Who were the antifa infiltrators and what were they doing?
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Who were the antifa infiltrators and what were they doing?
whatithink
GOLD
Amazon in this context is nothing like a monopoly. Calling it one in this context displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the technology space. There is a plethora of platform providers or if you want to build it yourself, data center providers, that can facilitate what AWS does. If they don't want to deal with Parler, then they don't have to. Parler, as a private company, has zero rights to compel other private companies to do business with it."On Thursday, Parler was the most popular app in the United States. By Monday, three of the four Silicon Valley monopolies united to destroy it.
With virtual unanimity, leading U.S. liberals celebrated this use of Silicon Valley monopoly power to shut down Parler, just as they overwhelmingly cheered the prior two extraordinary assertions of tech power to control U.S. political discourse: censorship of The New York Post’s reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the banning of the U.S. President from major platforms. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a single national liberal-left politician even expressing concerns about any of this, let alone opposing it.
Not only did leading left-wing politicians not object but some of them were the ones who pleaded with Silicon Valley to use their power this way. After the internet-policing site Sleeping Giants flagged several Parler posts that called for violence, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked: “What are @Apple and @GooglePlay doing about this?” Once Apple responded by removing Parler from its App Store — a move that House Democrats just three months earlier warned was dangerous anti-trust behavior — she praised Apple and then demanded to know: “Good to see this development from @Apple. @GooglePlay what are you going to do about apps being used to organize violence on your platform?”
----
"As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months — banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the U.S. President and then terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing accounts — so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store, the sole and exclusive means which iPhone users have to download apps. “Overall, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020 with 8.1 million new installs,” reported TechCrunch.
It looked as if Parler had proven critics of Silicon Valley monopolistic power wrong. Their success showed that it was possible after all to create a new social media platform to compete with Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And they did so by doing exactly what Silicon Valley defenders long insisted should be done: if you don’t like the rules imposed by tech giants, go create your own platform with different rules.
But today, if you want to download, sign up for, or use Parler, you will be unable to do so. That is because three Silicon Valley monopolies — Amazon, Google and Apple — abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country."
If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor."
How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler
In the last three months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics, while liberals, with virtual unanimity, have cheered.greenwald.substack.com
The Google & Apple stores are basically monopolies for iOS & Android, although you can Jailbreak a phone and load what you want, easier on Android obviously. That isn't new and there are ongoing cases challenging that, esp. with Apple - see Spotify. There's possible traction here, but Parler signed up to the T&Cs and if they breached them, then legally they are in a bind.
The last sentence above is utter BS. Parler is not a competitor of Apple, Google or Amazon. They were looking to compete with Facebook (Instagram) and Twitter, who have nothing to do with the aforementioned 3. If Greenwald is making that argument, he should at least get some basic facts right.
whatithink
GOLD
Or do you mean that someone classed them as newspapers incorrectly, hence section 230 was needed to clarify that they were not (never were).
Desert Hound
DA
I did. Tells me a lot about you that you read that and came to that conclusion that he should be censored.
They talk about him being a threat, inciting people, etc. And yet never actually show any examples of said activities. If he were so active in doing so, it would be an easy task to show it.
The screen shots of texts are of someone that the person writing the article admits they don't know who that person is.
"Farley, who labeled Ngo a "propagandist," included screenshots of supposed conversations between anonymous internet users who mention Ngo. It's unclear whether the conservative journalist has any actual connection with them."
The above is journalism?
No at the time there was a debate (marked by the 2 radical differences in approach from Compuserve and Prodigy)....the question which was asked then is are they a publisher or are they a bulletin board.
Desert Hound
DA
Fish....barrel.
Let's see what the First Amendment has to say -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is a restriction on Congress, not any private business. Was that not noted in any of your Law Review articles?
Scott m Shurson
SILVER ELITE
Of course you agree with censorship... it’s the only way you liberals can compete. Pretend you’re the moral high ground, lie or flat out deny information to the masses and accomplish absolutely nothing while telling the sheep they’re evil if they actually think for themselves. You’d love to censor anyone that disputes your agenda, communist.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Lots of people out there with a piece of paper on the wall that don’t know shit. Half the doctors in this world graduated in the bottom half of their class.
"Why, Magoo, you've done it again you sly dog!!!"
We've seen this before with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment only restricted the federal and state governments initially. It was later extended to common carriers, and then more broadly. Otherwise, we wouldn't have civil rights laws and only the government would be restricted from discriminating. I'm sure a big time "conservative" like you would say it's fine for private businesses to discriminate.
In any case, the default position prior to legislation was that ISPs were responsible for the content of their users. Section 230 gave them immunity. It's very basic...just give them qualified immunity. They can choose to do whatever they want as a publisher and exercise their 1st amendment right, but then they are liable the same as any other publisher. Or they can choose the immunity but have to adhere to the terms set by Congress, which would be broadly the same as the first amendment. This isn't rocket science. But I forgot....you're my Mr. Magoo, and we love you!
Assuming the identification is correct, that's BLM, not antifa.
You could just admit you were wrong instead of (again) cluelessly demonstrating it.
Leave it to a big time conservative like you to point out that BLM is worse than Antifa. Magoo, sorry, but that's racist.....just saying.
"Oh Magoo, you've done it again!"
I only pointed out that they were different. The "worse than" is entirely your position. So who is the racist here?
I'm not the one going around claiming to be a "conservative". We all know you "conservatives" hate us POC.
You're the one that said that BLM was worse than antifa. Are you evading taking responsibility for making that statement?
Actually, I said I was a conservative in its former meaning, back when that meant respect of the US Constitution, a robust military, balanced budgets, and adherence to the law (or accepting the consequences of protesting against unjust laws). I have lost track of what the current crop of so-called conservatives believes in - maybe you could fill us in? In your judgment, what was the proportion of currently-defined conservatives in the Capitol mob?
As for your implication that I hate POCs, you should ask my wife and children.
We all know Antifa is fair game (a bunch of white kids) but criticism of BLM is off limits. BLM, after all, to most of us (except of course crazy "conservatives" like you) can do no wrong. So how dare you point out in any way that BLM could be connected to the Capitol in any way. That is totally racist. It's Antifa.
But from the post "charged in 2020 over a BLM-Antifa riot". There are a handful of others but I don't care enough about you to search every one...this was just the easiest one to find since I knew Ngo had posted it. That said, it's very clear the handful of leftist infiltrators were NOT driving the Capitol protests.
And I'll throw back at you the same thing that was thrown back at me on these forums...just because you date or marry someone who is a person of color doesn't not make you a racist. But of course, a crazy "conservative" like you can't see his own privilege right there in front of him. Need those glasses Magoo.
Biden's theme for the inauguration is apparently going to be "America United". This will be occurring (unless they delay it til after the first 100 days) at the same time they are trying to impeach Trump. Seriously a lesson right out of the Soviet playbooks. Given the poll numbers about how Rs feel about this, you can have unity, or you can give Trump his consequences....pick 1.....but this is just destroying your message.
Still with the racism charges? Look back through the thread a few places and see how that started.
Not having had to deal with racist issues in my youth, I never gave a thought to what my kids would go through. They have been pretty lucky - the worst I am aware of was a racial slur directed at my second son in a soccer game at UCSB. The ref gave the UCSB player a yellow card for it. I think under the rules it should have been a red, but perhaps the referee didn't hear the actual words spoken and was cautioning the player based on his aggressive attitude.