Free Speech
Comments
-
Yes, but that doesn't make it an invalid point.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Android allows you to install apps that are not on the google store, so I can't see any issue there.0 -
yes because antifa never posted anything remotely contentious did it.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Try and look beyond your black and white view of the world, brush the chips off your shoulder and try thinking.
its not for everyone I know.
0 -
Here's the plan.
1. Let Trump back on Twitter
2. Close Twitter to everyone else
3. Populate Twitter solely with millions of pro-Trump bots, apart from the real Trump.
He gets the adulation of unthinking millions and no-one else has to be exposed to his bile.0 -
Apple were very quick to get rid of Fortnite when they saw that they were no longer going to get as big a slice of the pie.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
They need a commercial reason to change.0 -
I believe it got removed from apkmirror too, which for a lot of people means it's effectively gone. Even if the hosting hadn't been pulled.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but that doesn't make it an invalid point.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Android allows you to install apps that are not on the google store, so I can't see any issue there.
It doesn't make it an invalid point no you're right. But it can be true as well as David having an invalid point.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You might get further with your argument if you didn't resort to insults the moment anyone disagrees with you.david37 said:
yes because antifa never posted anything remotely contentious did it.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Try and look beyond your black and white view of the world, brush the chips off your shoulder and try thinking.
its not for everyone I know.
Most seem to agree that the tech giants have too much unaccountable power. Claiming it infringes freedom of speech is at least debatable. That the tech giants are politically left wing is bordering on the absurd.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The idea that facebook particularly is biased against the right is ridiculous.0
-
I don't remember a huge outcry from the right leaning members over the cambridge analytica / facrbook scandal. Could be wrong.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.0 -
Pretty sure there were no antifa leaders occupying the Oval Office.david37 said:
yes because antifa never posted anything remotely contentious did it.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Try and look beyond your black and white view of the world, brush the chips off your shoulder and try thinking.
its not for everyone I know.0 -
Twitter did not kick him off the platform earlier as he was essentially blackmailing the company if they did not allow him to continue he would look to take some action that would damage their business. They were also making money from his madness in the form or boosted users. Do we think some moron in a field with some guns was a significant clientele for them before Trump. Only as it has got to the end game have they felt they could act safe in the knowledge that he does not have a majority to get anything through or enough time to really damage them.
For those saying it is unfair that he is kicked off and it is some sort of censorship I think Twitter has been extremely patient with him. Twitters USP for Trump was the lack of scrutiny with the platform. If he has a press conference there are those pesky journalists that can point out his lies in real time and on their platforms. He does not like this for obvious reasons. He has been following the model of put out enough garbage and no one not even the mainstream media can fact check it quickly enough. It is the classic distraction technique that unfortunately is very effective. This is where the population should be being taught to be more vigilant and questioning of information put in front of them.1 -
My phone must have a special feature.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but that doesn't make it an invalid point.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Android allows you to install apps that are not on the google store, so I can't see any issue there.
I can access the internet on it to read any blogs worldwide. #specialThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Do you think David thinks Twitter is a service?
Someone should tell him that he is the product.0 -
morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong0 -
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You need to learn a bit more about the internet.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
You’re confusing mobile phones and the internet.
Huawei don’t have access to google play ( ironically thanks to your mate Trump) and yet people are still buying Huawei phones outside of China.
The internet is far older than mobile phones.
Yes Twitter is his choice of platform, he’s lost access, tough shit.0 -
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong0 -
That argument stands up if you are concerned about the ability to compete to generate revenue.TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
This is the ability share information, Twitter being enormous in no way restricts anybody else’s ability to host information themselves. There is no need to use Twitter to public post information on the internet.0 -
No.TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about whether Google, Amazon, Apple etc are too big. That doesn't seem to be the discussion David was trying to have.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I like what you did there. 🤣morstar said:
Yes Twitter is his choice of platform, he’s lost access, tough censored .The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Is it ironic that there is only one monopolies and mergers commission?TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrongThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ultimately the likes of Twitter and Facebook didn't exist until 10-15 years ago. Before them there were other platforms. If there is a demand for someone to provide access to "free speech" then someone will come along and provide it.0
-
The argument put forward was that another company is able to buy servers and compete so there is no problem. You could use this for any monopoly or oligopoly, but you only usually get such things when there are high barriers to entry.morstar said:
That argument stands up if you are concerned about the ability to compete to generate revenue.TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
This is the ability share information, Twitter being enormous in no way restricts anybody else’s ability to host information themselves. There is no need to use Twitter to public post information on the internet.
Yes, the argument around Twitter is different because it doesn't charge its users, but I think if you dominate a market that has a significant impact on consumers, then the ultimate destiny is being regulated.
0 -
I’m not anti some form of regulation. I agree that these companies are too powerful and also that they must take some responsibility for what they have facilitated with Trump and misinformation in general.TheBigBean said:
The argument put forward was that another company is able to buy servers and compete so there is no problem. You could use this for any monopoly or oligopoly, but you only usually get such things when there are high barriers to entry.morstar said:
That argument stands up if you are concerned about the ability to compete to generate revenue.TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
This is the ability share information, Twitter being enormous in no way restricts anybody else’s ability to host information themselves. There is no need to use Twitter to public post information on the internet.
Yes, the argument around Twitter is different because it doesn't charge its users, but I think if you dominate a market that has a significant impact on consumers, then the ultimate destiny is being regulated.
I do think there are two separate issues here though. David is using one to shore up the other.
Personally the ongoing popularity of Twitter baffles me but that’s merely an irrelevant aside.
0 -
There is nothing stopping you starting your own commission.pblakeney said:
Is it ironic that there is only one monopolies and mergers commission?TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Hmmm. BJ would probably object to me setting up an opposition quango. 😉pangolin said:
There is nothing stopping you starting your own commission.pblakeney said:
Is it ironic that there is only one monopolies and mergers commission?TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrongThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I was thinking an email with a select group (editors) of recipients then he could tap out his 140 characters and press send.david37 said:
ah yes send your letter by post , its not how things are done these days and you know it.surrey_commuter said:he could just as easily send his proposed tweets as letters to the editors of every newspaper.
Do we feel they should be obliged to publish them every single day?
But I was just making a point about the difference between a platform and a publisher, but you know that.0 -
that rather depends on wether you want anyone to hear your message.morstar said:
That argument stands up if you are concerned about the ability to compete to generate revenue.TheBigBean said:
Do you think the monopolies and mergers commission should be abolished on the basis a new company could always enter the market?pangolin said:
Most of it is concentrated in a few companies yes, capitalism tends that way. But there is nothing stopping someone buying some physical servers and starting their own hosting service. It would be quite hard, especially if demand was high and they had to scale up fast. It would also be quite hard for me to buy a physical printing press, run it, and keep up with increasing demand for my new paper. But that doesn't mean I'm being censored.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
This is the ability share information, Twitter being enormous in no way restricts anybody else’s ability to host information themselves. There is no need to use Twitter to public post information on the internet.0 -
Really? and how do people access the internet? with mobile devices for the large part. so boy you it seems need to learn a bit more about the internetmorstar said:
You need to learn a bit more about the internet.david37 said:morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
But its not a free internet is it. The hardware to run on it is concentrated in a few companies, the search engines are very few and far between and most access is via mobile devices.morstar said:
There may well be a point in your last sentence.david37 said:it is expected that there will be over 800million iphones being used in the world by the end of the year
in order for a company to have a social network they need to have a platform on which its consumed. they produce an app for the phone. if apple decide what can and cant be made available in its closed ecosystem then it controls the experience of the user. thats a massive amount of global influence. hence parler cannot compete with twitter when apple decides it doesnt like the opinions and being voiced on parler and removes it from its store. when google decides to move parlour from its store (over 2,000,000,000) users then those two companies alone are managing the worlds content.
interestingly apple google amazon and co have argued long that they are not responsible for content. but it seems they now might have strayed into that area.
Start your own platform is a crass thing to say. because you simply cannot unless your platform is only accessed via pc which is not how social media is generally consumed, not least because whilst we might have pcs or laptops at home the world as a whole doesnt.
Apple Google Amazon facebook are too powerful and must be broken up .
That doesn’t mean any of these companies have to allow toxic content. You are conflating two issues.
Twitter can be as restrictive as it likes whether it is a small or large organisation. That is not censorship.
It’s a free internet, find another mechanism. People have been doing for years. You are only upset about the easy mechanism being removed. Nobody, least of all a president with huge media access has been censored.
It’s no different to going down the pub, being really obnoxious and getting kicked out. You’ve been removed from one place, not stopped from being obnoxious. If the taxi and bus companies refuse to transport you, you’ve still not been censored. You’ve been limited in how and where you can be obnoxious.
Thats the point. Not wether trump is right or wrong
You’re confusing mobile phones and the internet.
Huawei don’t have access to google play ( ironically thanks to your mate Trump) and yet people are still buying Huawei phones outside of China.
The internet is far older than mobile phones.
Yes Twitter is his choice of platform, he’s lost access, tough censored .
0 -
rjsterry said:
You might get further with your argument if you didn't resort to insults the moment anyone disagrees with you.david37 said:
yes because antifa never posted anything remotely contentious did it.pangolin said:
Again though, their app approval policy is myopic and plenty of developers have found themselves up against a brick wall trying to get an app on the appstore. Or found their previously working app removed by Apple. When does David start to care about this?kingstongraham said:Apple is the main one you may have a point about.
When an app which happens to host posts encouraging violence, calling for the killing of democrats, muslims, black lives matter leaders, journalists, posts containing racism, anti semitism, Nazi symbolism... when that app gets pulled. Oh it's right wing though.
Try and look beyond your black and white view of the world, brush the chips off your shoulder and try thinking.
its not for everyone I know.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1
