SA Footy

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Q. wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Q. wrote:This account often promoted QAnon conspiracy theories regarding rigged election.

Twitter said they were purging accounts promulgating QAnon conspiracies. That's not silencing conservatives, it's silencing disinformation.

Prove it

Bit hard to take screenshots on a deleted account.

Toomey-Right was often RT'd or liked into my feed by "conservative" accounts that I follow, so I'm fully aware of the conspiracy tweets that were promoted by that account.

Your statement of fact is therefore not proven

No wonder you don’t like Australia’s defamation laws with your recent form

At least you’re consistent

I guess we'll just have to take Twitter's word that this one of the 70,000 accounts suspended due to promoting QAnon content

Amazon's response to Parler's lawsuit is interesting:

I haven't followed this Parler thing that closely, so please jump in and correct me on the following understanding/assumptions:

In response to getting kicked off most 'mainstream' social media sites, right wing nazi types migrated to Parler and used the service as a way of spreading their messages.

I'm assuming Parler is an app?

Silicon Valley didn't like the fact that kicking them all off Twitter/FB/etc wasn't enough, and pressuring Parler to do the same (remove specific users) wasn't working, as Parler was happy to take the traffic, no matter how bad the customers were?

So they (Big-tech) decided to block the entire app altogether, and removed Parler from the app store and google play?

Assuming the above is roughly correct, Parler has then elected to sue those that removed their app?

Another thing that isn't clear to me is where Amazon comes into it? Does Amazon have an equivalent to the app store and google play?

Trader wrote:I haven't followed this Parler thing that closely, so please jump in and correct me on the following understanding/assumptions:

In response to getting kicked off most 'mainstream' social media sites, right wing nazi types migrated to Parler and used the service as a way of spreading their messages.

I'm assuming Parler is an app?

Silicon Valley didn't like the fact that kicking them all off Twitter/FB/etc wasn't enough, and pressuring Parler to do the same (remove specific users) wasn't working, as Parler was happy to take the traffic, no matter how bad the customers were?

So they (Big-tech) decided to block the entire app altogether, and removed Parler from the app store and google play?

Assuming the above is roughly correct, Parler has then elected to sue those that removed their app?

Another thing that isn't clear to me is where Amazon comes into it? Does Amazon have an equivalent to the app store and google play?

That's a pretty good summary, except I'll expand on the bolded bit - there are ToS for the app stores and Parler violated those ToS by not complying with requests to purge specific content and update moderation guidelines. So Parler has been suspended, not banned, until they take action to meet the ToS.

Amazon hosts the platform.

Q. wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Q. wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:
Prove it

Bit hard to take screenshots on a deleted account.

Toomey-Right was often RT'd or liked into my feed by "conservative" accounts that I follow, so I'm fully aware of the conspiracy tweets that were promoted by that account.

Your statement of fact is therefore not proven

No wonder you don’t like Australia’s defamation laws with your recent form

At least you’re consistent

I guess we'll just have to take Twitter's word that this one of the 70,000 accounts suspended due to promoting QAnon

Where has Twitter said they suspended the account due to promoting QAnon?

Jimmy_041 wrote:Where has Twitter said they suspended the account due to promoting QAnon?

Right next to where they said they suspended the account for "being conservative"

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Q. wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Trader wrote:[quote="Q."]

Where is this evidence that Twitter put a blanket ban on conservatives? Banning Trump's accounts doesn't = all conservative accounts banned

Where did Apache say they did ban all conservatives.
Provided they banned a second one (other than trump), then his statement is correct.

And here you go

This account often promoted QAnon conspiracy theories regarding rigged election.

Twitter said they were purging accounts promulgating QAnon conspiracies. That's not silencing conservatives, it's silencing disinformation.

Prove it[/quote]Didn't you hear? Apparently a person making a claim doesn't bear the onus of proof these days.

RB wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:Prove it

Didn't you hear? Apparently a person making a claim doesn't bear the onus of proof these days.

Yes, goes back to the Angus Taylor days
No wonder he doesn’t like our defamation laws which puts the onus of proof on the defendant (which he didn’t know)

Apache has more credibility

Jimmy_041 wrote:

RB wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:Prove it

Didn't you hear? Apparently a person making a claim doesn't bear the onus of proof these days.

Yes, goes back to the Angus Taylor days
No wonder he doesn’t like our defamation laws which puts the onus of proof on the defendant (which he didn’t know)

Apache has more credibility

I believe he goes by the name Cayman Angus.

Also, the problem with taking someone to court for defamation is having to testify under oath or being ordered to hand over evidence that would have adverse findings against you, which is Ben Roberts-Smith found out recently.

Q. wrote:Amazon's response to Parler's lawsuit is interesting:

Amazon cites some of the Parler content that is being defended:

The same party that impeached Clinton over a blow job are now arguing that Trump inciting a seditious mob at the Capitol building is not as bad as we think it is.

Booney wrote:The same party that impeached Clinton over a blow job are now arguing that Trump inciting a seditious mob at the Capitol building is not as bad as we think it is.

The mob was not seditious.

Trader wrote:

Booney wrote:The same party that impeached Clinton over a blow job are now arguing that Trump inciting a seditious mob at the Capitol building is not as bad as we think it is.

The mob was not seditious.

A bit to unpack here. DOJ has said they are looking at felony sedition charges for people who stormed the Capitol.

But also, chief organiser of the insurrection, Ali Alexander, confessed to a seditious conspiracy with top Trump allies Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, and Mo Brooks in a since-deleted Periscope video.

To be seditious one must incite.

Trump was seditious.
The mob acted.

Trader wrote:To be seditious one must incite.

Trump was seditious.
The mob acted.

So none of the mob were encouraged by other members of the mob to act in that manner, they were all acting on Trumps words?

Should make the impeachment easier to formalize then.

Correct.
Hence the impeachment being pulled together so quickly.

Also confirmed by the fact numerous republicans have also voted to impeach.

Booney wrote:

Trader wrote:To be seditious one must incite.

Trump was seditious.
The mob acted.

So none of the mob were encouraged by other members of the mob to act in that manner, they were all acting on Trumps words?

Should make the impeachment easier to formalize then.

They were caught up in the moment, carrying zip-tie handcuffs as you do in every day life.

Trader wrote:Correct.
Hence the impeachment being pulled together so quickly.

Also confirmed by the fact numerous republicans have also voted to impeach.

So you know, for a fact, that nobody there encouraged anyone else to come along, they were all there on their own free will?

Yes

I think we need to circle back to the comparison to the blow job for this.