| Quote: | |  | |
| They aren't judging a competitor. They are refusing to host an app. If Parler etc was a true competitor they wouldn't need other platforms to launch it.
Twitter is a private company.
Try this:
Person A wants to sleep with Person B.
B says no. Doesn't actually need to give a reason because their body, their choice etc but they do: they don't like A's politics. Or shoes. Or haircut. Whatever.
A takes exception and says "that's discriminatory because those things are irrelevant to the fact that i want to sleep with you".
Makes no damn difference. The reasons were provided by B to be polite etc. All they needed to do was say No. Because their body, their choice.
A monopoly decision, if you will, but still final.
End of. | |
| | |
Whether intentionally or not, you're still not getting the issue here, so to follow on from your rather clumsy analogy:
Person A wants to sleep with Person B.
B says no.
A takes exception and says "OK, I'll go and take my business to person C" (as it's related to business I'll make a clumsy sex trade analogy)
B says "OK, I'll get my pimp to mess up person C because I don't want you taking your trade anywhere"