LadyKay Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.92 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2021 9 hours ago, Riverwalker said: So then we can dispense with the foolish notion that these are unbiased social media sites who value the freedom of speech and are tolerant of or welcoming divergent points of view, Got it...thanks All sites have their rules. I know I have to watch what I say on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted January 12, 2021 10 hours ago, Riverwalker said: So then we can dispense with the foolish notion that these are unbiased social media sites who value the freedom of speech and are tolerant of or welcoming divergent points of view, Got it...thanks Insurrection is bad for business. The violence on January 6th seems to have sent some shockwaves through social media sites. It's one thing to express your views on the internet, but when you act on them in a violent manner it becomes something completely different. I think many of these companies realized their platforms were starting to be used to organize illegal activity and put people in danger (Lauren Bobert tweeting out info on Nancy Pelosi's location in the midst of the riots in the capitol for example). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,714 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted January 12, 2021 11 hours ago, LadyKay said: Well the American Gov. had nothing to do with what FB, Twitter, or Amazon ect ect did. All of them are independent business who seem to have made a business decision on this matter. It seems that these business no longer wish to have Parler on their site or host Parler's site. And so as independent business, they have every right to make that decision. Just like Wal Mart has to the right to not sell certain movie or some other item. Also as it is with this site. They have the right to say what is and what is not allowed on their site. Lol the chances of all 3 of them making this decision on their own within 2 hours...is slim to none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kingdombrat Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 5 minutes ago, Oh Hamburgers! said: Insurrection is bad for business. The violence on January 6th seems to have sent some shockwaves through social media sites. It's one thing to express your views on the internet, but when you act on them in a violent manner it becomes something completely different. I think many of these companies realized their platforms were starting to be used to organize illegal activity and put people in danger (Lauren Bobert tweeting out info on Nancy Pelosi's location in the midst of the riots in the capitol for example). They've known for years about the capabilities of what a website could erupt into. They've had these examples for years. It's just odd how they all came together at once and enacted one of their laws. Keeping Trump himself off of them. Why couldn't this happened during any other tragedy where there is communication passed by usage of mobile sites? This was done specifically to shut down Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted January 12, 2021 18 minutes ago, kingdombrat said: They've known for years about the capabilities of what a website could erupt into. They've had these examples for years. It's just odd how they all came together at once and enacted one of their laws. Keeping Trump himself off of them. Why couldn't this happened during any other tragedy where there is communication passed by usage of mobile sites? This was done specifically to shut down Trump. I agree with you, I think decisions should have been made much more quickly than they were. I think many in this country tend to ignore problems and let them get out of hand, in the meantime trying to profit as much as possible. Then suddenly - boom - some negative event happens and everyone tries to distance themselves from who/whatever is getting the bad press. I'd argue companies were hedging their bets on who would have power in the future, and once it was clear Trump wouldn't be in power they quickly distanced themselves from him. You're seeing that with other republicans in government - they've been silent for years, but suddenly it's clear Trump won't be around for a second term they're dropping him like a hot potato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marathoner Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,306 Content Per Day: 7.11 Reputation: 13,335 Days Won: 99 Joined: 05/24/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) On 1/10/2021 at 9:41 AM, anynmsfmly said: I have heard this, But then I have also heard that if we all did that, We would still become a socialist state................ If everybody got out of politics, Completrly, Dem, Left, Up, Right, Or, Down, Somebody would still have to do, Something, And then would we become a socialist state, Still,........ ? ? ........ I like to stay out of it, But if i stayed out of it completely, Then what happens,................ ?For , The point is to avoid being mastered by it. I'm not about to tell my brothers and sisters to abstain from voting or participating in the process but I do say that we have nothing to fear in Jesus Christ. Vote as you see fit, or not. When we find ourselves worrying about this or that remember that Almighty God rules over all of His creation. I quoted from the book of Daniel elsewhere on the forum and I won't repeat that, so I'll paraphrase what the messenger from the Lord declared to Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon: This decree is so that the living may know that God rules over the realms of men and He appoints whom He sees fit to rule, even the basest of men. That's from the fourth chapter of the book of Daniel. Just because we think something is right or wrong doesn't mean the Lord must comply with how we believe things ought to be. There is no one else like the Lord and He does as He pleases. Who are we to question God? It takes time to arrive at a place where we learn "Your will, and not mine, be done." It isn't easy but Christ is faithful to accomplish His work in us. Edited January 12, 2021 by Marathoner typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marathoner Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 73 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 10,306 Content Per Day: 7.11 Reputation: 13,335 Days Won: 99 Joined: 05/24/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted January 12, 2021 11 hours ago, Riverwalker said: So then we can dispense with the foolish notion that these are unbiased social media sites who value the freedom of speech and are tolerant of or welcoming divergent points of view, Got it...thanks That's not why Mr. Trump was banned nor the reason why Parler was removed, but reciting the facts does little good when individuals prefer to stick to a narrative which runs counter to those facts. People believe what they want to believe. In truth, where the president is concerned Twitter and Facebook abstained from enforcing already existing rules on his accounts for years because 1.) he was the President of the United States; 2.) there was historical value to his communications on those platforms. It's worth noting that Mr. Trump's conduct was unacceptable on the social media throughout his administration. He used the social media as a platform to engage in insults, attacks against his perceived enemies, and as a vehicle to disseminate false information to side-step the checks and balances official statements provide. Law enforcement officials identified his activity as a danger to public safety and I'm not surprised that Facebook and Twitter moved so quickly to divest the president in light of the riot he incited. Sure, they did so to save face. As for Parler, the platform made no moves to curtail the activity of those who agitate for the sort of violence the president inspired last week in the Capitol. In any case, as others have pointed out Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon are private companies... they may conduct their business as they see fit. Isn't that the point of a free market? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwalker Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 92 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 1,753 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/09/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Marathoner said: That's not why Mr. Trump was banned nor the reason why Parler was removed, but reciting the facts does little good when individuals prefer to stick to a narrative which runs counter to those facts. People believe what they want to believe. In truth, where the president is concerned Twitter and Facebook abstained from enforcing already existing rules on his accounts for years because 1.) he was the President of the United States; 2.) there was historical value to his communications on those platforms. It's worth noting that Mr. Trump's conduct was unacceptable on the social media throughout his administration. He used the social media as a platform to engage in insults, attacks against his perceived enemies, and as a vehicle to disseminate false information to side-step the checks and balances official statements provide. Law enforcement officials identified his activity as a danger to public safety and I'm not surprised that Facebook and Twitter moved so quickly to divest the president in light of the riot he incited. Sure, they did so to save face. As for Parler, the platform made no moves to curtail the activity of those who agitate for the sort of violence the president inspired last week in the Capitol. In any case, as others have pointed out Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon are private companies... they may conduct their business as they see fit. Isn't that the point of a free market? I have no problem with a business deciding what do to, even it is to piss off Millions of Americans, they will pay the price. But please let us stop granting them the moral high ground of unbiased and fair, they are wallowing in the mud with the rest of us pigs, and that opens them up do Anti Trust law suits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwalker Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 92 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 1,753 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/09/2014 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 12, 2021 2 hours ago, Oh Hamburgers! said: Insurrection is bad for business. The violence on January 6th seems to have sent some shockwaves through social media sites. It's one thing to express your views on the internet, but when you act on them in a violent manner it becomes something completely different. I think many of these companies realized their platforms were starting to be used to organize illegal activity and put people in danger (Lauren Bobert tweeting out info on Nancy Pelosi's location in the midst of the riots in the capitol for example). Starting to? Have you heard of BLM and ANTIFA and riots and destruction No this is happening because they are not liberal and not democrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted January 12, 2021 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted January 12, 2021 20 minutes ago, Riverwalker said: Starting to? Have you heard of BLM and ANTIFA and riots and destruction No this is happening because they are not liberal and not democrat A few things: The vast majority of the BLM protests were non-violent. The single Trump protest was violent. A lot of the violence in the BLM protests were escalated by police using excessive force. I'm not saying BLM protestors using violence were blameless, but you must admit the way police handled BLM protests is much different than how police handled the storming of the capitol. I actually was really upset about the violence in some of the BLM riots and protests. It's one of those situations where a movement becomes so large that many people have different thoughts on what the movement should be. I think the looting and rioting in some areas detracted from the overall (good) message that the protests were trying to send. The people who chose to loot/burn/destroy property should be punished, just like those who chose to break into the capitol should be punished. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts