Thanks for providing those great arguments. You are right.

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"

Not so sure about that.

Google makes an offer to provide a free service; I'm guessing WRT the US but around here a contract is directly concluded with the acceptance of an offer.
Section 230 holds the platform, Parler in this case, immune from liability for what the users publish using it, that seems likely to extend to Google Play et al.

When that baker refused to make a wedding cake for that gay couple, the court decided otherwise.

And in that case the baker didn't have a monopoly so actually the couple could easily have shopped elsewhere for the cake. In Twitter's case, that's not so easy.

You seem to have missed this post.

No. I get what your argument is, I don't agree with it. And there has been no third party with regards to Twitter. Possibly some societal pressure but there was no "messing up" of the service.

And your extension of my "clumsy" analogy is irrelevant as it wasn't about a proposed transaction - not a refusal to sell goods - but simply a personal sovereign refusal.

You are trying to turn an issue of consent, for want of a better word, to that of coercion for money. They are not the same thing. Which is why i used the sex analogy. The Consenting to Tea vid that Doro posted is the ultimate analogy for this as it also includes a scenario where consent had been withdrawn. Which is the case with Trump and Twitter.


However, if you would care to point out exactly and precisely what it is about this issue you believe i have missed, I would genuinely like to know.

That it's not that Twitter banned Donald Trump, which I don't agree with however can see why people say "it's a private company they can do what they want". Rather that their "rival" Parler, has been removed from Google and Apple app stores, and Amazon have stopped hosting their website. All within 48 hours of one another and also within 48 hours of the ban of Donald Trump.

It wasn't upheld was it?

I don't personally agree with the bakery but if they don't want certain clients then that is quite literally their business.

Twitter isn't the product. Its users are the product. And this specific user has his own press room. Alternative worldside media channels are available to him.

Twitter has Ts and Cs. They were breached.

Edited as just seen Urs Max's post

I'm not sure if that isn't besides the point.

Lots of people, especially liberals, thought it was a good decision to punish the bakery because they thought a business should not be allowed to discriminate against its customers.

Where are those people now?

But you've failed to provide a single coherent argument as to why they should not be allowed to do so.

It's not a rival. Far too small and niche. Like I said, the fact that it needs a third party platform shows this.

Google and Apple can also do as they wish, because while they have to conform to certain rules and regs about publishing data etc, they are not goverment owned. They dropped Parler because within that app folk were breaching, or there was a concern that they would breach, wider Google and Apple Ts&Cs. Same with Amazon.

Not to mention the immeasurable but, to me, vitally important notion of human decency and their perception therein. I appreciate that there are some who believe Trump has been terribly misunderstood/mistreated etc, however this is not the majority view. It was likely a far better step for these companies to limit potential future damage to their all important reputation by getting rid of the rotten content: Parler.

They simply saw which way the wind was blowing, etc etc. It might have been driven by the mighty dollar and not decency, but I'll take it. As will countless others.

Presumably buying their cake elsewhere.

Well, the reality created by the SC ruling is that
"When that baker refused to make a wedding cake for that gay couple, the court upheld that refusal."
and rendered the state court's decision you're probably referring to void. Seems pretty relevant to what you posted, isn't it?

No I've not, but if you've missed them, it's wrong because:

They shouldn't be removing a website/social media platform in a joint effort as this is undermining competition.

They are in no position to judge the moderation on another platform, Especially considering that Facebook/Twitter are rife with hateful content and misinformation. That has resulted in far more harm than anything posted on Parler.

It undermines freedom of speech, freedom of the internet and the laws of the land.

You don't have to be a Trump supporter to find these actions by Big Tech alarming. If both those famous Trump allies Angela Merkel and Alexei Navalny have expressed their concern then I struggle to see how anyone who considers themselves a liberal is having a hard time seeing this!?

It is ok to have another bakery for customers buying the cake elsewhere.

Is it called Parler?

I agree with you except Markel being Trump's ally. How do you figure?

so to recap: parler is not a competitor of those OS/ platforms that removed it.

They have assessed that twitter/facebook/reddit (for whatever level of toxicity they might have) to be a profitable action and enough to be legally defensible

the goverment didn't do any law preventing posting or keeping this app, so no 1st ammendment violation.

twitter didn't ban trump for being a member of a protected class, or for his fiscal policy, uzw. same with the massive purge of "conservatives"

can anyone remind me why they were banned? was it their opposition to medicare for all ?

__________________

"Curses are like young chicken: they always come home to roost."

You don't understand the difference between a company discriminating against gays and a company not wanting to support a President who instigated a violent attack on the Capitol building?

They're not, just a sarcasm fail from yours truly

They're just two people that know what living under censorship means

Nah, it's me at the end of the work day

She got caught by her own policies. He got caught by unfair monopoly, moguls. I guess both are business practices, it's been here since the dark ages.