Parler finds new home in Sammamish

[CharlesRamon]

Originally Posted by margaretBartle

That's their "right and choice" because they *claim* to be a disinterested platform, not a publisher. They claim that they have no editorial control over the postings, and therefore should not be liable for damages or defamation claims. Then they start banning content.


They can't have it both ways. If they claim to not be a publisher, and not responsible for what is posted, then they can't be banning content.



If they claim the right to pick and choose what to put on their website, then they need to be responsible just as a newspaper or radio station would be for the material they publish.

Of course they can. They're a private company. They can permit or ban any user for any reason. Where are you coming up with this stuff? It sounds like you're parroting some illogical stuff you read somewhere that sounded good to you but doesn't actually make any sense. Reminds me of the anti-maskers who say they have a right to shop without a mask but have no problems with "No shoes, no shirt, no service" because that rule keeps out the dirty hippies, but they have a problem with the mask rule because it keeps themselves out, and they imagine themselves to be good, clean people. You just don't like what Twitter is doing so you're making up weird rationalizations for why they CAN'T do what they have every right to do. If not, how are they doing it? Why hasn't the law stepped in yet? I guess you'll say the successful lawsuits are coming, just like the ones that kept Trump in office.

But, in case you're still not convinced, here you go.

From Twitter's TOS:

"4. Using the Services
. . .
We may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services or any features within the Services to you or to users generally. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time. We may also remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services, limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service, suspend or terminate users, and reclaim usernames without liability to you . . .

Ending These Terms

We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules and Policies or Periscope Community Guidelines, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; (iii) your account should be removed due to unlawful conduct, (iv) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or (v) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable . . . "

CHECK AND MATE

[roadtrip75]

Originally Posted by bluesjuke

"whataboutism"

More Newspeak.

Yup. It's how they justify discrimination (selective punishment).

[CharlesRamon]

Originally Posted by roadtrip75

Yup. It's how they justify discrimination (selective punishment).

Whataboutism is a form of the tu quoque fallacy. The first recorded mention of the tu quoque fallacy was in 1614. Newspeak is a fictional language from Orwell's 1984 that refers to a simplified language designed to restrict people's thoughts.

This is such a lame thing to whine about and it's not even accurate. Someone points out you're engaging in logical fallacies and you call it - erroneously - Newspeak. These kinds of malapropisms make your rebuttals look childish and uninformed, even though people of your ilk constantly cry about "political correctness," "cultural marxism," "SJWs" and "cancel culture," which are designed to shut down any dissent without presenting a rational counterargument, because you don't know how to debate, only throw out lame buzzwords and insults.