Censorship by Big tech attacked Parler.com

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
9,047
455
83
#22
that not true. they have and were. right now Twitter has the Iran Leader has a Twitter account but the POTUS was closed. FB and Twitter all failed by that standard is it fake and a violation of the first amendment and they're being sued Just like FB loss to Candice Owens they will lose too.
You don't have first amendment rights on social media
Also inciting violence isn't covered under the first amendment
Neither is slander or defamation
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#23
You don't have first amendment rights on social media
Also in finding violence isn't covered under the first amendment
Neither is slander or defamation
you don't know what the First Amendment is for. IF you did you would not say that and the SCOTUS disagree with you when Candice Owens Sued FB. Selective bias is. You are ill-informed.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
9,047
455
83
#24
you don't know what the First Amendment is for. IF you did you would not say that and the SCOTUS disagree with you when Candice Owens Sued FB. Selective bias is. You are ill-informed.
Yeah the first amendment says the government can't put you in jail over words
It doesn't say social media can't kick you off of their platform
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#25
Yeah the first amendment says the government can't put you in jail over words
It doesn't say social media can't kick you off of their platform
IF social Media is going to regulate speech and it has been n proven they have done so biasedly such as the POTUS account has been banned yet a person like the leader of Iran who has called for the death of Israel and the United States has not they can and will be sued.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
9,047
455
83
#26
IF social Media is going to regulate speech and it has been n proven they have done so biasedly such as the POTUS account has been banned yet a person like the leader of Iran who has called for the death of Israel and the United States has not they can and will be sued.
they can be sued in civil court but it's not a first amendment issue because you don't have first amendment rights on social media
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#27
they can be sued in civil court but it's not a first amendment issue because you don't have first amendment rights on social media
IF they can sue in civil court that means they have violated what? A Civil Right!
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
9,047
455
83
#28
IF they can sue in civil court that means they have violated what? A Civil Right!
No that's not what that means.
Civil court is for issues that aren't criminal like if you hire me to mow your lawn and then refuse to pay me I can take you to civil court and sue you
You don't have a civil right to anyone's property or services.
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
5,729
902
113
#29
Ain't it great,don't you just love it? God said "thy merchants"(big tech included?) were the great men of the earth and by their sorceries the nations would be deceived and it's as though everyone's caught off guard with what the big businesses and their lobbyist have done. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Revelation-18-23/
 

Smoke

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2016
608
148
43
#30
If you have noticed many conservatives are being targeted by big tech, Left media, and the Democratic leadership. The POTUS Twitter account was blocked and he has been removed from Facebook. This is a serious thing happening because it is the start of what will happen in the greater amount on January 20th. ""Forbes magazine’s chief content officer delivered a stark warning to companies that might consider hiring Kayleigh McEnany, Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and other former spokespeople in the Trump White House: "(FoxNews).


This is how it starts. I must say 2021 will be very much greater challenging than 2020. I have closed my Twitter account, FB, and the left removed my Parler access. I have no more social media other than CC. In 30 days my FB will be permanently closed. I would encourage all too fast and pray I have no excuses not to, because I will not be on those other "woke " outlets and have more time for the prayer and the word of God and family.

What are your thoughts?
I think people are addicted to social media. I think people feel entitled to be able to use other people's technology to spew whatever rhetoric they want. Of course I'm morally against censorship, but I am for private entities regulating their products/technology how they see fit.

I never understand why so many people who hate Facebook not only use Facebook but are addicted to it as well. I guess it's not much different than drug addicts who hate their drugs but are nevertheless addicted to it.

One final thought: Imagine a bunch of devil worshippers coming to CC and posting pro-Satan garbage along with videos of them doing satanic rituals... Should they be censored? Sure, if the owner of CC decides it ought to be. The owner can make an explicit list of rules we must follow, but he/she isn't held and bound by it... He/She is free to ban anyone for any reason as this is his/her site. No one forces us to be here... no one forces anyone else to have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc... In this, I applaud the OP for deleting everything he is against.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#31
No that's not what that means.
Civil court is for issues that aren't criminal like if you hire me to mow your lawn and then refuse to pay me I can take you to civil court and sue you
You don't have a civil right to anyone's property or services.
wrong! Oj Simson was sued in civil court for wrongful death you violate one's civil right you will be fined and placed in jail depending on how serious the violation.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
9,047
455
83
#32
wrong! Oj Simson was sued in civil court for wrongful death you violate one's civil right you will be fined and placed in jail depending on how serious the violation.
Let me say this again. You don't have a civil right to someone's property or services

Private owned media companies can filter content at their own discretion.You agree to their terms and conditions when you create your account
just like you don't have a civil right to shop at Walmart if they decide to tell you you're not allowed to come back
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#33
I think people are addicted to social media. I think people feel entitled to be able to use other people's technology to spew whatever rhetoric they want. Of course I'm morally against censorship, but I am for private entities regulating their products/technology how they see fit.

I never understand why so many people who hate Facebook not only use Facebook but are addicted to it as well. I guess it's not much different than drug addicts who hate their drugs but are nevertheless addicted to it.

One final thought: Imagine a bunch of devil worshippers coming to CC and posting pro-Satan garbage along with videos of them doing satanic rituals... Should they be censored? Sure, if the owner of CC decides it ought to be. The owner can make an explicit list of rules we must follow, but he/she isn't held and bound by it... He/She is free to ban anyone for any reason as this is his/her site. No one forces us to be here... no one forces anyone else to have Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc... In this, I applaud the OP for deleting everything he is against.
Yes but these so-called private entities are used to promote the control of one speech over another while benefiting on tax breaks from section 230 and banned together to single out a competitor with the help of politicians is a violation of many things and it is criminal.

The DOJ has many examples of crime done by those companies who attacked their competitors or prevented them from overtaking to much. Social media grew so fast the regulation has not kept up.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#34
Let me say this again. You don't have a civil right to someone's property or services

Private owned media companies can filter content at their own discretion.You agree to their terms and conditions when you create your account
just like you don't have a civil right to shop at Walmart if they decide to tell you you're not allowed to come back
You don't have the right to run a business that will not allow one to do what you allow another. Just because you do not like someone you can't stop them.
 

Smoke

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2016
608
148
43
#35
IF they can sue in civil court that means they have violated what? A Civil Right!
That's not what "civil" in civil court means whatsoever. Often times civil cases don't even involve breaking the law, but rather a financial compensation due to someone elses negligence or actions.
 

Dude653

Senior Member
Mar 19, 2011
9,047
455
83
#36
You can't really compare a gay wedding cake to inciting insurrection
imagine I went into Walmart and started encouraging customers to violently take over Walmart and then have the nerve to act persecuted when Walmart tells me I'm not allowed back on the property
also I think this is the third time I've said this but a business has the right to protect themselves from liability
Threats of violence are a liability
 

Smoke

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2016
608
148
43
#37
Yes but these so-called private entities are used to promote the control of one speech over another while benefiting on tax breaks from section 230 and banned together to single out a competitor with the help of politicians is a violation of many things and it is criminal.

The DOJ has many examples of crime done by those companies who attacked their competitors or prevented them from overtaking to much. Social media grew so fast the regulation has not kept up.
I agree with just about this entire post, but there is one party who champions this type of corporate welfare (tax breaks for the rich corporations)... Now it's a problem because it is shooting them in foot. Very convenient.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#38
You can't really compare a gay wedding cake to inciting insurrection
imagine I went into Walmart and started encouraging customers to violently take over Walmart and then have the nerve to act persecuted when Walmart tells me I'm not allowed back on the property
also I think this is the third time I've said this but a business has the right to protect themselves from liability
Threats of violence are a liability
Parler was not involved in inciting insurrection. That is a lie! Ony the left lying Democrats and foolish snowflakes would come up with such lie.
 

Smoke

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2016
608
148
43
#39
You don't have the right to run a business that will not allow one to do what you allow another. Just because you do not like someone you can't stop them.
Sort of true but sort of false.

You can refuse service to anyone for any reason UNLESS they are discriminating against a federally protected class. Some states, California for example, expand on the protected class and include political affiliation. Of course there are loopholes that can and will be used by these big social media corporations. They have the means to get by quite easily unfortunately.
 

CS1

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
6,795
1,922
113
#40
I agree with just about this entire post, but there is one party who champions this type of corporate welfare (tax breaks for the rich corporations)... Now it's a problem because it is shooting them in foot. Very convenient.
I disagree "corporate welfare" is a dog whistle term coined by the socialist left who want all the middle class to come under the welfare of the Government. when people realize the Government doesn't make money they take money from us and use it to control our very actions. This is why the middle class is under assault by the left. They very well may finish us off and we all will move into the haves and have not.