health.

          You’re free to say whatever you want. But you can’t make others listen. And you sure as shit can’t (and shouldn’t be able to) make others host your speech. Don’t like it? Start your own Gab or Voat or Parler or 8chan.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:12pm

            Re:

            Disregarding the fact they're using the fucking WHO guidelines - an organization that was lead by a communist terrorist until recently, both FB, Twitter and others have made coordinated deplatforming in several instances. Also, they actually can't moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act. Sigh, i remember the left was staunch free speech proponents. Now it's corporate bootlicker like you

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:15pm

              Re: Re:

              That you think WHO is "lead by a communist terrorist" shows much about how seriously we should take you.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                YouthGoneBy (profile), 30 Jun 2020 @ 3:11pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                Terrorist may be a stretch but he certainly is, or at least was, a communist. The man was from the Tigray province, which was the support base for the communist party up until I believe 1995. He was in government as early as 1991, so to say he was not a communist is simply not accurate.

                That communist party saw major financing from the Chinese communist party. That's not necessarily damning, nations help like-minded nations all the time.

                I'm only replying to point out that the man was in fact a communist, and a member of a communist party with financial ties to China, and then as head of the WHO certainly seemingly, and I stress seemingly, softened any pandemic related press releases with China in mind.

                We could also get into WHO treatment of places like Hong Kong and Taiwan. So, I think having a rational discussion about the mans motives is not out of the question. It's natural.

                For my part I'm against Tedros. Not because of his politics, but because of the office he holds. States rights is where I stand in all things, and I do not believe that organizations like the UN and WHO can coexist with national identity. It has to be one or the other, and I choose national identity.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Jul 2020 @ 7:38am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "It has to be one or the other, and I choose national identity."

                  You were doing so well up until then. Fact of the matter is that when your options are a bunch of turds spray-painted in different colors the answer should never be "Always turd A because red, white and blue is my color".

                  You should be looking - at worst - for the source which after a modicum of critical thinking provides the least bad advice. That may still be a less malodorous turd, granted, but every little bit counts when the time comes where you have to eat your selected offer.

                  I also don't trust the WHO much when it comes to China or Taiwan but they are - unfortunately - still a better source of information than anything coming out of the white house.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Jul 2020 @ 12:24pm

                  communist = terrorist?

                  It's bad enough that terrorist has become common nomenclature for designated acceptable targets for neutralization, like zombie.

                  And yes, there is the old Cold War presumption that the only good Red is a dead Red. We're past the Cold War now. The Soviet Union disbanded. They're not very big on Communism now.

                  But at what point is the ideology of Communism worth shooting someone over? At what point does communism equate to terrorism?

                  (I should point out terrorism traditionally includes military violence against civilians, such as the WWI rail-gun attacks on Paris, or the German V2 attacks on London, or US targeted killings throughout the late 20th century and the drone strikes continuing to this day. I'm not sure why our drone strikes are not regarded as terrorism, except that the US is doing it and we want that to be okay. It's totally not okay.)

                  Getting back to the specifics, did Tedros Adhanom engage in ideological violence against civilians, say when he was Minister of Health of Ethiopia? What terrorism did he do that qualifies him as a terrorist?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Talmyr, 28 Nov 2020 @ 4:42pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You contradicted yourself by calling States' Rights absolute, then going on about national identity. A Federal, national identity is inconsistent with absolute state rights.

                  Which also seem to be inconsistent with any local area that disgrees with the state (Fracking bans, anyone?). Or any state that doesn't follow Fascism and gets the Federal Government called down on it. (Sanctuary cities, anyone?)

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 29 Nov 2020 @ 11:00am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  For the record, I don’t think that organizations like the UN and WHO are incompatible with either states’ rights or a national identity.

                  The UN allows most nations a place where they can all engage in diplomacy together and discuss their issues to a global audience. Most if not all UN resolutions are nonbinding on member nations, so no rights are given up. It’s just a place to discuss issues and possibly work together to resolve them.

                  As for the WHO, again, it’s decisions aren’t really binding. It's basically a way for all the nations to get together to discuss global health issues like a pandemic and work out what the proper response would be. What is or isn’t healthy is or shouldn’t be political and applies everywhere; it’s all just facts and scientific inquiry. As such, broad determinations on the facts of large-scale health issues and recommendations for tackling them shouldn’t be dependent on any individual nation. That’s actually where the WHO went wrong here by being too dependent on China at the beginning and by ignoring Taiwan entirely. That doesn’t mean that the idea behind the WHO is intrinsically wrong, though.

                  If you believe in both states’ rights and a national identity, then you probably already recognize that some issues should be tackled by the larger-scale federal government rather than state or local governments. Things like international trade, interstate issues, basic human rights, diplomacy, currency, and war should be handled by a centralized federal government. Similarly, some issues are best handled or at least discussed by a global organization. The difference is that most global organizations are ultimately less powerful than individual national governments.

                  Also, out of curiosity, do you feel the same about NAFTA and the WTO?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  dAbOYdUNgONcRADY, 12 Jan 2021 @ 5:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Dude, a pandemic pays no mind to nations borders state lines or political leanings. When the big ones come along you need organizations that can work as well as can be expected in a political world to monitor and administer and advise regarding situations that need complex and massive networks. It’s been proven now that without those organizations and funding and planning, we end up in crisis situations as we are now in 2021 and COVID where they had months to figure out the strategies of distributing vaccines. And as we applaud the rapid development of this new bio technology, we also have to acknowledge what a disaster it is now that the next legs of this process werent even half baked. When there’s a pandemic, nations and states and communities tend to act like individuals rather than teams because there’s little precedent. Except there is precedent and that’s WHO.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:18pm

              they actually can't moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act

              Two things.

              1. It’s the “Communications Decency Act”, and with the sole exception of 47 U.S.C. § 230, the entire CDA was rendered unconstitutional.

              2. Interactive computer services can moderate according to political bias and retain 230 protections; show us exactly where the law says otherwise.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:22pm

              Re: Re:

              Also, they actually can't moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act.

              Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:49pm

              Re: Re:

              both FB, Twitter and others have made coordinated deplatforming in several instances.

              And your point is?

              Alex Jones has been kicked off every major platform, but he still has his own platform from which to spew his crazy ideas, and nobody is stopping him from doing that. And anybody who wants to "follow" him can do so on his own site!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Patriot, 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:23pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                and nobody is stopping him from doing that.

                Well, except for Lenny Pozner and his lawyers.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                John, 13 Nov 2020 @ 1:47pm

                Re: Re: Re:

                Very true. Similar to the fact that any homosexual couple can bake their own wedding cake. Or that anyone who "identifies" as a member of the opposite sex can simply go outside and pee behind the bushes instead of having a department-store being forced to let them use the lavatory of their choice. Similarly, why, for example should a private men's club be forced to allow women to become members, or even Blacks for that matter, just because it might inhibit their ability to "network" in business? They could simply go and start their own private clubs. I find it amusing that one, an obvious liberal/progressive, has no problem with government intervention into a private business when it fits their agenda, but oh so vocally rush to its defense in this case.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 13 Nov 2020 @ 2:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Likelihood this is sincere (not parody): 0.9997/1

                  Poe factor: 4

                  Are you really arguing against public accommodations? Or comparing public accommodations to accommodation of speech on a given forum.

                  I was recently reminded our conservative colleagues are also glad to have black kids jailed for posting threatening Rap lyrics on their Facebook page, or punishing Arab boys who bring their self-made electric clock to school, because it might be a bomb.

                  Hate speech is AOK but boobs, digital timers and violent rap lyrics are not?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Patriot, 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:30pm

            Re:

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Patriot, 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:32pm

              Re: Re:

              See here.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:43pm

                Wow, it’s almost as if corporations don’t want to do business with people those corporations consider toxic. Imagine that~.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Patriot, 30 Jun 2020 @ 2:56pm

                  Re:

                  Hopefully you'll become "toxic" and de-platformed, permanently disemployed and de-banked by the monopolies.

                  Banks and payment processors, who've been given a monopoly on the issuance of unbacked credit, should be required to serve any lawful customer.

                  The same goes for Internet infrastructure companies who provide DNS, anti-DDoS, cloud hosting and the like.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          I don’t think there’s any serious debate on COVID-19 beyond when, where, and how to reopen. Any “divergent views” outside of that are almost certainly wild conspiracy theories, made out of ignorance, quack science, or wishful thinking.

          I also don’t think Facebook “blocks” users; it bans them.

          As for “free speech”, there’s a difference between supporting FA free speech and free speech on privately-owned public platforms. It’s also not censoring to kick you off my lawn when you’re saying something I don’t like.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            Ah yes, there's "no serious debate," because "progressives" define anything that they don't agree with as "not serious." Nice trick.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              So, please present us with examples of divergent views on COVID-19 that has been removed by Facebook.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:28pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks. Your kind loves censorship, even of carefully documented, scientific studies. It's pathetic.

                https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:37pm

                  Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks.

                  So what? Facebook has that right.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:46pm

                    Re:

                    It not only has that right it was right to do so because that 'study' does not say what they think it does, and as such it could have resulted in people making dangerously stupid/ill-informed decisions that could get them and/or those around them infected or killed.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  steell (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                  From your link: "Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. "

                  A study comparing cloth masks to medical masks determines that medical masks are more effective. Imagine that.

                  You said "Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks."
                  Lie much?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                  https://twitter.com/richdavisphd/status/1276629360212979712

                  No study but it should be obvious that any droplet stopped will help the cause (as will not having to see some people's ugly mug).

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Rocky, 30 Jun 2020 @ 12:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                  As others have pointed out the study shows that medical masks are better than cloth masks in protecting health workers from getting infected.

                  Another thing that infection specialists, doctors and health-care workers in general have pointed out, its that the primary reason for using a mask is not to protected the wearer - it's to protect the people around them.

                  If your buddy (and you considering the language you used) made a post on Facebook saying that masks are ineffective based on this study your posts deserve to be removed without question.

                  So your "divergent view of COVID-19" turns out to be uninformed hogwash that promulgates an idea that will put people in danger.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 6:26am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                  I don't think you or your friend read that study. It talks about the effectiveness of cloth masks, not all masks. And it even has an updated link regarding COVID-19 related shortages of PPE and says that cloth masks aren't as good as surgical masks or respirators but still better than nothing.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              No, I mean that no health experts have any honest disagreements about it that are being censored. Also, that study doesn’t say what you claim it does. That was the problem.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 29 Nov 2020 @ 12:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              There’s no “serious debate” by experts.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          divergent views on COVID-19.

          Translation: Pseudo/antiscientific bullshit

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            Got it. Anything "progressives" don't agree with is "pseudo/antiscientific bullshit." Neat trick there. LOL

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:46pm

              Give us an example of a “divergent” view on COVID-19 that isn’t rooted in pseudoscience/anti-science ideology, then.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:58pm

                Re:

                Okey doke, then. Speaking of science, how about a peer-reviewed, double-blind study of 1,600 health care workers in high-risk units in 14 hospitals, showing that the common cloth masks block only 3% of particles, and that surgical masks only block 44%?

                Sorry, "progressive," but your mandatory masks do NOTHING to stop the spread of the virus. You couldn't care less about science. This is entirely about your politics and your insatiable need to engage in self-righteous virtue signaling.

                Now, I'm sure you will dump on the study. Why? The Iron Law: "You can always tell a 'progressive,' but you can never tell a 'progressive' a single thing. They think they know everything."

                https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:12pm

                  "Masks don't work"

                  But what about <looks at a websearch> this?
                  Do you judge all identity groups as uniform monoliths the way you do progressives? That's pretty pathetic for an iron law.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:15pm

                  your mandatory masks do NOTHING to stop the spread of the virus

                  Seems like they do 3% more to stop the spread than not wearing a mask.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    icon
                    TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:21pm

                    Re:

                    Too diligent to actually read the study, I see. It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all. Reading is fundamental, lazy "progressive." LOL

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:42pm

                      Re: Re:

                      It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all.

                      Speaking of not reading the study... no, it didn't, because there was no no-mask control group, something you would have known had you bothered to even read the abstract.

                      Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        icon
                        TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:05pm

                        Re: Re: Re:

                        Actually, yes there was a control arm. Apparently, as a "progressive," your ADD gets in the way. Oh ye of a limited attention span. No wonder you don't actually know anything. LOL

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:10pm

                          yes there was a control arm

                          Did the control arm go maskless?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:53pm

                            Re:

                            Unless they had a second control group not mentioned in the abstract no, no they did not, as the abstract makes explicitly clear that the control group wore masks.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              icon
                              TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:57pm

                              Re: Re:

                              No it didn't, but you are a "progressive," so why not lie? It's what you people do. LOL

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:34pm

                                Re: Re: Re:

                                I get by now that you're a hypocritical ass who thinks that schoolyard level insults are making other people look bad, but just a tip for the future, if you're going to lie it helps if the refutation to that lie isn't literally a few comments above.

                                Once more from the abstract of the study in question:

                                Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

                                Digging into the study a little more...

                                In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period. The remaining 1% either reported using a N95 respirator (n=3) or did not use any masks (n=2).

                                ...

                                It is also unknown whether the rates of infection observed in the cloth mask arm are the same or higher than in HCWs who do not wear a mask, as almost all participants in the control arm used a mask.

                                ...

                                Another limitation of this study is the lack of a no-mask control group and the high use of masks in the controls, which makes interpretation of the results more difficult.

                                And in a more recent response to questions regarding how the study might apply to COVID concerns:

                                Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected. We recommend that health workers should not work during the COVID-19 pandemic without respiratory protection as a matter of work health and safety.

                                I'd say I look forward to your admission that you were wrong and an apology for calling me a liar, but as your past responses have indicated that that's almost certainly beyond you I suppose I'll take the entertainment provided from yet more of the childish name-calling that seems to be your default response instead.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:49pm

                                Re: Re: Re:

                                Keep LOLing, it only shows you're far too stupid to be that smug. Nothing new for a "conservative", though, I grant you that.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:25pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I sense great projection in this one…

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:38pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "yes there was a control arm"

                          As he said, you stupid maggot. You can't even read the comments you're responding to, let alone the study you cited.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      blademan9999 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 10:12pm

                      Re: Re:

                      The writers of the study itself noted in a response to people asking if/how it applied to COVID "Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected."

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:36pm

                      Re: Re:

                      "It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all. "

                      Wrong, you lying moron.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:16pm

                  Re: Re:

                  Of course, that's in hospital settings, not in quotidian outdoor settings.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    icon
                    TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:19pm

                    Re: Re: Re:

                    Yeah, right. They don't work in high-risk hospital settings, but they work in grocery stores. LOL. "Progressive" "logic" on display.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:34pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      The study was done in 2015, way before the COVID-19 pandemic. Maybe you should read the update before you say–as you are wont to do–"ME SMART! PROGRESSIVES R DUM-DUMS!!!"

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        icon
                        TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:09pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Apparently you are a typical "progressive" who is too scattered and too lazy to have read the update this spring. Please tell us that you don't have an occupation where anyone ever has to depend on you. LOL

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:24pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Apparently, you can’t be bothered to read the comment you’re responding to, which links to the update.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:41pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          You are a profoundly stupid maggot. Please do the world a favor and get hit by a truck.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:35pm

                  Re: Re:

                  'Less effective than alternatives' does not mean 'not effective at all', and as the study itself noted there was no 'no mask' control group to compare with. In addition as the writers of the study itself noted in a response to people asking if/how it applied to COVID 'Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected.', which rather conflicts with the idea that masks don't do any good if you're going to point to them as a source.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              Got it ... you're a dishonest imbecile, a maggot, and a s**tstain on humanity. Please do not ever wear a mask.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          BillOfRights, 30 Jun 2020 @ 10:04am

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          Right. Just look your post and the one before it. They were flagged and I see nothing derogatory, fake, racist, hatefilled, etc. in it. Just someone f'ing with ya or butt hurt.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Jul 2020 @ 7:24am

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          "Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19."

          So wait, proven lies which if believed and acted upon constitute lethal danger to anyone reading it is now comparable to a measured discourse on family values and economics in your book?

          "And Reddit removes posts that criticize "Black Lives Matter.""

          Calling black people "N_ggers", implying that they're all somehow "less" than white people, or discussing George Floyd as a "criminal" who deserved death when in fact, he was not, **is not "criticizing" Black Lives Matter.
          I realize the difference may be lost to you.

          "Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates."

          Time was when a self-styled "conservative" was something other than a repetitively spamming shit-posting racist or bigot. You are still completely free to start your own platform where you can discuss just how much <insert ethnic or transgender minority> sucks. But not even way back when did "progressives" ever let you do that in their own living rooms.

          Facebook has catered to conservative values to the point where it's now harder for liberals to debate seriously than it is for the "alt-right" to sneak in a few implications about the inferiority of <minority scapegoat>...but that's just not good enough for the guys who are still miffed that they can't use someone else's platform to organize their next cross-burning.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        Also, Facebook immediately deletes any link to the Unz Review. Doesn't matter what the link discusses. Lefties cannot handle divergence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Chris, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          Facebook also blocks BOFA. Absolutely shameful.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            a 2 year old article from Vice, a regressive left propaganda site that has been caught peddling fake news on multiple occasions? Seems legit

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              says a guy who thinks the leader of the WHO is a "communist terrorist". You're a whackjob.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:27pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                Ok sure, facts makes you a wackjob? You're just plain ignorant. He was a member of an oppressive regime for a party which is on the etheopian terrorist list

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:33pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                  Donald Trump makes terroristic threats on twitter all the time. And?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:35pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:19pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                      Any convictions? No? Then what use is that? Just some journalists making unsubstantiated claims. The fact that the very same people have no issue fuelling racial tension by lying about police brutality towards black people, something that has literally gotten people killed, makes it all the more ridiculous

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:27pm

                        lying about police brutality towards black people

                        The video of George Floyd didn’t lie, unless you think he deserved to die over using a fake $20 bill that he may not have even known was fake and therefore the lethal use of force was wholly justified.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:32pm

                          Re:

                          Forget it Stephen. The Anonymous Coward doesn't see black people as people.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          icon
                          TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:59pm

                          Re:

                          Floyd was a COVID-infected, sickle-cell anemic, heart disease ridden heroin addict, drunk, high, and on meth. Not that "progressives" ever noticed. LOL

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:47pm

                            Please provide proof that at the time of his death, George Floyd was infected with COVID-19 and under the influence of drugs. Please also provide a reasoned opinion as to why any of what you said, regardless of whether it’s true, justifies his being murdered by a police officer for nothing more than using a fake $20 bill.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:58am

                              Re:

                              The one time I handed over a fake note to pay for something, the store refunded me for confiscating it, and gave me an apology, after they checked their CCTV and saw me getting it out of the machine on their own premises.

                              Almost like there's some kind of notable difference between me and Floyd...

                              notes the lack of melanin

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:27pm

                            Re: Re:

                            [citation needed], and how would that change anything?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:51pm

                            Re: Re:

                            So, he should have better worn a mask?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:45pm

                            Re: Re:

                            You're an evil racist sack of pus who really doesn't deserve to live.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    icon
                    TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:09pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                    What terroristic threats got your panties in a twist, poor "progressive" scaredy cat? LOL

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:43pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

                Thanks much, China! LOL

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              You've been caught lying with every breath, you stupid right wing maggot. Nothing legitimate about you scum.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:43pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          Decent people don't like antisemitism, holocaust denial and white supremacy - which Unz Review and Ron Unz stands for. All those topics are against Facebook's TOS, so why would they allow links to such material on their platform?

          It's not about divergent viewpoints, it's about assholes thinking they are entitled to use others platform to spread their message of hate - and they have a complete meltdown when they discover that they don't.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            Some stuff on Unz is contemptible, but it shouldn't be banned. The vast majority of their material is not. You "progressives" have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:47pm

              Some stuff on Unz is contemptible, but it shouldn't be banned.

              You’re free to tell Facebook that. They’re free to ignore you. Facebook admins get to decide what is and isn’t acceptable on Facebook; if that includes sites you enjoy, well, tough titties.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:52pm

                Re:

                I get it. You're a fragile "progressive" who cannot stand opposing views, and supports censorship. You'd be best off being careful what you wish for, because once censorship becomes accepted, that worm can turn very quickly.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:19pm

                  You're a fragile "progressive" who cannot stand opposing views, and supports censorship.

                  If I supported censorship, I’d call for whoever hosts Unz Review to obliterate the site from the Internet. I’m not.

                  Facebook admins have every right to moderate what speech can and cannot appear on Facebook. You can disagree with those decisions; lots of people will at some point. But neither you nor the federal government can force Facebook to host speech its owners/operators don’t want to host. Deal with it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:22pm

                  Re: Re:

                  Extreme and distasteful content causes users to leave, and Facebook and Twitter do not want to become the next 8chan, so they remove content that would likely cause people to leave their service. Their moderation is driven by how to they keep the largest user base rather than politics.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:36pm

                  Re: Re:

                  I think you’re missing the point. Facebook is free to remove or leave up whatever 3rd-party content it wants (outside of the DMCA, FOSTA, and federal criminal laws). That means I support Facebook’s right to remove content it finds objectionable whether I like it or not along with its right to not remove content it doesn’t mind as much regardless of whether I like it or not. Left, right, or neither, it doesn’t matter.

                  Now, that’s not to say that I don’t have my own opinions on individual cases of Facebook moderation decisions, but I support their legal right to do so regardless and recognize that them making a lot of mistakes is inevitable when operating on such a scale and dealing with highly subjective decisions that need to be made.

                  So tell me, how is that being “fragile”?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              Some stuff on Unz is contemptible, but it shouldn't be banned.

              Why? Facebook's platform, their rules. Is this difficult to grasp somehow?

              The vast majority of their material is not. You "progressives" have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred.

              So why is it that you are having a meltdown about how unfair it is that Facebook doesn't want to link to a site containing antisemitism and white supremacy propaganda? Do you think those viewpoints deserve equal treatment with other more main-steam topics?

              And who is it really that "have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred"? It's usually those who scream how oppressed they are because they aren't allowed to use someones private property to carry their message.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              "You "progressives" have become pathetic, fragile, and full of hatred."

              Please explain to me how you differ from your image of "progressives" in this regard.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:52pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              You "progressives" have become pathetic, fragile, and full of
              hatred.

              You conservative cunts started it. Tough luck.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 7 Jul 2020 @ 7:57am

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          "Also, Facebook immediately deletes any link to the Unz Review. Doesn't matter what the link discusses. Lefties cannot handle divergence."

          I have a hard time imagining any moderately sane person, left or right wing who'd allow people to use his personal property as a platform to post directions to a direct white supremacy site.

          But hey, do go on and keep demonstrating how we "lefties" apparently understand the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY better than you "self-styled conservatives".

          It's not our fault the alt-right alternatives to Facebook and Twitter turned into sewers only the most hardened neo-nazis still bother visiting. If you've shat down your own living room to the point where no one wants to visit no one else owes you right of hospitality just because you want a fresh floor to take a dump on.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        RandomPerson, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:59pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        I'll give you a great example - if you post on twitter saying that there are only 2 sexes and gender identity disorder is a mental illness, you're against their rules and bannable. Now you may not agree with that position, but this is an example of a political/ideological issue that is codified within twitter rules.

        If you post that children should not be taught about gender identity and asked if they would prefer to get hormones without the parent's consent, that can be against their TOS as well. This is always going to be a problem and it 100% comes down to the views of the moderator on whether that is hate speech or science based discourse on best policy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          You're lying, as all right wingers do incessantly.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        dunce, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:05am

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        the article does not provide any examples of the censored speech.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        SharpShtik, 30 Jun 2020 @ 9:55am

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        A few examples of facts that social(ist) media bans:

        • ANTIFA are communists who defame everyone left of center as "fascist" (i.e., national socialists) as an excuse to commit crimes against Americans
        • BLM is run by racist communists
        • Proud Boys defend freedom against Democrats trying to destroy freedom like leftists do worldwide
        • Democrats are trying to take dictatorial control by controlling speech, so that only leftist (propaganda) speech is allowed and non-leftists are shunned by government, businesses run by leftists, etc.
        • All lives matter
        • Democrats (due to their personal politics (immoral, self-entitled, disrespectful of other's rights, etc.) commit nearly all crime, as confirmed by multiple studies, including studies based on convict admissions
        • Black Democrats commit ~50% of crime
        • there is no systemic racism against minorities
        • The primary source of racism comes from Democrats, especially minority Democrats
        • White racism is so non-existent the FBI immediately sent 15 agents to investigate a garage door pull hoaxed as a "noose"
        • Democrats hate police because Democrats commit nearly all crime
        • Democrats have criminal minds, believing property should be taken from people for redistribution (force, deprivation of rights/freedom), whereas honest people promote charity (freedom)
        • Democrats are whipping minority Democrats into a frenzy with propaganda to try to stem the flow of minorities to the Republican Party and freedom movement
        • Democrat Party is the party of slavery

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Nomon, 2 Oct 2020 @ 6:17am

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        You can't discuss any alternative treatment for Covid. Every Post I've made on FB is censured. You can't discuss anything about Biden's Mental health, It too is scrubbed by them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 3 Oct 2020 @ 5:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          You can't discuss any alternative treatment for Covid. Every Post I've made on FB is censured.

          Considering all the misinformation spreading around about COVID-19, that’s hardly surprising. Even if some posts that are relatively benign are removed in the process, that’s hardly surprising given the scale at which FB operates.

          You can't discuss anything about Biden's Mental health, It too is scrubbed by them.

          Unless I see the posts in question, I can’t really say much on this one. That said, I don’t see any reason why Biden’s mental health is bad to begin with.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Mark, 7 Nov 2020 @ 6:27pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        Try this: Faggots and liars are reprobates that are going to hell. Human life starts at conception and abortion is murder.

        Let's see these truths go viral on FascistBook and Twittles.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 10 Nov 2020 @ 5:41am

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          Those aren’t truths. At best, they’re opinions.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Nov 2020 @ 12:02pm

            Opinions.

            The first statement is religious hate speech. That's like any other hate speech, except that since it's based on Christianity, and within the doctrine of the church that has capture the Republican party (and the doctrine of the Federalist Society), our current federal government is trying to carve out exceptions for it.

            The second statement is a misstatement. Spermatozoa and ova are human life before conception. But appointing personhood at conception raises a tuckfun of moral and philosophical issues that our religious friends don't want to think about.

            I won't get into them here because a comprehensive explanation would take books, let alone pages.

            But I will get to what is on-brand for our conservative colleagues: 30% of abortions in the US are provided to Americans who do not believe in abortion access. And these patients feel their own abortion is justified, even when it's voluntary, but cannot use that to extend empathy to other Americans.

            Regardless, Mark's examples are banal and despite great effort do not go viral on Facebook or Twitter. A lot of people express these notions and a whole lot of fellow social media users fail to care.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:50pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      Our Marxist friends who are more than happy to tout Twitter's ability to ban and shadow ban speech the left labels as "fascist" are now upset about Parler?

      No one's upset about Parler banning people. Everyone finds it hilarious, because it shows how bullshit their claims were.

      There is a good faith element here

      Oh, so you're admitting that it's okay to ban bad faith actors from any platform? Good to know.

      and the Marxists have basically the entire public square

      What the fuck are you on about? I don't know of any "marxists" and certainly none that control "the entire public square" (or even part of it).

      That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.

      "Open wish"? Can you point to where these so-called Marxists have said that they want to deny "moderates" a place to "openly discuss" positions? Because it's never happened.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Wendy Cockcroft (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        Now, now, Mike, everyone knows that anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of Trump Almighty is a commie pinko Marxist traitor to America.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Thiccboi, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:09pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        Obviously they don't openly say it, but using terms like"hate" you can basically ban everyone you don't like. Ironically today this just happened with Trump's major subreddit and twitch channel.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          Left leaning reddits such as chaotraphouse were also removed.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

            All of reddit is left leaning. They couldn't handle one pro-Trump sub that was pretty significant in getting him elected, which is the real reason everything is being removed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:00pm

              All of reddit is left leaning.

              [citation needed]

              They couldn't handle one pro-Trump sub that was pretty significant in getting him elected, which is the real reason everything is being removed.

              Then explain why the subreddit for Chapo Trap House, a left-leaning podcast, was banned — y’know, for reasons other than supporting violence against elected officials and doxxing people (among other such things). And I’ll remind you that users of T_D made similar posts during that subreddit’s lifetime, which explains why the subreddit was quarantined well before its deletion.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:09pm

                Re:

                Because they needed to have one leftwing example to say 'see guys, totally no bias here'. Meanwhile, there are numerous left leaning subs that breaks the rules daily with no repercussions. This is just to trick the low IQ people and it looks like it worked

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:12pm

                  Re: Re:

                  Meanwhile, there are numerous left leaning subs that breaks the rules daily with no repercussions.

                  Name 5 of them.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:18pm

                    Re: Re: Re:

                    r/politics, any antifascist subreddit. If you're trying to deny this you're either woefully ignorant or lying. This has been well documented by the likes of Tim Poole in many videos. Do your own research

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:25pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "Tim Poole"? Do you mean this guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Pool

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:28pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Yes. Good job, you can type a name in Google!

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Michael, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:34pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      /r/politics is definitely left-leaning, but the mods are right-wing and you have zero examples of anyone on that sub "breaking the rules daily with no repercussions.

                      "Do your own research" is what people with dumb arguments they can't support say.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:39pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Mods are right wing? LMAO

                        https://banks.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1573

                        Lots of links in that one. Oh and what truly dumb people do is to demand sources for well documented facts only so they can dismiss those sources using ad hominem in order to derail the discussion. That's the problem when you're on the side that's against reality. We have numerous Project Veritas videos documenting the extreme leftwing bias in social media

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:43pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          LOL at you thinking Project Veritas tells the truth and doesn't doctor their own videos.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:47pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            And there is the ad hominem against the sources, as predicted. We're talking about undercover videos of people working at these companies stating how they're actively suppressing right wing articles, people etc. What do you want? A Washington Post article stating it? Don't you just love circular logic?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:49pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwin g-group-beloved-by-trump

                              It's not their ideology, it's that they lie and defame people. It's like me citing Michael Moore.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:50pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Since we're rejecting sources, The Guardian is the very definition of an unreliable source. It's like linking Breitbart. Judge the clips on their own merit, not on the who is presenting them. That's what intelligent people do

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:53pm

                                  Judge the clips on their own merit, not on the who is presenting them.

                                  When the people presenting those clips have a documented habit of editing the clips to mislead viewers, we will judge both. Deal with it.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:02pm

                                    Re:

                                    But you're not. You're simply dismissing them. Tell me, what kind of evidence would suffice?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:21pm

                                      You're simply dismissing them.

                                      Project Veritas has a documented history of lying and editing videos in misleading ways. I dismiss them because they have lost any assumption of credibility.

                                      Tell me, what kind of evidence would suffice?

                                      To claim “anti-conservative bias” in social media as a fact, you must prove true the following statement:

                                      When conservatives and liberals break the same rule(s) in equal amounts, a service shows bias when it punishes conservatives in far greater numbers than it punishes liberals.

                                      I wish you the best of luck in proving that. You will need it.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Tanner Andrews (profile), 1 Jul 2020 @ 2:57am

                                        Re: [tautology]

                                        To claim “anti-conservative bias” in social media as a fact, you must prove true the following statement:

                                        When conservatives and liberals break the same rule(s) in equal amounts, a service shows bias when it punishes conservatives in far greater numbers than it punishes liberals.

                                        Easily proven. Given the above definition of showing bias, which I doubt you will dispute, the above definition is true. QED.

                                        I might have framed it differently, e.g., using above definition, I might have asked for evidence of social media platforms punishing one viewpoint significantly more frequently. For instance, it may be that this ``Parler'' is acting against one particular viewpoint more often than against its opposing viewpoint. However, I do not have data.

                                        Fortunately we do not need data to meet your requirements. Given our axioms, it is pretty easy to prove our axioms.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Tanner Andrews (profile), 6 Jul 2020 @ 5:04am

                                        Re:

                                        We were asked to prove the axiom. Because it is also a given, the proof was easy.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:04pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Shit man, you have the worst sources. You're only linking extreme leftwing sites. Do you have ANY non-biased, reputable sources for anything at all?

                                    Also, i'm talking about video clips with full sentences such as 'we have to do everything we can to prevent Trump being reelected'. How can that be taken out of context?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:07pm

                                      Shit man, you have the worst sources.

                                      I don’t see you refuting the evidence in those sources, all of which have more credibility than Project “we’re gonna have someone literally defame Roy Moore so we can sting a newspaper” Veritas.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                        identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:16pm

                                        Re:

                                        No need to refute them. The courts already did and their opinion has far more gravitas than some activists on leftwing propaganda site. Also, notice how i predicted exactly how this would play out when i first brought up Veritas. It's like you people are following a script. No wonder you had your tech overlords ban the NPC meme. It hit much too close to home

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • identicon
                                          Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:00pm

                                          Re: Re:

                                          2010: Acorn and Juan Carlos Vera

                                          On the basis of the edited videotape which O'Keefe released, Vera appeared to be a willing participant in helping with O'Keefe's plan to smuggle young women into the United States illegally. However, authorities confirmed that Mr. Vera immediately contacted them about O'Keefe and that he had also encouraged O'Keefe to share as much information as possible about his scheme and gather further evidence of O'Keefe's purported illegal activities, which could then be used by prosecutors to bring charges against O'Keefe for attempted human trafficking. Due to O'Keefe's release of the dubiously edited video, intentionally designed to "prove" that ACORN employees were ready and willing to engage in illicit activities, Mr. Vera lost his job and was falsely portrayed as being engaged in human trafficking.

                                          On March 5, 2013, O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions, and acknowledged in the settlement that at the time he published his video he was unaware that Vera had notified the police about the incident. The settlement contained the following apology: "O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family."

                                          2010: Senator Mary Landrieu

                                          O'Keefe and colleagues were arrested in the Hale Boggs Federal Complex in New Orleans in January 2010 and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony, at the office of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat.

                                          The charges in the case were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses. O'Keefe and the others pleaded guilty on May 26. O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences.

                                          2010 Abbie Boudreau

                                          O'Keefe planned a staged encounter with the CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau, who was doing a documentary on the young conservative movement. He set up an appointment at his office in Maryland to discuss a video shoot. Izzy Santa, executive director of Project Veritas, warned Boudreau that O'Keefe was planning to "punk" her on the boat by trying to seduce her—which he would film on hidden cameras. Boudreau did not board the boat and soon left the area.

                                          CNN later published a 13-page plan written by O'Keefe mentor Ben Wetmore. It listed props for the boat scheme, including pornography, sexual aids, condoms, a blindfold and "fuzzy" handcuffs. When questioned by CNN, O'Keefe denied he was going to follow the Wetmore plan, as he found parts of it inappropriate.

                                          Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement. Funding decreased from conservative political organizations following this CNN incident.

                                          That's just a sample of Project Veritas and O'Keefe's actions during 2010, and they have kept coming.

                                          Perhaps you should look up the court records that relates to Project Veritas and O'Keefe, because trust me - they don't paint a very pretty picture.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • icon
                                          techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 10:04pm

                                          Re: Re:

                                          Says the guy chickening out the moment he gets presented with examples of Project Veritas' misdeeds. Impressive.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:11pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      You're only linking extreme leftwing sites.

                                      The fact that you call Business Insider and The Daily Beast "extreme leftwing" shows that you're a fringe rightwinger.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                        identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:15pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        Imagine being so far gone you think The daily beast is not an extreme left site. I think you're the first person i've met who made such an obviously false and ridiculous claim. Most leftist can acknowledge how biased that site is just as i can acknowledge that Breitbart is incredibly biased. You're a fanatic in the cult of regressiveness

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:44pm

                          Project Veritas

                          I’m happy to see you acknowledge your ignorance. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:42pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      You named one without being very specific. That’s not 5. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:15pm

                  hey needed to have one leftwing example to say 'see guys, totally no bias here'

                  [citation needed, especially since hundreds of subreddits were banned]

                  there are numerous left leaning subs that breaks the rules daily with no repercussions

                  Report them, then.

                  This is just to trick the low IQ people and it looks like it worked

                  Not…really? I mean, T_D was basically a dead subreddit by the time of its ban, from what I hear on Reddit. And nobody with any sense should think the deletion of that subreddit will magically make Reddit a happy fun place made of sunshine and flowers and puppy breath. Also, most everyone agrees that the ban for T_D came far too late, so…yeah…

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:20pm

                    Re:

                    They have been reported and nothing gets done. Are you actually denying reddit does not ban right leaning subs far more than left despite no worse violations? Holy fuck

                    As for your last line - yea, no. Get out of your twitter bubble and you'll see you're actually in the minority. Most people are not regressive leftists

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:25pm

                      They have been reported and nothing gets done.

                      Sort of like how nothing was done against T_D until Reddit couldn’t ignore the PR nightmare?

                      Are you actually denying reddit does not ban right leaning subs far more than left despite no worse violations?

                      Until I see evidence that Reddit punishes self-identified conservative users/subreddits more often than their liberal counterparts for doing TOS-violating acts in equal measure? Yes, I am.

                      Get out of your twitter bubble and you'll see you're actually in the minority.

                      I’d rather be in the minority if it means I’m not a flagrant bigot.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:29pm

                        Re:

                        Oh the 'i can't win on facts so i'll put my head in the sand and throw labels like bigots around' Sorry pal, that's called an ad hominem and the only thing that does is display your lacking intellectual capacity and the weakness of your position

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:38pm

                          Your making extraordinary claims without presenting extraordinary evidence and deflecting from that lack of evidence with a bunch of namecalling does more to expose a lack of intelligence than anything I posted.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:42pm

                            Re:

                            We have very well documented evidence through Project Veritas, among others, and summarized by Tim Pool

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:44pm

                              Project Veritas

                              That you consider them credible says all we need to know about your own credibility.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:46pm

                              Re: Re:

                              Project Veritas are a bunch of liars. You're too blinded by your own ideology to see that. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwin g-group-beloved-by-trump

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:53pm

                                Re: Re: Re:

                                Already refuted above. My advice, stop reading fake news sites

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:56pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Stop blindly believing Project Veritas.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:00pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Stop dismissing video evidence because you don't like who is presenting it

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:02pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      If they didn't defame people, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                        identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:07pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        They didn't though according to the courts. Perhaps you should stop taking some activists' word over the legal system? Also, i'm talking about video clips with full sentences so bad that no context could justify it. The evidence is right there, you simply refuse to acknowledge it because deep down, you're perfectly fine with tech-fascism. Just understand that eventually you will be on the receiving end and there will be no one left to who wants to help you

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:50pm

                              Re: Re:

                              Anyone who thinks Project Veritas is a source of factual information has deluded themselves. They have been caught several times with outright lies or conveniently edited videos that leaves out important contexts.

                              If you have to lie to make your argument - you don't have an argument to begin with.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:56pm

                                Re: Re: Re:

                                Oh so like any MSM? Do you hold other sources to the standard? Because if you do, you should stop reading Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian or watch CNN, MSNBC etc. I'm guessing you don't. Also, unless they used deepfakes to create those videos, judge the clip on their own merit. You're using ad hominem in order to avoid the core of the argument because you know you will lose

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:00pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  There's also "out of context". Let me demonstrate:

                                  "Do you…read…The Guardian or watch CNN, MSNBC etc.?…judge [them] on their own merit[.]"

                                  That's what it sounds like as your acceptable level of Journalism, because that's what Project Veritas does.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:09pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    But why am i held to a higher standard than you? Surely, if you can dismiss video evidence based on smear articles by regressive activists and in spite of courts disagreeing, then i can dismiss media that has been caught lying repeatedly? Why the double standards?

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:25pm

                                      why am i held to a higher standard than you?

                                      You’re citing Project Veritas, that’s why. Stop citing liars as purveyors of truth and we’ll stop treating you as someone who prefers comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:41pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  I get my news and information from multiple places to get as a complete picture as possible, and those sites you mentioned isn't even among the top 10 I use.

                                  You on the other hand seem to think that Project Veritas can't do no wrong even though they have been caught again and again lying or maliciously editing videos since it's inception. So I use the word "deluded" for anyone who says they get their "truth" from Project Veritas, because that's the nicest word I can use for that kind of people.

                                  Just looking through O'Keefe's legal history should give even you a hint of what kind of dishonesty he is capable of.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                icon
                                TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:46pm

                                Re: Re: Re:

                                Not that Rachel Maddow was caught lying through her teeth about that fake-o Russian conspiracy. Oh, but wait! As long as a "progressive" lies, you are fine with it, because "any lie for the cause."

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:51pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Um, who here has mentioned Rachel Maddow? You were the first to mention her in a whataboutist way.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                    icon
                                    TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:07pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    She's a documented liar -- even the far-left Washington Post nailed her for it. But you love your liars as long as you think the liar is on your side. LOL

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:10pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      She's a documented liar -- even the far-left Washington Post nailed her for it. But you love your liars as long as you think the liar is on your side. LOL

                                      A few things:

                                      1. Amazing that you think the Washington Post is "far left". As with the Anonymous Coward with whom we were arguing, you haven't met many far leftists in your life if you think that the Washington Post is "far left".
                                      2. As I said, nobody here mentioned–let alone praised–Rachel Maddow. Why bring her up if only to set up an argument made of straw men?

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:47pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  Not that it’s relevant, but out of curiosity, what specifically about a Russian conspiracy did Rachel Maddow supposedly lie about?

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          bhull242 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:43pm

                          Re: Re:

                          Pot, meet kettle.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:48pm

                          Re: Re:

                          "Sorry pal, that's called an ad hominem..."

                          He says, and then proceeds with

                          "...and the only thing that does is display your lacking intellectual capacity..."

                          A grammatically atrocious ad hominem attack. Nice job. Better go take Introduction to Logic 101 again.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 10:07pm

                          Re: Re:

                          You can't win on conured up facts and definitely not on smugness. Tough shit.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:31pm

                      Re: Re:

                      Get out of your twitter bubble and you'll see you're actually in the minority. Most people are not regressive leftists

                      Not really.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:33pm

                        Re: Re: Re:

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:38pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I was responding to the "Most People are not regressive leftists" part. But since you're too dumb to read…

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:40pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Except your link did not disprove my statement. I'm sorry you suffer from delusions of adequacy and resort to fallacies when faced with the truth but them's the breaks i guess

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:41pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I'm sorry you suffer from delusions of adequacy and resort to fallacies when faced with the truth but them's the breaks i guess

                              Sounds more like you, who can't back up what they say.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:44pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                But i did. My link backs my statement where as your link did not back yours. Also, you've moved down to kindergarten insults now? Yup, truly one of those well educated and intelligent leftists you so like to claim is common

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:47pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Did you actually read that article, or were you hoping that others wouldn't, because it does not say what you think it does. To the extent that Twitter users differ from the population in general politically it's in the single digit range, and even then more people identify democrat than republican, so what were you saying about people being in the minority?

                          Of course, many political independents actually lean toward one of the two major parties. Of the Americans who lean toward either party, 52% of U.S. adults identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 60% of U.S. adult Twitter users say the same. Similarly, 43% of U.S. adults identify as or lean Republican, compared with 35% of adult Twitter users.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:03pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I can't find anything about regressive leftist in the link you provided, so I'm afraid it doesn't back your statement up at all.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Billy B. Penafor, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

              First of all, nothing had been posted to the_donald in months. Everyone had already migrated to their .win site. Shutting the sub down today had zero effect.

              Also, the_donald was NOT "pretty significant" in getting Trump elected. It was a shitposting circlejerk, like 99.9% of Reddit. It's hilarious to suggest something so self-important (and completely non-verifiable).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

          You're a dishonest right wing asshole, thick boy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:33pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      one man says...

      WE all must believe and say the same to be equal.

      Another man says.

      God, How boring to talk to myself all day long.

      Anyone want to go back to the demonstrations of the 60's?? re-evaluate them and NOT Scream HIPPY's Shoot them..

      What are the rights of a Muslim walking into a Jewish/christian/ANY religious building and preaching his OWN?? And the reverse? Lets go back 30-40 years..Even 10 years ago.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:19pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      If Marxists* had the entire public square, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all and this nation would be an entirely different place.

      *All 2 or 3 thousand of them. But i take it that anyone not agreeing with your shit is "Marxist", since labeling "outsiders" is so popular.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bloof (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:29pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      'The people banned were clearly not acting in good faith, unlike those poor, persecuted conservative voices banned from more popular platforms for hatespeech, harassment and active violations of the rules they agreed to when they signed up.'

      Hilarious.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:52pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      Plaintiff provides no facts in his Complaont to support these contentions.

      As with every other projecting reich-wing troll before him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:19pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      The point of free speech is that you can speak, and the Marxists have basically the entire public square. That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.

      So you’re saying “conservatives” need a safe space to convince themselves they’re still popular?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:20pm

      Re: The point of free speech

      The bottom line is, as always, is that right wingers are liars and hypocrites. Hypocrisy is their life blood ... they could not function without it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rocky, 30 Jun 2020 @ 1:35pm

        Re: Re: The point of free speech

        Not all of them, there are actually sane people on the right but they are drowned out by the loudmouths and the knuckle-draggers who have high-jacked the political right.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:46pm

    Reasons

    What I'm more Interested in is -- why were they banned? If they broke some sort of clearly established rules, then that's awesome that they got banned. But if they were banned for simply for disagreeing with others, then that seems unfair. Discussing the reasons why is what separates a free speech platform from a biased platform.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:56pm

      Re: Reasons

      If only that question was answered in the gorram article...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:57pm

      Re: Reasons

      We can all agree on that regardless of political affiliation there will always be asshats. I don't doubt some people joined Parler with the clear intent of being asshats, but if it turns out that they banned or moderated people just because they expressed views that can be considered on the left of the political spectrum it tells us that Parler are hypocrites and biased against non-conservatives.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Reasons

      I don't think discussing reasons matters.
      First, even parler has bias, and I'd not expect a word of explanation from them (or techdirt) if I was posting spam. I like the techdirt comment moderation quite a bit, framing it as a popularity contest of sorts amongst its (biased) audience.
      Second, if you don't want to drown in junk, choices have to be made. See 4chan followed by 8chan as example. What are YOU gonna read? Cat photos? Hydrangea reproduction?

      Actual free speech looks like a community of trust around a topic or topics of interest. Presumably there are rules for bringing up new topics and ways to select the readers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Koby (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:06pm

      Re: Reasons

      Update: Being curious about the reasons why people might get banned, I can see that Parler has rules posted in its Community Guidelines section that they disallow impersonation accounts. With Parler being a new app, there is currently that "Land Grab" phase where a whole lot of account names are not yet taken. It appears that a number of folks have been attempting to register themselves as public officials, or websites for which they dislike. As an example, the Thor Benson guy cited above attempted to register himself as the official account for The Federalist. Others attempted to register as Donald Trump.

      So yeah, probably joining a community and immediately breaking the rules isn't such a great idea. Pretty clear violations.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Khym Chanur (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:56pm

        Re: Re: Reasons

        They also banned the Devin Nunes' Cow person. I mean, that's technically a violation, since the he's obviously not really a cow, much less one belonging to Nunes, but that's kind of a petty reason to ban him/her.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ryuugami, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:19pm

        Re: Re: Reasons

        Hey, Koby! You know those few conservatives banned from Twitter, Facebook, etc? They broke rules.

        So yeah, probably joining a community and immediately breaking the rules isn't such a great idea. Pretty clear violations.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:23pm

      If they broke some sort of clearly established rules, then that's awesome that they got banned.

      Surely, then, you have no issue with Twitter banning anyone who self-identifies as a conservative if that person uses language that breaks clearly established rules.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:23am

        Re:

        Twitter banned conservatives for the npc meme. Look it up. They are blatantly biased.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:53am

          Re: Re:

          Using a meme to sat I hate the left comes under hate speech.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rocky, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:56am

          Re: Re:

          It could perhaps have something to do with the fact that people used the meme to spread misinformation about the election among other things.

          Also, if you somehow think that the NPC meme was only used by conservatives it tells me your consumption of media is severely restricted.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:22pm

      Re: Reasons

      This is the question you can't honestly ask or answer about the major platforms. And yet ...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:51pm

    'Well I say free speech, but I really mean MY speech...'

    Since it's been pretty clear that those complaining about the 'terrible persecution of free speech' are primarily if not exclusively talking about speech they care about and/or agree with it is in fact possible to have the platform kicking people off left and right and still claim that unlike those other platforms Parler really does care about free speech, because look, by and large the assholes who got the boot from the other platforms are still allowed on Parler.

    So long as Parler is primarily giving the boot to those that the assholes don't like you can bet that they will continue to get a pass from the same people who were decrying the tyranny of other social media, because unlike the noble 'conservatives' that social media crushes under it's boots those others had it coming.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:22am

      Re: 'Well I say free speech, but I really mean MY speech...'

      You’re a tool. There’s no evidence that Parler is being biased against the people in this article, only anecdotes. Do you always drink Kool-aid this easily?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 12:53pm

    Protocol vs Silo

    (though, I wish they were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but...)

    If there were many interoperable "speech services" that shared their content with one another the result would be what's left after each of them banned all the speech they disliked leaving us with nothing but photos of kittens. None of them are going to carry content they dislike (and let users decide what they want to read) so this is a no-go.

    If instead these services offered their content to separate clients ala Usenet or RSS then nothing has changed. The only difference between that and what we have right now is that we use a different client for each service.

    This is a drum not worth banging.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      christenson, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:13pm

      Re: Protocol vs Silo

      Techdirt itself is an example where speech it doesn't like (primarily idiots) gets carried anyway and as a user I decide if I am curious enough to read the flagged content.

      As to usenet, well, the problem was that netnews protocol really didn't allow for moderation which was desperately needed. Protocols view lets me choose my moderator or federation of moderators.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:31pm

      If there were many interoperable "speech services" that shared their content with one another the result would be what's left after each of them banned all the speech they disliked leaving us with nothing but photos of kittens.

      You would be wrong about that. I know because I’m on a Mastodon instance.

      Every Mastodon instance has the option of federating with other instances. The admins of every instance worth a damn takes the time to defederate from instances with what they think is “problematic” content (e.g., Gab instances). The “problematic” instances aren’t deleted from the Internet when this happens; you can still join Gab, after all. All that happens is people on the instances that defederated Gab don’t see Gab’s content on their timelines (unless they manually follow an account from that instance).

      End users also have similar controls: They can choose to hide all content from a given domain (i.e., instance) when viewing the profile of someone on that domain. Someone on an instance with lax federation policies can make good use of that option if they feel the need.

      Mastodon is not without its issues (e.g., the main fork still doesn’t have options for preventing boosts and replies). But let’s not act like its federation and domain block options are tantamount to censorship. Even if people choose not to listen, you still have the right to speak.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:23pm

      Re: Protocol vs Silo

      You obviously don't know what "interoperable imementations of a protocol" means.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:01pm

    And so it begins

    Parler will ban accounts...until there is nothing Left.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:10pm

    Users Parler doesn't like (list is non-exhaustive):

    "the gays"
    "foreigners"
    "black people"
    "anyone even vaguely jewish"
    "europeans if they criticize trump"

    basically Parler is a right-wing echo chamber, that (give previous history of these type of places) will shortly lose it's hosting and DNS systems like Stormfront etc and be effectively wiped off the map.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:26pm

      Re:

      Some on the right sure seem to like the right kind of Jews. It's a toss-up with any given individual. And that "like" might be temporary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:31pm

        Re: Re:

        Many on the right don't care if you're a Jew, or you're black, or red, or yellow, or green.

        Because we're not bigots, and we're not racists, and we're not anti-semites.

        But I understand why you see the world that way.

        You racist bigot.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:32am

      Re:

      Now THAT would be censorship, getting rid of the website. If you don’t like it, don’t use it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:16pm

    So Parler's business plan is to attract the people too toxic for Twitter? What could possibly go wrong?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:36pm

      Re:

      I don't think so. The large majority of conservatives are quiet, with an innate sense of fairness and good faith, that's why they're called the "silent majority".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:42pm

        Re: Re:

        So how come the "silent majority" isn't reflected in Trumpy's polling numbers and why he's trailing Biden by double digits in important swing states?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Time will tell, won't it. Elections are coming. Last time was a surprise. This time will be a VERY public statement about the Future of America.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:48pm

        The large majority of conservatives are quiet, with an innate sense of fairness and good faith, that's why they're called the "silent majority".

        I always thought that by “silent majority”, conservatives were referring to “White people who are too afraid to say and do racist shit even though they absolutely want to say and do racist shit”. I mean, it does sorta make sense that conservatives think all White people are as racist as the average conservative.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:52pm

          Re:

          Project much? The only racists that sound like what you describe were the KKK attending the Democratic Convention. Remember them? Proud of your Democratic history? Idiot. Republicans freed the slaves. Remember that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:56pm

            You forget the history of the Southern Strategy, the Dixiecrats, and the ideological shift between the two parties in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement. The GOP that freed the slaves bears little resemblance to the GOP of today beyond the name.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:29pm

              Re:

              blah blah blah on and end endless bullshit because you have nothing to say.

              The racists are the Democrats.

              Everybody knows that.

              It's historical fact, not fiction.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:54pm

                Remind me, which party has heavily supported Voter ID laws in the United States within the past two decades or so — laws that courts have said were crafted with racist intent? Which party currently stands against mail-in ballots for the national election, which could help boost voter turnout but would also give people of color a better chance of voting than in-person voting? Which party breathlessly defends symbols of the Confederacy, a failed state that seceded from and fought a war with the United States to preserve the institution of slavery? Which party has tried to suppress the Black vote by way of gerrymandering, enacting Voter ID laws, and shutting down polling stations in districts heavily populated by Black people?

                Because last time I checked, it sure as shit wasn’t the Democrats who were leading the charge in those regards.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:34am

                  Re:

                  Europe has voter id laws. Cope.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Rocky, 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:05am

                    Re: Re:

                    Oh, there's no doubt that European countries have voter id laws but they aren't crafted in such a way to make it difficult to acquire said id if you happen to belong to a marginalized group.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 8:14pm

                Re: Re:

                You're literally just a liar, and it's sad.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                JMT (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 10:23pm

                Re: Re:

                "blah blah blah on and end endless bullshit because you have nothing to say."

                That sounds an awful lot like "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

                Ideologically the two parties are completely different than they were 150 years ago. No political historian, or anyone who can read a damn history book, would seriously argue otherwise.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    radix (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:28pm

    "You can’t spam people’s comment sections with unrelated content." Except, you kinda can do that on the "street of New York."

    That street is named Madison Avenue, in fact, and it's not just allowed, it's encouraged.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 1:59pm

    I looked into Parler and was going to join, until they demanded my mobile phone number, access to my contacts, and legal indemnification. No way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:05pm

      I guess free speech costs too much for you, then.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        TBTop (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:48pm

        Re:

        If you want to give up your privacy, go for it. Not me.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 5:23pm

          Funny how for all your whining about censorship and your impassioned defenses of free speech, you weren’t willing to pay the price for the promise of a “free speech platform”.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:38pm

            Re:

            Yeah, you think it's funny, because you have no idea what funny is. Lefties have that part of their brain missing. Humor. And Honor. And Respect. They replace it with bullying, avoidance, and banding together into mobs. Everyone else finds it disgusting.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:42pm

              Humor. And Honor. And Respect. They replace it with bullying, avoidance, and banding together into mobs.

              If you think none of that applies to conservatives in any way, you’ve fooled yourself.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:47pm

                Re:

                I've looked at Techdirt for many, many years. Show me an instance of a right wing mod on Techdirt piling on some poor leftie.

                You can't.

                It never happened.

                It can't happen. You will silence any view you disagree with because you are too afraid to confront anyone about anything. You can only hide with your fake friends under your moma's skirt.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:51pm

                  You will silence any view you disagree with

                  No, we “silence” (read: hide) bad faith arguments, trolls, and spam. Dissent on its own doesn’t get flagged. Dissent rooted in strawmen, ad hominems, paper-thin arguments, and name calling so pathetic that even elementary school students would think it’s lame, on the other hand…

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:57pm

                    Re:

                    You are a fucking bold faced liar hiding behind a fake name, Mike. Just like your other leftie friends.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:59pm

                      Re: Re:

                      You are a fucking bold faced liar hiding behind a fake name, Mike.

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

                      Oh wait, you were serious.

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:28pm

                        Re: Re: Re:

                        Says the "insider".

                        Are you special, being an "insider" and all?

                        Do you even see how ridiculous you look? Parler doesn't have "insiders", it doesn't need them. Why do you?

                        Do you have a secret code and secret hand signals, too?

                        Can you see the hand signal I am making right now?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:58pm

                  Re: Re:

                  You will silence any view you disagree with because you are too afraid to confront anyone about anything.

                  Hiding from view isn't "silencing". All of the comments that we marked as spam can still be read here.

                  If you really think that's censorship, you must really have lived with a silver spoon in your mouth.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 7:27pm

                    Re: Re: Re:

                    It isn't silencing! It isn't censorship! You just can't SEE the comment! It exists in another Universe, the Universe of the UnSeen!

                    What utter bullshit you spout.

                    Censorship is censorship.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  JMT (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 10:31pm

                  Re: Re:

                  "You will silence any view you disagree with because you are too afraid to confront anyone about anything."

                  Lots of people here are disagreeing with you and you're being 'confronted' out the wazoo, and yet your supposedly 'silenced' voice is making an awful lot of noise. Your own many, many words, which I can clearly see, are making a complete mockery of your claims.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:26pm

    Seems fishy

    I keep wondering if Parler has been set up with help from one of the 3 letter agencies.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:32pm

      Re: Seems fishy

      Possible I suppose, but I imagine there are easier ways to get that sort of information that doesn't involve a dumpster fire or alerting potential targets.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:39pm

        Re: Re: Seems fishy

        Why do lefties like "dumpster fires" so much? They talk about them all the time. Is that where they meet to discuss their plans to take over the world?

        Just listen to General Flynn. You 2% idiots are about to get crushed by the 98% of the rest of us.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:44pm

          Why do lefties like "dumpster fires" so much?

          They don’t. Why else do you think sites like Parler end up becoming shitpits for alt-right chuds like incels, Gamergaters, and White supremacists? (Whoops, tautology!)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:46pm

            Re:

            You have seen the future that we are all blind to, do you, oh oracle of Truth and Enlightenment.

            Not.

            You're just another phony pony leftie idiot, like the majority of other long time posters here.

            Phony as a 3 dollar bill.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2020 @ 7:39am

            Re:

            Parler is much better than twitter, that’s for sure. Sorry if you need an echo chamber to feel safe :(

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 30 Jun 2020 @ 8:11am

              Re: Re:

              Interesting. You do understand that if all the people who reason like you do start using Parler exclusively, that means Parler becomes your own little safe echo-chamber because you couldn't deal with the social platforms you left.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:34pm

    "Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like"

    Sounds just like our law and order national justice system!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    stu, 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:41pm

    F U, bunch of whiney left wing twats. You will soon be silenced by something with a bit more volume and velocity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 2:46pm

      Mike, you should probably report this person to the FBI for making violent threats.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:40pm

        Re:

        Yeah, report them to the FBI, that's a good idea. What a fucking idiot you are, Stone. Fake name, fake outrage, it's easy to be a leftie when you lie about who you are and what you think. Do you wear a mask and ski glasses, too? You're pathetic.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:09pm

      Re:

      I'm afraid impotent screaming isn't loud or fast enough. Although, it does show us who is having a meltdown since the dichotomy in your statement is very enlightening.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Wow, big words for a high school kid. Are you out of high school yet? I doubt it from your writing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 9:43pm

      Re:

      What like your wet farts?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 10:14pm

      Re:

      Bring it on, lamer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    restless94110 (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 3:47pm

    Guidelines

    Yeah,
    I joined Parler and then read their Community Guidelines and went: Oy Vey. Why isn't there even one social media site that has NO Community Guidelines.. At least pretend there is Free Speech?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:08pm

      Not what free speech means

      Why isn't there even one social media site that has NO Community Guidelines.. At least pretend there is Free Speech?

      Because anyone who was stupid enough to create a site like that would find out very quickly why those rules are in place, not to mention free speech is not and never has been short for consequence-free speech, there has always been consequences even if it's nothing more than social disapproval, such that the idea that free speech means a free-for-all is nothing but a phantom that has never existed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 4:14pm

      Why isn't there even one social media site that has NO Community Guidelines[?]

      Because any such service would soon find itself spammed into irrelevance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:42pm

        Re:

        Yeah, you're an authority, while you hide behind your fake name. You know it all. No one can tell you anything, because you see everything in such a high degree of detail and accuracy. You're an Oracle, a Seer.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:46pm

          Honey, you can flirt with me all you want, but I won’t let you fuck me unless you can afford my asking price.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:50pm

            Re:

            Yup, you're a certified leftie. A conservative would never mistake what you just said as either an argument or humor. It's in a third category that only lefties understand.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2020 @ 6:53pm

              A conservative would never mistake what you just said as either an argument or humor.

              A conservative would never recognize humor that is