Amazon Shutting Down PARLER

Long live private property rights.

Your rights & 'liberty' ends when it infringes on the rights of others.

Get it?

No........you don't get it.

 

During an interview on "Sunday Morning Futures," Nunes said Amazon, Apple and Google's suspension of Parler is "clearly a violation'" of antitrust, civil rights and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which is a federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

 

The rights of millions have been infringed.

 

Their rights to other peoples property?

You commie you.......

 

Elon, again, steps into breach:

HE’S NOT WRONG: Elon Musk made a jab at Facebook, linking the rampage at the Capitol to the social network. It’s the latest insult in a years-long feud between Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.

​

Musk tied Facebook to the violent insurrection in Washington, DC, describing it as a “domino effect.”

 

Thanks. Do you have a link for that?

 

Why are libertarians against free speech? They aren’t but then again they are against free speech. It’s a paradoxical position that their rigid ideology puts them in.

 

This sentence is a link: Elon Musk made a jab at Facebook, linking the rampage at the Capitol to the social network. It’s the latest insult in a years-long feud between Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.

 

The article does not explain what the heck he is talking about, it only quotes him making the comment.

So, the insurgents have several excuses for their actions:
- Antifa made us do it
- Facebook made us do it
- Etc

 

You would understand the position if you understood the concept of property rights, but that is not likely to ever happen.

 

Libertarians are pro-capitalism wanting little to no government control or influence over private business decisions. We have neither capitalism nor free markets once the government interferes and chooses winners and losers (which it has been doing for decades). Exchange of favorable legislation and money between Washington D.C. and corporate-monopoly lobbyists ensures that the technocrats don't have to play fair or compete for customers. All legislation impacting Big Tech for the next four years will be influenced by Congressional committees headed by Democrats who openly wish to silence their political opposition. All Libertarians should be appalled by such political censorship.

We have an oligarchy of Kings who are the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Apple. If they can ban an elected president, they can ban any president, monarch, prime minister or any other world leader. That many of today's illiberal liberals don't find that chilling to the core is amazing.

The global governance strategy is to have politicians control the means of all production and services. To make a global dictatorship efficient, it is most practical to shut down as many small and medium businesses as possible and only work with partners from a few monopolistic corporations. Capitalism for them. Let them eat cake for us.

 

No, they would be appalled if you got your way, which is to use the strong arm of the government to dictate who private companies must and must not do business with. Why should the government mandate that Amazon must do business with Parler? That's socialist nonsense.

Your stance is the opposite of free market economy.

Let companies run their own business. If people are unhappy with the way they run themselves, it will give birth to competition who will satisfy the tastes of those who were turned off with the big tech.

Ironically that is EXACTLY what you are demanding.

 

When you have a technocracy with oligopoly power which has the power to bar entry to the market from competitors, the "birth of competition" is impossible. Free enterprise is dead.

A major tenet of libertarianism is that people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as they cause no harm to others' ability to exercise their own freedom. Monopoly power, by its very nature, causes harm to all others, especially when government supports and enables its existence.

 

Nonsense. Parler made a mistake by opting be dependent on Amazon, but they can, and possibly will, find another host, or host themselves. As a matter of fact, it seems they already have, and it took only a few days

Parler may have found a new host as it registers its domain with Epik
https://www.inputmag.com/tech/parler-may-find-a-new-host-in-epik

See.......free markets. You like? We don't need your government to force the issue. There is something about Trump loyalists and their tendency to always play the victim.

Monopoly = One company controlling the market, but you didn't list one company, you listed five off the top of your head, and there are many more than that who offer the same services.

 

Good article, thanks.




Libertarians have historically been the first to speak out about what is legal versus what is moral (do no harm when exercising freedoms). America's moral tradition has to allow everyone to speak freely and suffer any societal consequences of that speech. We've never before been a country which attempts to avoid the consequences of free speech by shutting up opposing views. That is communism.


Exercising Big Tech's "freedom of speech" by silencing others from exercising their freedom of speech will cause great societal harm. In fight or flight scenario, competitors should be able to "fly" to other hosting organizations, but the oligarchy has left very few gates for flight. They are backing people into a corner where people feel threatened. That will elicit a fight response as the only option. Most people will run when threatened, until they cannot do so.

BTW, I know the definition of monopoly. I have grouped the five Big Tech companies as an oligarchy in numerous posts.

 

No. They never argued everyone should be able to use other people's resources without consent. That is not what free speech is about.

What we have witnessed is free markets, which is the opposite of communism. Ironically you demand the government step in the force private companies to do things they do not want to do. That is closer to communism.

You seem to think they exit only to provide a free service to everyone, but that's not the case. They exist to make MONEY. If they think a company like Parler gives them a bad name, they will cut them. Companies are cut all the time, but this time we hear all this whining because Trump is involved, and Trump loyalists have a reputation of being whiners and playing the victim.

 

Parler was paying Amazon for cloud storage and paying Google/Apple to download apps. Those services, having been allowed to become near monopolies, function more like utility companies than anything else. If you pay your utility bill then there is an obligation to provide service regardless of who you are or what your think. Parler's "sin" is in wanting to have an open free speech platform where people could use Parler's resources with consent....since Twitter/Facebook are not consenting to allow all political ideologies to exist.

The problem isn't as much that Big Tech is now in charge of political opinion as egregious as that is. The issue is that there are very few options to simply switch service providers.

That is a strawman. It doesn't matter to a monopoly if they get a "bad name". If no one can leave them voluntarily because there is no alternative service, then good will is useless to the provider. They have everyone captive and can be as totalitarian and tyranical as they wish.

First they came for the Trump and his supporters, and I didn't care because I didn't like Trump and wasn't a conservative....

...then they came for me and there was no one left to defend me.

 

And I can pay the fees at a golf club, but it doesn't mean they can't kick me out for bad behaviour. They can, and do whenever they think its necessary. Their house, their rules. Same with Amazon and every other private company.

Well......I don't think you get the concept of property rights either, and will demand the government get involved in everything. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What "bad behavior" did Parler exhibit in wanting to open a true free speech platform? What "bad behavior" did thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of conservatives and nationalists who were banned from Twitter/Facebook over the last few weeks (and years) for expressing a different political opinion from the Silicon Valley ideologues? People are being banned without breaking rules: normal everyday people. This isn't just about Trump. His bodacious personality is just the excuse to systematically silence all political opposition.

What offense did Ron Paul, the voice of American Libertarianism, commit to be banned from Facebook this week? He wrote an article condemning the recent purges of political thought and was banned for that. Ron Paul is a pacifist who wouldn't hurt a fly. Now his voice is disappeared from the largest platform.

Once conservatives and true Libertarians are suppressed, they will come for Socialists who are also speaking out about the need for antitrust laws against the continued government formation of monopolies/oligarchies. All that will remain is a global Technocratic-Political Fascist State.

Anyone claiming to be a Libertarian while applauding the censorship of political views does not have any clue what Libertarianism or true liberalism is all about at its core.

Ron Paul banned from Facebook.



Anyway, off to work. Thanks for the conversation. I'll catch up later on a break.

Happy Friday to everyone, even the people who defend communistic censoring of free speech and the ultimate totalitarian takeover of every country on the planet. You have a right to speak up and have your voice heard, even if and when your opinions are wrong.

 

You mean other than allowing people to plot violent riots?

Apparently it was a moderator error.

In an email on Monday night, a Facebook spokesperson told Reason that it had mistakenly locked former Rep. Ron Paul's page.
"While there were never any restrictions on Ron Paul's page, we restricted one admin's ability to post by mistake. We have corrected the error," the spokesman said.

I voted for Ron Paul several times. Good man. Although they say it was a mistake, FB is free to moderate their forum any way they want, and Ron Paul should understand that. Should they allow people to post porn? Well, they don't. Their house, their rules.

 

It turns out that the people who "stormed" the Capitol building used Facebook to organize and spread the word. Not a peep from Apple, Amazon and Google. Facebook is held to a different standard than Parler.

 

Well said. This model is what they have in Europe. The next step from Europe is Red China.

 

I understand completely. The rigidity of libertarian perfection in this case results in in net deprivation of the civil rights of the citizenry.

 

Thanks. I also found a link independently. I wasn’t aware of the feud however.

 

Only Musk and Zuckerberg could have a feud over space rocket destroying a satellite.

"You.....you broke my satellite".