Transsexual rights has issues with the statement.

Ok got it, so if a female with a uterus identifies/feels like a male then because she still has uterus, saying "only female have uterus" offends them. Did I understand correct?

You know, there are limits. Police in Quebec said you cannot self-identify as a dog to evade the covid19 curfew https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7ap...him-for-a-walk

I'm not up to date with the exact definitions, but I think it's for People identifying as women being told "only women have uteruses", the whole sex vs gender argument.
I think this is what got JK Rowling or Graham Linehan into hot water. One of them has said they've been cancelled, but he went on a bit of a crusade.

Not the rabbit hole I want to venture into.

Something like that, but probably more the inverse, that a M2F TS won't loike being told "you're not really female because you don't have a uterus".

Personally I doubt that many genuine TSs would be that much offended by a simple general statement, but clearly it could be used in an insulting/derogatory fashion, and I think some of the reaction by "rights activists" is based on the idea that if something can be insulting it must always be insulting, so let's avoid it altogether.

Big Tech giants are Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, Google and Apple. It is not their job, nor should it be their right to judge whether Parler is "an alt-right echo sewer". There is laws and a judiciary for that.

It's their right to do whatever they damn well want. Is there any law to support the idea that they should give equal space to all apps, regardless of political views thereof? No, there isn't.

And in any case, the reasons given were that the app was being used to organise unlawful activities, which isn't quite the same thing.

They also react to possible legal repercussions, of course. If there were an armed rebellion and it could be shown that they knew the platform was being used to organise it but did nothing, wouldn't they potentially be open to charges of aiding and abetting? Even if not legally culpable, I would definitely see it as their job to crack down on any illegal activity they're aware of, if not even to actively look for it.

Just like they do for drug dealing or child pornography. Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to deny access to these as well?

__________________
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com

Exactly. It offends ths self ID lot.


Only a certain faction who are mostly dysphoric /have AGP.

They also say there are more than two sexes. Is a very odd offshoot.

This. Mostly it's folk who think being a woman is a feeling. Indeed. Not a fun rabbit hole.



This. It's mostly a very noisy, very keen to be offended group who are mostly fetishing "being female".

They can do what they like in removing people from their platform yes, however when it comes to collusion with one another to prevent competitors then it becomes a monopoly. Unfortunately being America, I hold little hope for the issue of censorship to be addressed by antitrust lawsuits. Here however there is far more hope outside the borders of the US

You say that Parler was allegedly being used to organise unlawful activities. How many times over the past decade has Facebook and Twitter been used to organise violent protests and riots? From the London Riots in 2011, right up to and including the attack on the Capitol this year. Where is the repercussions for these platforms?

Every last one.

Don't underestimate the power of your ego.

We post selfies of how we want to project our personalities, like it or not.

Can't help but get a dopamine hit from a thank you!

It would become a cartel, not a monopoly, if that were the case. But it isn't.

I can't see why that would be in any way relevant to decisions now. Just because things have been allowed in the past is in no way a reason to let them remain unchecked. There was (apparently) a time when child pornography was easily exchanged without consequence to the ISPs and platforms being used, but that's hardly a reason to suggest that it shouldn't be cracked down on now, is it?

Cartel, yes that's the word I was looking for.

The point is that this Big Tech cartel shouldn't be the ones judging a competitor. I don't think child pornography is a reasonable comparison as this is clearly illegal. Speech on the other hand is more of a grey area.

What's also interesting is that US lawsuits have clearly recognised Twitter and Facebook as "public forums". This is why they have blocked attempts to restrict convicted (sex) offenders from accessing social media and the internet as unconstitutional (see Packingham v. North Carolina).

Another lawsuit also prevented President Trump from blocking people on Twitter. Which is ironic as President he wasn't allowed block people on Twitter, however Twitter is allowed to block the President.

They can do as they wish - they are private companies. Right to refuse etc



Exactly.

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.

This.

Twitter can block anyone, anytime.
A third party outside of Twitter, such as you, me, or Donald Trump, cannot block a Twitter user. After all:

This, exactly.

Seems this is another moment to re-visit Tea and Consent. https://youtu.be/pZwvrxVavnQ
Just because Twitter said yes to tea before, it doesn't mean that they have to say yes to tea, again.

Parler is a competitor to google, amazon and apple?

Not even slightly.

Can you provide the legal basis for that?

Can you provide the legal basis why that isn't the case?

They are not gov't owned. Therefore private. They may be publicly traded (is that the phrase) but still owned by (groups of) private citizens. FB is such, I think. So can set their own Ts and Cs.


Incidentally, Parler is privately owned. I'll wager folk get kicked off that all the time for certain viewpoints. The earth not being flat, etc.


I'm finding it difficult to understand why folk are getting so out of sorts with this. Unless those folk are all Trump supporters. In which case, get thee to Parler.

Pretty sure that when you open an account you agree to a number of things, such as sort of rules and policies....