Actually he's still on Parler. I don't know any other social media sites he's on though. It might be just Parler.
▼
deleted
· 3 years ago
I though that he never was in parler. And nlw that it was down he had to wait a week for parler to pick themselves up from the amazon thing. Haven't confirmed if it's true though
He was and is. I'm on Parler and saw his stuff. Parler is down because AWS won't host their stuff due to "encouraging violence" and garbage. I haven't seen anything about violence. Tech companies just don't want competition. It's a pretty cool site so far.
1
deleted
· 3 years ago
Companies have always ganged up on competion that's only just starting. Happens a lot. this is just a big example and very recent
It's in both Amazon and Apple's interests to encourage competition to Twitter, and yet both of them have taken it down. This has nothing to do with competition, this has to do with not wanting to be seen supporting an app known to have been used to commit wide scale sedition.
Yeah he won't be president for long, but the fact that the media is censoring him, makes me think that they've been trying to for so long, and finally have the ability to. He never threatened to kill anyone, which means he hasn't violated any terms of free speech.
The 1st amendment only protects you from the government. He signed the terms and services agreement like the rest of us; twitter can do whatever the fuck they want with his account. If anything the only thing close to a legal argument is the fact all public addresses by the President are supposed to be preserved as a matter of public record... but if he's banned and his past tweets are preserved it's still not illegal because he can't address the public from an account that is banned.
And seriously, if anybody else had said even 5% of the shit he said, they would have been banned 4 years ago.
Getting banned from Twitter is technically not violating his freedom of speech, since the 1st amendment only applies to government prosecution. However, in principle I agree. Social networks have de facto become the public square and a place where a lot of the discourse is happening, and they should be treated and regulated as such.
Okay let's take away the freedom of speech equation since y'all thought that was my biggest concern. He is being censored. Which is what we shame other countries like China for doing. We are censoring him because "we don't like what he's saying." He has never told anyone to do anything violent, people just decided to be violent. That's not his fault. Stop lying to yourselves, this is scary, and now my trust in the media is at an all time low.
You present complaints and concerns about how scary this is (which I agree with, it's a slippery slope for corporations to control discourse - it's actually a pretty often discussed topic in Marxist academic circles, who also see a big issue in this) but offer no alternatives. What is there to be done about this? Pass legislation that lets the state control social media? While that seems like the best option at this point in time, it might set a dangerous precedent. Or have the government make their own social media made specifically for discussing politics, accepting the caveat that it will inevitably be controlled by the government? There's no guarantee that project will take off and have a stable user base, people might still prefer Twitter, Facebook etc. Or ditch social media altogether? I don't think that's possible without some serious authoritarianism. How do we create a platform that unites everyone without the need for people to flee and make their own echo chambers?
no charges, no trial, no jury, no conviction, yet they silenced a sitting president imagine what they can do to the common citizen now, welcome to the new America.
And seriously, if anybody else had said even 5% of the shit he said, they would have been banned 4 years ago.