Big Tech will not let any business interfere with the establishments plans of transitioning into a communist styled technocracy

There are many other free speech sites, bit how long will they be up before they come for those as well? Parler was the punching bag because they blew up real fast and we're a legit threat.

I mean if the big tech is supporting free spech how is Parler being banned no hypocritical

Big tech does not support free speech.

Ok free speech guy would you mind given me your address so I can come over and put Mexican Flags in your yard and burn any of the American flags?

Of course not because you don't support free speech

What a dummy and a horrible analogy. You can’t legally go on his property and do what you want or damage his property like you do on federal property lefty. That has nothing to do with free speech. How bad you want to deny free speech don’t you. Like all leftists you are really just another petty tyrant

Just like you can not choose to use FB or any of the others stuff how ever you like.

You liars clearly feel entitled to others peoples stuff

https://i.imgflip.com/4u0080.jpg

Before social media the phone company couldn’t decide it didn’t like your conversation and disconnect your phone. You apply old rules to new problems.

You can keep coming up short all you like

Oh yes you did. You never looked at your phone installation fine print. Besides that, because it is in the public domain a tos doesn’t give you the right to discriminate. You can’t say black people cant use the site can you? Do all private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they want? Cake bakers for gay couples?

I thought SCOTUS ruled on behalf of the baker.

They did, based on the facts of the case. They ruled painting dicks on a cake would violate his religious convictions. So they upheld his religious objection, not his business owner right to refuse service to gay couples.

Cake bakers do not have 230 protection. Nice try though. you almost had it.

Of Course they don’t and neither should the social media content publishers. If you want to ban for disagreeing then you are proffering a narrative or editorializing meaning you are a publisher. Publishers dont get 230 protection.

@Amusing_Myself...That's part of the point of this meme. The Tech Companies of silicon valley told (mostly the right) people that if they don't like censorship and their anti-free speech rules that they should find an alternative public forum.
So, that is exactly what they did. Many chose parler as their alternative public forum and multiple Big Tech companies collaborated to shut their business down.

Instead of trolling and calling people liar. Maybe you can go learn a bit more.

More BS none of you not a single one can provide the factual law/laws that dictate what FB and the rest are doing is illegal.

Until you can you have no talk points only butt hurt opinions

White supremacy isn’t what’s keeping you down. Look in the mirror. Somehow other minorities thrive. They don’t have the cultural failures and fathers stay in the home and promote education over thugism. Live in the now, not the past excuse maker.

Trespassing on private property and stealing someone's personal belongings isn't covered in free speech, dumbass. You antifa members and sympathizers are bat shit stupid.

You said that lol apparently you enjoy starting fires

No you said it, I responded. You realize what you wrote is a few boxes up right?

Amusing-Himself thinks/acts just like MSM in hopes of the viewer/reader does not read the comments they made just minutes/hours ago.

😂 IKR!

Another non sensical Trump supporter comment

YEA!! It's NONSENSE to think someone would actually read comments above, that expose you!! CRAZY TIN FOIL HATS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

/s

And you just ignored the point. FB and all the rest are allowing you to "BORROW" there property and you sign a agreement. It's not up to you to decide which sections to agree with.

Got it? NO because you hate facts

Ok so you would have supported the turn of the century railroad tycoons who cut off train traffic to New York because they were private companies and could. Good to see you are so concerned about defending the richest of the rich. So if I run Amazon I could say I won’t deliver package to you because you are a liberal cray cray and you would be ok with that? And you claim to be American?

Now this is a dumb ass comparison your are purposely ignoring what the constitution states about "free speech"

And trying to redefine it lolol keep going in fact Sue FB see how far you get

How am I ignoring what free speech is? Free speech is only one of the four pillars of freedom that you leftists hate so much. You think freedom means freedom to loot, burn and murder. It doesn’t. It means you’re right to speak freely and openly will not be abridged. As a technology develops things change. Only a dummy doesn’t accept that. And platforms that purport to promote free speech and receive the protections of those platforms do not get to decide what speech is acceptable.

Keep screaming and crying The Constitution is clear to keep denying it only exposes what you really think of it

Btw nowhere in the constitution does it grant democrats or anyone else the right to commit crimes.

Then again the topic of acceptable violence is a whole other topic of human hypocrisy and double standards.

Hypocrisy?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/viral-video-shows-leading-democrats-promoting-uprisings-unrest-harassment

You mean like that? Free speech is foundational to the country. Anyone willing to trade it for anything is an i American traitor like you.

This will be my last rational and based in facts response to you on this subject

Provide me the local, state, or federal laws/codes that dictate FB and the rest can not censor, or ban a particular user. Or nothing else you say is relevant nothing not a single word

They allowed Trump massive leeway for one simple reason he was president. Well now he's gone in 4 days and his "privileges" have been revoked. Case closed

Would you be okay with it if big tech were to ban Joe Biden and start removing thousands of left-wingers? I doubt it. Facebook does have a right to remove content from its platform, but that isn't the problem. The problem is power; Facebook and Twitter have too much power and they are misusing that power in a way that is not necessarily illegal, but definitely harmful to public discussion and the sharing of ideas (which is essential to liberty). The fact that they have enough power to censor the leader of the free world proves this. Not only that, but they are monopolies and monopolies are ILLEGAL.

@Incognito101... While I completely agree with your comment. I would like to add that Big Tech companies do fall into the category of illegal action when they intentionally sway elections in favor of their preferred party candidate.

People of all stripes get banned and blocked everyday I am in FB jail as I type this

Like all leftists they lie and the. Violate the very agreements they propose. See the History of Russian and Chinese treaties. The 230 protections are irrelevant if you are banned from a free speech platform. If you editorialize the speech you are a publisher and should not have 230 protections.

I have already gone into length about why you and other like you are wrong. I won't be posting it again. If give a shit (which I doubt you do) about actual facts on free speech and private companies, I'd suggest you either look for my comment or you do actual research. But I'm guessing you won't cause your nothing more than a leftist shill.

When was the document written? Before or after Facebook?

You're an idiot.

Rather than provide the statutes and your proof you call me names. I win

"Idiot" isn't a name, it's your iq level. A name would be something like "dog shit eating communist."

Some one who can not provide a single statute or source that defends and supports their position calling others a "idiot" is guy busting

Goodbye ignorant person

btw I'm not calling you a name you are just ignorant and have no clue what you are talking about

Says the person that doesn't realize Facebook was public-funded for their huge access to internet nodes and data-centers. Not the same as some 100% private company that paid for access and data-centers all on its own, and not on Section 230.

Bro, how do you not know the difference?

@FoundingFatherMaterial... great point!

Publicly funded and Government owned are completely different. Government would have to run it for free speech to apply. Read the amendment. READ IT.

I wasn't talking about the 1st Amendment though. So join the conversation's actual topic, censorship by a Section 230 platform.

Reading it won't help them they don't like what it actually says so the pretend it says something else.

"Publicly funded and Government owned are completely different. Government would have to run it for free speech to apply. Read the amendment. READ IT." --- You just ignored everything I said. Nice comprehension skills.

@IboopedUrnose... Prager U has the best explanation on this very topic. This link is a great breakdown for their lawsuit against youtube....

These Tech companies are functioning like publishers rather than public forums... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6C6_NVj964&t=207s

For the sake of argument lets pretend they are 100% publishers ok?

The 1st Amendment would still allow them to pick and choose what gets posted or not by users and their staffs.

I completely understand why "right wingers" are trying to distort what the 1st Amendment actually says. You want unfettered access/speech where you do not have a actual right to have it.

Your local newspapers are under no legal obligations to write about and print a story.

By the logic of Trump supporters they could force newspapers to write and print information that is not true just like they claim the democrats are doing.

If the time comes and SCOTUS is forced to make a ruling on this Trump supporters will do what they always do if they lose.

They will call the judges the "deep state" lolol

Keep living in denial I'm going to move on now to different topics

Because you got owned, that means I'm the one who is in denial? K. Move to other topics that you are at least 95% sure of, but don't get your MSM-talking-points and think you're an auto-expert. Do your research into both sides, and find the commonality.

I’m Mexican and that’s disrespectful that you would use our flag for political purposes. So shut up

I have 0 clue what you are talking about so I'll just assume you are a Trump supporter who enjoys waving non American Flags

Dumbass you missed the point

? Can you rephrase that please lol sorry

@Amusing_myself...Believe it or not I'm politically positioned somewhere on the left. I take no issue with anyone burning the American flag. That's the beauty of freedom. You can freely express yourself. You can even publicly curse out a president and NOT get in trouble for it.
I would however take issue with you coming to my house, trespassing on private property, planting your personal country flag in my yard (I'll assume you would be claiming my yard as your claimed land?) And Burning my grass. I'm not quite sure what trespassing and causing property damage on my property has to do with freedom of speech and liberty.

Because they only mean free speech for the leftists.

not*

Conspiracy speech to enraged your cultist followers

You obviously have no idea what free speech truly is.

You absolutely have no idea what the meaning of Sedition is.

You think Donald Trump incited violence, which he did not. You only see what the media wants you to see. You don't look beyond the CNN and MSNBC cameras and talking heads.

You do what every other Democrat leftist does. You aren't different. You aren't unique in any political discussion. All you have is "orange man bad" and "orange man racist." No matter what he does, you and your friends spew the same tripe. So when I chuckle at your attempt to make me look stupid because I supposedly don't know the meaning of a word, it's genuinely humorous to me.

Talking points of Trump DC transcript that was intended to incite and inflame his Supporters

“Our election victory stolen by emboldened Radical Left Democrats “ ( all Democrats are thieving Communist )

“We will never give up we will never concede, you don’t concede when there’s theft involved “
( Classic Trump/MAGA, we’re all victims )

“Our Country has had enough!”
(I lost, let’s all get pissed)

“We won this Election by a landslide!”
(I lost, let’s all get more pissed)

“We will stop the steal”
( my conspiracies are fact. not the Courts or Supreme Courts facts)

“I was told by the real pollsters “
(Delusional fantasy pollsters)

“Third world countries, there elections are more honest than ours”
(I wish I was an actual Dictator)

Audience shouts, “Fight for Trump!”
(Lets storm the House of Representatives after this speech!) they did.

Quite simply, Trump incited the crowd with inflammatory Conspiracies and rhetoric.

Even if it wasn’t Trump intention to cause a riot? (I doubt it) Trump speech incited a seditious riot

So him pointing out a rigged election (which it was) is somehow inciting violence? Ok....

"Quite simply, Trump incited the crowd with inflammatory Conspiracies and rhetoric."

"Conspiracies and rhetoric." I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. But cancelling someone with a differing viewpoint isn't free speech. Even racism is free speech, as long as no one is being threatened with violence. We don't have to agree with racists, but they have the right to their opinion.

Trump cancels out people he disagrees with. It’s what he does
The above speech is proof enough.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
It’s when opinions become seditious is where we must draw the line.

You think Trump is the only one who cancels people out who disagrees with him? I can remember Barack Obama refusing to listen to anyone who disagreed with him. He was one of the most notorious at that.

But oh well, we'll never agree.

Exactly words matter and Trump did not have to literally say or scream go storm the Capital his speech was riddled with suggestions and they took it to heart

Which was all supported by other comments and speeches from the likes of Rudy Cruz and so on

Thanks, I would have answered his post. Unable because of TJD’s missing reply button.
They have an agenda to defend.
It’s how they roll.

I know a bunch of them here enjoy thinking the 1st Amendment protects their "free speech" from FB and the rest it clearly does not. But if they enjoy living a lie more power to them. Maybe it's why they are so angry. Truth is not something they can accept

So you're saying Trump used speech that was intended to overthrow the government? What an interesting perspective. It's funny how literally all of his speeches only used wording to promote the people's right to exercise their right to protest a fraudulent election.

Did you not see Trump's last tweet telling his supporters to not use violence and to *GO HOME*?
I guess not.... Twitter deleted that tweet and then banned him permanently. I guess, twitter doesn't like Trump promoting peaceful demonstrations???

But oh well, we will never agree

"Not be kind?" <--- Now that is a VERY good example of suggestive language that can easily be construed as a promotion of violence towards the current president. At the very least, you're saying he will be jailed. Trump's speeches had no such language. Only the clear promotion towards his supporters to show up and protest at the capital building in large numbers.
But people like yourself will continuously interpret his words in your own warped and twisted way. Trump derangement syndrome is a real psychological phenomenon.

Boy, that a lot of speculation from 3 words!
Sounds like you’re a Conspiracies and QAnon subscriber