On Monday, the social media company Parler.com sued Amazon, the company that hosts their social media platform that has suspended their app, alleging that the suspension from the hosting service violated antitrust laws and breached the companies’ contractual arrangement.
There is no question that Parler’s argument is true. There is also no question that the leftist corporate types have rigged the game in their favor. Amazon is arguing that though they respect the right of Parler to allow people free speech rights on their platform, they have a policy in their terms of service that does not allow speech that incites violence. There are problems I see that Amazon will face, one being that they do not treat other social media platforms under their service the same way. The other is that a platform is not held liable for the content on their site as they are protected by Section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act. A publisher is held liable because they control all of the content that appears on their space, while a platform is merely a media source for people to post their own content. Under 230 platforms are allowed to control the content they deem in violation of their terms of service, such as racism, threats of violence, etc. But over the last few years Facebook, Twitter, and others have changed their terms of service to be able to target users they do not like while allowing users they favor to get away with the same infractions. That’s not what the spirit of Section 230 is all about.
First Apple and Google have removed Parler’s app from their app stores citing pretty much the same thing Amazon is arguing, that affording people Free Speech rights is a threat to our republic. Our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves.
In its lawsuit, Parler, a platform favored by many conservatives who felt harassed by Facebook, Twitter, and other left-wing-run social media platforms because of its largely Free Speech approach to moderating content on their platform, asked a federal judge to order that the platform be reinstated online.
The First Amendment applies here even though Amazon is a corporation and not the government.
In PARLER LLC v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. the company argues:
This is a civil action for injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, and damages. Last Month, Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) and the popular social media platform Twitter signed a multi-year deal so that AWS could support the daily delivery of millions of tweets. AWS currently provides that same service to Parler, a conservative microblogging alternative and competitor to Twitter.
When Twitter announced two evenings ago that it was permanently banning President Trump from its platform, conservative users began to flee Twitter en masse for Parler. The exodus was so large that the next day, yesterday, Parler became the number one free app downloaded from Apple’s App Store.
Yet last evening, AWS announced that it would suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59 PM PST. And it stated the reason for the suspension was that AWS was not confident Parler could properly police its platform regarding content that encourages or incites violence against others. However, Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was “Hang Mike Pence.” But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account.
AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.
Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.
This emergency suit seeks a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendant Amazon Web Services to prevent it from shutting down Parler’s account at the end of today. Doing so is the equivalent of pulling the plug on a hospital patient on life support. It will kill Parler’s business—at the very time it is set to skyrocket.
Conservatives have waited for a new social media platform to escape the censorship and hate rhetoric from liberals. Parler is surging in popularity. The only downfall for the social media platforms is users cannot live stream and it doesn’t offer monetization. Until then it many public figures can’t make it their main home just yet.
Jim Jordan, Elise Stefanik and Nikki Haley all have something in common, other than a strong affection towards President Trump.
The three Republican politicians joined social media app Parler this week, adding their profiles to a site that’s emerged as the new digital stomping ground for anti-Twitter conservatives. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas arrived earlier this month and Rep. Devin Nunes of California started in February, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has been a member since 2018, the year the app launched.
“It’s about time y’all joined me on @parler_app,” Paul tweeted on Wednesday. “What’s taking the rest of you so long?!”
It’s about time y’all joined me on @parler_app . What’s taking the rest of you so long?!
To be fair, Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale has also been on Parler since 2018. Eric Trump, the president’s son, and his wife, Lara, joined on the same day last month. Like Twitter, the app lets users share comments, photos and news stories with their followers.
The catalyst for the latest growth surge was a story from The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, which said that the Trump administration was looking for alternatives to Facebook and Twitter over concern that more content is going to be blocked as the election campaign heats up. The Journal named Parler as a possible alternative.
Two days later, Parler was the top-ranked iPhone app in the news category, ahead of Twitter and Reddit, and 24th overall, just behind Venmo and WhatsApp, according to App Annie. User growth surged to 1.5 million from 1 million over the course of about a week, said John Matze, Parler’s 27-year-old founder and CEO.
“We’re a community town square, an open town square, with no censorship,” Matze said in an interview on Thursday, from his home in Las Vegas. “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler.”
Those are wise words, we have said for years that social media is the new town square and free speech should be protected there.
Parler is playing into the hands of conservatives, who have become more vocal in their criticism of Twitter since the site started flagging Trump’s tweets for promoting violence or abusive behavior or making false claims that could confuse voters. Trump supporters have long argued that the dominant Silicon Valley platforms have been out to censor conservative voices, even as those very same people continue to post on those sites and rack up followers by the thousands.
Rep. Jordan of Ohio told his 1.4 million Twitter followers on Friday to come over to Parler, where they “don’t censor or shadow ban,” referring to the practice of banning users in a way that’s not apparent to them. By late afternoon he had about 3,100 followers on Parler.
Twitter regularly denies treating people differently based on their political views. Liz Kelley, a Twitter spokeswoman, told CNBC in a statement that, “We enforce the Twitter Rules impartially for everyone, regardless of their background or political affiliation.”
This is just another blow to Facebook who is facing hundreds of liberal businesses pulling their advertising. Now conservatives are moving over to parler to escape censorship.
Facebook should have taken the stand parler has taken a long time ago.
It now comes out, after the Democrats wrongly impeached the president for inciting the riot that took place at the Capitol building on January 6, that the FBI did warn law enforcement agencies before the attack at the Capitol that there would be potential violence, according to the Associated Press.
During and after the riot, the Fake News media pushed the argument that President Trump incited the violence that took place and those lies were used as the excuse for the tech tyrants to ban him from their platforms. Facebook initially suspended his account for about a week. Twitter permanently banned not on President Donald Trump’s personal account @realDonaldTrump, but they banned the POTUS account as well. Many others who supported Trump’s allegations that there was massive voter fraud in the 2020 election were also banned.
And the tech giants weren’t through. Google and Apple attacked Parler by removing their app from their app stores. They purported that the free speech platform was used to coordinate the assault on the Capital. It’s funny that the Associated Press did a random act of journalism and reported that Twitter was also used to coordinate the attack om the Capitol building.
“Defense and National Guard officials, including McCarthy, have said in interviews over the past several days they were told by D.C. that they believed the protests would be similar to the ones on Nov. 14 and Dec. 12. And they said that federal law enforcement authorities said that there was activity on Twitter, but that they weren’t expecting the level of violence they ultimately saw last Wednesday.”
So there was activity on Twitter that matched what was done on Parler. I haven’t yet heard Google or Apple dropping Twitter’s app from their store. It seems to me that the fact that people were using both platforms to coordinate the attack on the Capitol wasn’t really the reason why they went after Parler. If that were the case they should have gone after Twitter as well. The reason they went after Parler is that Parler is known as a safe haven for conservatives who value free speech. Twitter is known as a leftist haven that values free speech… but only for other leftists.
It wasn’t bad enough that they kicked conservatives off of their platform and the ones who are still there they treat very badly with shadowbanning and censoring of all kinds and types but now they don’t even want conservatives to have their own space to communicate in America. Fascism and communism have two things in common: they silence the opposition.
Even Amazon who not only sells books and products on their website they also run Amazon Web Services which is a hosting company for websites. They joined the other Silicon Valley dictators and kicked Parler off their hosting platform. The excuse they gave was that Parler was incapable of removing posts that were threatening violence. That’s misleading and should be censored on Twitter and Facebook. Kidding. I know for a fact that Parler was very active in removing such posts.
The left wants you to believe their narrative that it is the conservatives who are all barbarians and that they are for violence and that they let people do any damn thing they want. The reality is they are projecting what leftists are like. Conservatives aren’t the ones who were rioting all summer long. That was the violent Left. Conservative leaders weren’t the ones who were allowing it to continue by not lifting a finger to stop the carnage against their own constituents in neighborhoods throughout Democrat-run cities all summer long. That was the Democrats.
The three tech tyrants have a decision to make if they want to be seen as consistent. Either restore Parler to use their services or ban Twitter the same way they banned Parler. Now that we have evidence that Twitter did the same thing but did not suffer the same fate, Parler can sue all three tech tyrants involved for discrimination.
On Monday, the soviet-style tech giant Twitter’s stock price dropped more than 12% on the first day of trading since the social media tyrant kicked President Donald Trump off of its platform Friday night. The stock price decline wiped out $5 billion from Twitter’s market capitalization.
Last Friday, Twitter’s honchos announced they were permanently suspending Trump’s account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” after supporters of the president stormed the US Capitol in protest of the 2020 election results. In the months preceding, Trump had frequently taken to Twitter to argue that the election was fraudulent.
“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” Twitter said.
The fact of the matter is the president did not incite violence at all. On the contrary, Trump said at end of the rally that took place on January 6, “and now you will march peacefully to the Capitol and let your voices be heard.” There was no incitement rhetoric. He didn’t tell people to attack anything.
Twitter’s move was the first time that the social media company had ever banned a head of state.
Conservatives argued that the ban was an unprecedented attack on free speech; leftists celebrated it as “the most important moment in the history of social media.” However, on Monday, investors expressed their own concerns, putting the social media company’s ticker price under pressure.
Twitter’s stock, according to Yahoo! Finance opened down about 10% before spiraling down to as low as $45.17 per share, or 12.3 percent down. Twitter stock came back over several hours to end the day down 6.4 percent.
That early drop wiped out over $5 billion from the company’s market capitalization, according to Business Insider.
Trump’s account showed more than 88 million followers, which made it one of the most popular accounts on the site, and his activity on the account over the years generated a lot of traffic for the platform. People either loved Trump or hated him on Twitter, and either way, many people were drawn to go onto the platform just to see what he was saying and how others were reacting to what he was saying.
Twitter was a useful tool for the president because he could speak directly to the people without having his message filtered by the lying leftists in the Fake News media. That’s why the Left hated him on Twitter. Up until social media, the mainstream news media was how you heard what the president was saying, outside of a direct speech he gave. Either way, the mainstream media always filtered what a president said, especially Republican presidents. Social media allowed Trump to speak to the people without the news media twisting his words. They would twist his words anyway but at least the people were able to go back to his Twitter account and read what he really said.
That drop in the stock price represents investors who are concerned that Twitter may be less competitive, especially if supporters of the president decided to leave the platform. So far Dan Bongino, Rush Limbaugh, and others have dropped their accounts in solidarity with the president, and they collectively had millions of followers. Many of those millions of followers will also drop their accounts, or they will stop visiting the site as often. Fewer people on the site generate fewer sales leads for advertisers. Fewer sales for advertisers mean less ad space purchased and that means less profits for the company.
Conservatives have felt that Big Tech companies like Twitter unfairly censor conservative voices and ideas for a long time. And they are not wrong. Leftist-run social media companies like Facebook and Twitter have been censoring conservative speech for some time now, but in 2020 they took it to new levels. They blatantly censored critical information that people needed to make informed decisions for the 2020 elections.
A lot of conservatives started moving over to Parler, which is a free speech alternative to the likes of Twitter. And it seems that the leftist tech giants aren’t complacent with getting rid of conservatives from their own platforms, they are now attacking conservative platforms to silence them in their own environments. Apple and Google removed Parler’s app from their sites, and Amazon shut down Parler’s hosting services claiming they lacked content moderation. Bongino revealed that Parler has policies for content moderation and they do moderate posts made there that violate their community standards, but the tech tyrants just want them gone.
We reported that Parler sued Amazon over antitrust violations on Monday.
Facebook and Google stock also took a hit on Monday, not as hard as Twitter, but still enough to send a message. The problem with tech tyrants is that they now have so much money they no longer care about making profits over forcing their political ideology on their platforms. They care more about pushing their ideology than earning money. The stockholders have already sent a message and that message will get stronger if they continue with the same practice. Twitter’s management team could become its own demise if they don’t wise up.
Big tech is cracking down on free speech and I guaranty you that the new administration and Congress will not act to correct it.
Democrats owe them so much. Don’t be surprised if all antitrust suits against the Masters of the Universe are dropped immediately or at least in a minimal amount of time.
Even as we speak Facebook, Twitter and Amazon are shutting down individuals and groups who are conservative.
That includes Ali Alexander, Michael Coudrey, Gen. Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood who have been permanently banned. But liberal sites who spew hatred on a daily basis are members in good standing.
Other platforms are doing the same thing. As soon as a rumor came out that President Trump had joined Parler, the Masters have started attacking them for allowing free speech.
They claim they are not publishers but publishers do not censor material. They are in violation of section 230 in my not so humble opinion. Publishers edit material.
You can expect things to get much worse between now and the midterm elections in 2022. They will have to work so much harder to hide the truth from voters since the policies of the far left Democrats will dominate during the Harris administration. The Democrats will roll on Biden if he does not become an extremist.
Biden is an opportunist and he could go that way. But if not, expect him to be removed from office due to limited mental capacity. He was only a figurehead chosen because Kamala couldn’t win a single delegate during the primaries.
Now they are in, all bets are off. Harris was the most extreme Senator in 2020. More so than even what we believe are the most extreme such as Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and Ed Masrkey.
At the same time, Parler was warned by both the Apple and Google stores that if they did not impose moderation on their free speech platform within 24 hours they would be banned entirely.
“We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities” at the US Capitol on 6 January, Apple wrote in an email to Parler executives. “The app also appears to continue to be used to plan and facilitate yet further illegal and dangerous activities.”
On Friday, Twitter permanently banned hundreds, if not thousands, of Trump supporters and prominent allies — before banning the president himself.
Nearly every account that helped to promote the Stop the Steal rallies or challenge the election results were banned, including Ali Alexander, Michael Coudrey, Gen. Mike Flynn, Sidney Powell, and Lin Wood. Countless smaller accounts that supported the president were also getting suspended in a seemingly constant rate.
The political left had a temper tantrum on Saturday by kicking their favorite scapegoat, the Proud Boys, because trashing and punishing American men is a fantasy and a hobby for the left, to be honest, and things are not going the left’s way right now. The Proud Boys is a group of American men of all shapes, colors, and sizes who describe themselves as a “drinking club with a Patriot problem.” Like traditional American men, the proud boys don’t appear to like to be gaslighted and bullied by the government.
The Proud Boys were trending on Twitter on Saturday for what they might wear.
Late last week, the media had driven a cancel culture campaign against the Proud Boys to pressure hotels not to rent them rooms in DC during the next week.
I covered that story:
Supporters of Trump’s target political opponents of the left who want to control and dominate others. And they are obsessed with the Proud Boys to the point that a news company, The Hill, is reporting on what the Proud Boys ‘might wear’ to an upcoming rally for President Donald J. Trump.
Of course, that allowed leftist to call them “racists,” which is a common fantasy:
Look at this article from the Hill on Saturday, Proud Boys to attend Jan. 6 DC rallies ‘incognito’, that Kaelean Deese wrote:
“Members of the far-right group the Proud Boys will attend Washington, D.C., rallies for President Trump on Jan. 6 “incognito,” with leaders of the group saying they will dress in “all BLACK” to mimic the attire of anti-fascist groups and counterprotesters.
The group is known for its signature black and yellow clothing during rallies and protests, where they typically appear in large groups. The group’s chairman, Enrique Tarrio, announced on social media that group members “might dress in all BLACK for the occasion.”
Additionally, members of the group will likely branch off into smaller formations to remain “incognito.”
Why is that news?
Antifa attacked women, older adults, and children walking down the street to a rally for Trump. Proud Boys have been stabbed, and two male supporters of Trump’s have been shot dead in the street at gatherings.
The Hill reports: “Both the Proud Boys and some violent sects of counterprotest groups known as Antifa have been at odds in recent months during public political events, often engaging in physical conflict due to ideological differences.
Last month, four stabbings occurred near a bar that served as a home base for Proud Boys members following a pro-Trump protest in the city.”
IS THIS WHY THIS IS NEWS? TO DETER PEOPLE?
“Despite escalating tensions ahead of Wednesday’s planned mass gatherings, Trump has been eager to invite any of his supporters to D.C,” The Hill reported, apparently attempting to scare people from attending the nation’s capital next week to support Trump.
Ask yourself, is this really news? Why is The Hill reporting on the Proud Boys clothing? Why does the left need a kicking post and scapegoat in the first place?
An Immigrant to America, a member of India’s top caste system shared the passion he has for America and sent encouragement to President Donald J. Trump by way of an open letter, asking for him to use his Presidential powers to enforce Martial Law to restore the United States of America because if he doesn’t America could fall into a “Socialist Hell” as India did.
“There are numerous similarities between what the left did to destroy India and what they are doing now in America,” the immigrant American told me.
“I am scared for this country right now. India never recovered from the Left’s takeover in 1975; they won the election by cheating, and the rest is history. I still remember my Dad and his friends trying to fight to save any freedoms they could. And historically, if you look at any country that was taken over by the Left – it is always by cheating in the elections. Then they run the country in the ground,” Mahesh “Max” Ganorkar, an Immigrant from India, a Brahmin, a bold activist for American Liberty, a former organizer for the Tea Party, and a friend told me.
AN IMMIGRANTS PLEA- AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP
Dear President Trump: To whom much is given, much is expected! Mr. President, you are entrusted with a YUGE responsibility to defend the Republic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You are Godsent to lift the veil on the swamp city – DC and expose the traitors amongst us. They hate you; we love you! They won’t stand with you; we will.
Election fraud is EVIL, perpetrated by evil forces both foreign and domestic. Sadly, RINOs are salivating to get back in the swamp, but you have an obligation not to throw America under the bus. The noble institutions that our Founding Fathers instituted to protect the Republic have now completely crumbled to corruption.
Mrs. Powell was told that we were given a Republic – “if you can keep it.” I think we can still keep it if we can cross the seemingly frozen path to get to the fruits of liberty. We owe it to the Founding Fathers for their bravery and sacrifices.
They say writing about feelings may ease the stress, but how can our revered Constitution ease her stress? Rather than surrendering the Constitution to the traitors, please declare Martial Law (if you must) and call in the military to administer a secure re-vote of all Federal elections from sea to shining sea. Let the chips fall where they may. If anyone can make this last-ditch effort to save the best nation God gave men, it is YOU.
From the bottom of our hearts, thank you for fighting for We the People! May God bless you and your loved ones! May God bless America!
Yours Patriotically, Mahesh “Max” Ganorkar @mganorkar on Parler
AN IMMIGRANT’S STORY
Mahesh is a friend of mine, and he shared more of his story with me on Thursday for this article and told me about the deep passion behind his activism for America. I have met with Mahesh and his family in the public square, numerous times, on July 4th, surrounded by children and veterans, to read the Declaration of Independence and talk about our founders’ sacrifices. Mahesh is consumed with the ideas of liberty.
Here is more of his story:
“I am a Brahmin, that is my class in India still. However, my Dad did not like Socialism, and under Gandhi’s rule, we protested. When Gandhi imposed “The emergency” of the left, we rallied in protest. I remember that my Dad would not let us eat on those days because the other people were are not going to eat either, and the message was that we are not going to live on your crumbs. That we would rather go hungry than live on your crumbs- my Dad fought for freedoms that way. I was 10 years old, and I wanted food, but my Dad told my Mother to keep us hungry, and he told her that way, we will understand how to fight for our freedom. My Dad’s anger was bigger than the sun then. So that changed me, and that is why I stand here still, for America now. For my children,” Mahesh told me.
According to history, In India, “The Emergency” refers to a 21-month period from 1975 to 1977 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had a state of emergency declared across the country.” that does seem oddly similar to what we are seeing today.
Mahesh told me more about his journey, which is interesting to see what he has given up to be a US Citizen.
“I came here in 1989 and being Brahman really meant we didn’t touch the untouchables. I came here in 1989 and worked at a school in the cafeteria. One day I saw the Dean of the school at a table eating lunch, and I saw a Janitor come and sit next to the Dean and have lunch. That was a culture shock for me. It was then that I realize that Men are equal here. America made me a better person than I ever could have been. This country changed me. I don’t treat people like I used to; I have more than I could have ever imagined in my own country, so it frustrates me when people come here and are not thankful for America. I work now for everything I have,” Mahesh told me.
“My worry is that if America falls to socialism, people will be so mean to each other under, India is still suffering from what they did. There is so much fighting over everything. Dogs get treated better in America than people in India, and I love that country, but the politics are vicious and mean, so I am doing what I can to fight that for America, and I want my kids to have better.
President Donald Trump Thursday night reiterated his vow to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an important military spending bill, if it doesn’t include language to end Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which many on both sides of the political aisle deem a free ride for Big Tech companies to do whatever they want. But many people, including me, have argued that removing Section 230 would cause more problems than it would solve.
I cannot find a bigger supporter of President Trump than myself, and I am against shutting down Section 230. Trump has one of the best reasons for doing this, and it’s because he has been the biggest victim of the abuses of Section 230. The big tech giants actively censored the president and any and all of his supporters during the 2020 election. They labeled truthful posts as “misleading” or “false” because they decided a long time ago that they were going to support Democrats over Republicans, and they decided they were going to do everything they could to harm Trump’s reelection efforts. Many openly discussed it.
My reasons for not wanting to repeal Section 230 have nothing to do with protecting social media tech giants from continuing to censor people with different political beliefs. That’s wholly unamerican as far as I’m concerned. The reason I’m against it is because removing Section 230 will do nothing stop Twitter, Facebook, Google or others tech tyrants from continuing to do the awful things they do to millions of Americans, because they have billions of dollars at their disposal that they can use to have their lawyers tie up the courts for a decade or longer.
Companies would be held legally responsible for everything people say on their site, and they would face legal risks for enforcing community standards or voluntarily restricting access to or deleting inappropriate or illegal content at the same time.
Removing Section 230 will do actual harm to the good guys who don’t have that kind of money to defend themselves from liability lawsuits. Newly emerging social media companies like Parler.com, Rumble.com, MAGA-Chat.com and others who act like real platforms would be crushed by frivolous lawsuits and then forced to shut down. That would help the tech tyrants and do nothing to get them to comply with the spirit of Section 230. Disclaimer: I own MAGA-Chat.com.
Instead of repealing Section 230, we would do better if we just removed platform status of the tech tyrants who are acting like a publisher by censoring free speech. We should only allow social media companies that behave like a true platform to have the protections of Section 230, which is what Section 230 is all about.
Trump focused his argument on the NDAA’s sponsor, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), after the senator insisted that the termination of Section 230 did not belong in a military spending bill. He said this after the Senate amended the bill to include a section for renaming military bases and other military assets that bear a Confederate name, which also does not belong in a military spending bill.
The president took to social media Thursday night to make his comments public.
“Very sadly for our Nation, it looks like Senator @JimInhofe will not be putting the Section 230 termination clause into the Defense Bill. So bad for our National Security and Election Integrity. Last chance to ever get it done. I will VETO!”
On Thursday, Inhofe announced the NDAA’s completion, and the president responded a brief message: “But doesn’t get rid of Big Tech’s windfall, Section 230, a grave threat to National Security. I will VETO!”
“Section 230 has nothing to do with the military,” Inhofe told reporters at the Capitol, Newsweek reported. “I agree with his sentiment, we ought to do away with Section 230. But you can’t do it in this bill. That’s not a pertinent bill.”
I wish someone would make sure the president and Senator Inhofe hear my arguments against doing away with Section 230, because it will cement the tech tyrants in place as it kills the competition.
Rather than remove Section 230, the government should make it clear what Internet companies have to do to maintain platform status. Don’t get me wrong, I am not for government censorship of Internet companies, including the tech tyrants. Rather, I think that we can come up with a way to define what a platform is and make sure that Internet companies stay within the veil of that definition.
Internet companies that do not behave the way a platform is defined should lose their platform status and be deemed a publisher. For example, I can’t just post one of my stories on the New York Times’ website, because they are a publisher and they take responsibility the content that is posted on their website. On a platform, you should be able to post most of anything you want so long as it doesn’t violate the terms of service which would be things that are considered offensive to the general community. But when you start censoring people for political speech that you don’t agree with you are now a publisher no different from the New York times. You are blocking people from posting content to your platform, or rather, you are deciding who should be able to post content and who shouldn’t. That’s not a platform, that’s a publisher.
Facebook, Twitter and other tech tyrants who abuse Section 230 should be dealt with appropriately, but to remove the protections from other social media companies that abide by the platform standards would be harmed while the billionaire tech tyrants would be able to continue violating the rule. Removal would hurt new companies from being able to compete and would help the companies who violate the rule.
People who lie eventually slip up when things start to go outside their plans.
Marxists who seek to control the medical, educational, and media industries, need the population as a whole to use all of the aforementioned services in their pursuit of creating dependence and loyalty to the state.
So when you look at CNN, a lying Marxist promoting propaganda information outlet, they react to anything which pulls the population away from the approved messaging.
For example, why should CNN care what social media platforms Trump supporters use?
In a segment this week discussing how the political Right is handling the results of the 2020 presidential election, CNN reporter Pamela Brown suggested that it was a “threat to democracy” that people were turning away from dominant social media platforms like Facebook and signing up to be on more pro-free speech platforms and sites.
Crying Brian Stelter who bemoaned smaller conservative news channels garnering more viewership in recent weeks as Trump world has clashed with Fox News over some of the network’s recent coverage weighed in.
“I think, big picture, Pamela, here is the concerning trend line here. People are going more and more into their own echo chambers, more into their own bubbles, especially Trump voters,”
“There’s this new social media app, called Parler, getting a lot of attention. Because conservatives are leaving, saying they’re leaving Twitter and Facebook, going off to Parler because they believe Parler is a safer space for them.”
“What we’re seeing is even more of a bunker mentality in right-wing media,” Stelter continued. “Ultimately, that’s not good for the country.”
“No, it is not good,” Brown responded. “It is a threat to democracy that these people are in echo chambers and they’re getting fed a diet of lies essentially.”
So there you have it folks.
CNN wanted their viewers to believe they are concerned about democracy so much that it is dangerous for anyone to use a different social media platform like Parler, Spreely, or MagaBook.Com, as these users will not be exposed to the truth, like CNN, is broadcasting.
No, they are alarmed that millions of Americans will not longer be exposed to the collective’s messaging making it more difficult to control the masses.