 | | | 
14.01.2021, 17:02
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Zurich
Posts: 7,987
Groaned at 290 Times in 219 Posts
Thanked 17,983 Times in 6,316 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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. | | | | | Thanks for providing those great arguments. You are right.
| 
14.01.2021, 17:36
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Sep 2019 Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 938
Groaned at 360 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,072 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | 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"
| 
14.01.2021, 17:42
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 8,169
Groaned at 387 Times in 295 Posts
Thanked 10,619 Times in 5,604 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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. | | | | | 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. | Quote: | |  | | | 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. | | | | | 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.
| 
14.01.2021, 17:44
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,883
Groaned at 229 Times in 193 Posts
Thanked 22,733 Times in 9,654 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | 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. | | | | | 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.
| This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 17:48
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 8,169
Groaned at 387 Times in 295 Posts
Thanked 10,619 Times in 5,604 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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.
| 
14.01.2021, 17:52
| Member | | Join Date: Sep 2020 Location: In your head
Posts: 193
Groaned at 28 Times in 25 Posts
Thanked 701 Times in 239 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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" | | | | |
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.
| 
14.01.2021, 18:00
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Sep 2019 Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 938
Groaned at 360 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,072 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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.
| The following 4 users would like to thank TonyClifton for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:01
| Member | | Join Date: Sep 2020 Location: In your head
Posts: 193
Groaned at 28 Times in 25 Posts
Thanked 701 Times in 239 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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. | | | | | 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
| 
14.01.2021, 18:04
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,883
Groaned at 229 Times in 193 Posts
Thanked 22,733 Times in 9,654 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | | | | | | 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?
| This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:07
|  | A modal singularity | | Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Morgins, VS (and Alsace)
Posts: 8,734
Groaned at 353 Times in 226 Posts
Thanked 14,813 Times in 6,427 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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. | | | | | But you've failed to provide a single coherent argument as to why they should not be allowed to do so.
| The following 2 users would like to thank Ace1 for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:10
| Member | | Join Date: Sep 2020 Location: In your head
Posts: 193
Groaned at 28 Times in 25 Posts
Thanked 701 Times in 239 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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'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.
| 
14.01.2021, 18:11
| Member | | Join Date: Sep 2020 Location: In your head
Posts: 193
Groaned at 28 Times in 25 Posts
Thanked 701 Times in 239 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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? | | | | | Presumably buying their cake elsewhere.
| This user would like to thank RufusB for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:34
| Forum Legend | | Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Ostschweiz
Posts: 8,169
Groaned at 387 Times in 295 Posts
Thanked 10,619 Times in 5,604 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | I'm not sure if that isn't besides the point. | | | | | 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?
| This user would like to thank Urs Max for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:45
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Sep 2019 Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 938
Groaned at 360 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,072 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | But you've failed to provide a single coherent argument as to why they should not be allowed to do so. | | | | | 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!?
| This user would like to thank TonyClifton for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:54
|  | modified, reprogrammed and doctored˛ | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: La Cote
Posts: 16,015
Groaned at 340 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 18,503 Times in 9,621 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture
It is ok to have another bakery for customers buying the cake elsewhere.
Is it called Parler?
| This user would like to thank MusicChick for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 18:59
|  | modified, reprogrammed and doctored˛ | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: La Cote
Posts: 16,015
Groaned at 340 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 18,503 Times in 9,621 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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!? | | | | | I agree with you except Markel being Trump's ally. How do you figure?
| 
14.01.2021, 18:59
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Baden
Posts: 3,271
Groaned at 46 Times in 41 Posts
Thanked 5,427 Times in 2,089 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture
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." | The following 2 users would like to thank Ouchboy for this useful post: | | 
14.01.2021, 19:02
|  | Forum Legend | | Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 4,228
Groaned at 233 Times in 165 Posts
Thanked 8,626 Times in 3,273 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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? | | | | | 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?
| This user groans at Pancakes for this post: | | 
14.01.2021, 19:17
|  | Forum Veteran | | Join Date: Sep 2019 Location: Hopefully soon to be Aargau
Posts: 938
Groaned at 360 Times in 217 Posts
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,072 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | I agree with you except Markel being Trump's ally. How do you figure? | | | | | They're not, just a sarcasm fail from yours truly
They're just two people that know what living under censorship means
| 
14.01.2021, 19:25
|  | modified, reprogrammed and doctored˛ | | Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: La Cote
Posts: 16,015
Groaned at 340 Times in 235 Posts
Thanked 18,503 Times in 9,621 Posts
| | Re: Cancel Culture | Quote: | |  | | | 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.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | Thread Tools | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT +2. The time now is 14:24. | |