Is Parler down? I can’t seem to get it on my computer.

(01-11-2021 09:26 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is Parler down? I can’t seem to get it on my computer.

It'll be down for a few days while they rebuild.

(01-11-2021 09:26 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is Parler down? I can’t seem to get it on my computer.

Yep. Amazon has shut down the servers.

It could be down forever

You might want to check out Gab

Is this because of censorship?

Amazon decided to kick it off their cloud because of their content.

Imagine if your business had a bad employee pull something. They could kick your business off just the same.

Google and Apple pulled the Parler APP from their app stores as well. Same issue here.

The government has government cloud services on Amazon. I guess if the government does something amazon doesn't like they can shut down that down too.

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

Yep. Since they won't censor content based on what Google, Apple, and the others want, Amazon joined suit to shut them down.

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

That is what they say... but I also think it is about competition. Parler was the most downloaded app for months on end.

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

Of course it is



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

Yes. Its an illegal anti-trust conspiracy by Google, Apple, Amazon and Twitter.

(01-11-2021 10:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

Yes. Its an illegal anti-trust conspiracy by Google, Apple, Amazon and Twitter.

That collusion in shutting down POTUS has to have every President, PM, from every country on Earth wondering if said country needs to build a communication App that can be accessed via normal ISPs.

Facebook shuts down Ugandan accounts ahead of general elections
Tech giant accuses some officials of a coordinated attack targeting public debate ahead of Thursday’s election.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/11...-elections

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

I guess it depends on what you mean by censorship. This isn't government censorship and its not a First Amendment issue. This, as I see it at least, is about private companies refusing to do business with another company whose policies they disagree with. You're still free to create your own system and bulletin board that advocates the policies you agree with. Neither the government nor anyone else is preventing you or me from doing that.

(01-11-2021 10:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

I guess it depends on what you mean by censorship. This isn't government censorship and its not a First Amendment issue. This, as I see it at least, is about private companies refusing to do business with another company whose policies they disagree with. You're still free to create your own system and bulletin board that advocates the policies you agree with. Neither the government nor anyone else is preventing you or me from doing that.

It’s an anti-trust issue. It’s essentially illegal collusion by dominate market makers designed to limit competition.

(01-11-2021 10:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

I guess it depends on what you mean by censorship. This isn't government censorship and its not a First Amendment issue. This, as I see it at least, is about private companies refusing to do business with another company whose policies they disagree with. You're still free to create your own system and bulletin board that advocates the policies you agree with. Neither the government nor anyone else is preventing you or me from doing that.

They have to consistently apply their terms of service, they have consistently not done that for an extended period of time.

They should have their pants sued off of them for a myriad of reasons.

The end

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(01-11-2021 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

I guess it depends on what you mean by censorship. This isn't government censorship and its not a First Amendment issue. This, as I see it at least, is about private companies refusing to do business with another company whose policies they disagree with. You're still free to create your own system and bulletin board that advocates the policies you agree with. Neither the government nor anyone else is preventing you or me from doing that.

It’s an anti-trust issue. It’s essentially illegal collusion by dominate market makers designed to limit completion.

If that's the real motivation then you would have to prove it in court with evidence.

But the original question in the one I was responding to was is this "censorship." By that I take it to mean 'illegal censorship' - and it's not.

Standard Oil
ATT

Next.....

(01-11-2021 10:54 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Standard Oil
ATT

Next.....

Except for Google's power there's no justification for not breaking them up.

AT&T and Standard Oil dominated sectors, but none of them had the power that Google has.

(01-11-2021 10:50 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

I guess it depends on what you mean by censorship. This isn't government censorship and its not a First Amendment issue. This, as I see it at least, is about private companies refusing to do business with another company whose policies they disagree with. You're still free to create your own system and bulletin board that advocates the policies you agree with. Neither the government nor anyone else is preventing you or me from doing that.

It’s an anti-trust issue. It’s essentially illegal collusion by dominate market makers designed to limit completion.

If that's the real motivation then you would have to prove it in court with evidence.

Which would be easy to do by showing the the moment that occurred the top trending hashtag on Twitter was “hang Mike Pence”. Kathy Griffins severed Trump head might be worth tossing in as well....not to mention the many violent comments and uncensored filth Libs posts on Trumps Twitter. All you have to prove is they treated the enforcement of their terms of use differently for Parler—and that’s just not going to be very hard.

(01-11-2021 11:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:50 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 10:44 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 09:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Is this because of censorship?

I guess it depends on what you mean by censorship. This isn't government censorship and its not a First Amendment issue. This, as I see it at least, is about private companies refusing to do business with another company whose policies they disagree with. You're still free to create your own system and bulletin board that advocates the policies you agree with. Neither the government nor anyone else is preventing you or me from doing that.

It’s an anti-trust issue. It’s essentially illegal collusion by dominate market makers designed to limit completion.

If that's the real motivation then you would have to prove it in court with evidence.

Which would be easy to do by showing the the moment that occurred the top trending hashtag on Twitter was “hang Mike Pence”. Kathy Griffins severed Trump head might be worth tossing in as well....not to mention the many violent comments and uncensored filth Libs posts on Trumps Twitter. All you have to prove is they treated the enforcement of their terms of use differently for Parler—and that’s just not going to be very hard.

Just for argument's sake - if a private company favors one political position over another that's not illegal. Twitter or Facebook or Amazon can favor liberal posters and ban conservative posters if they want. That's not illegal censorship, what you really seem to be arguing, not "illegal collusion to dominate market."