FYI

No, censorship would have meant him being banned years ago, capitalism means it took an attempted coup.

As I pointed out in one of the other threads in reply to you, he wasn't censored when he called mexicans, rapists, and described folks chanting "jews will not replace us," as "very fine people." Also, he's the president and internationally known/loved/loathed. He can still communicate, just not on certain platforms. The founding fathers laid out an example where speech could no longer be considered free or protected by the 1st amendment, and that was shouting fire in a crowded theatre. What Trump did is far worse.

Censorship doesn’t have a time span.. by that logic anyone who has been censored before hasn’t truly been censored if they had past history of being controversial.. that is not true.. just because he wasn’t censored in the past doesn’t mean he’s not being censored now..

The definition is clear as day, regardless of whether you agree with censorship or not all you genuinely need is basic literacy to see this is censorship going by the definition. It Does not necessarily mean you have to disagree with, some censorship is arguably good :shrug:

Finally, all of those companies will have a terms of service. If you breach that, just like here, and get banned, you're not being censored. I'm guessing inciting violence/riots/hate speech etc, aren't allowed under the ToS.

the left wing social media site

had me.

But then I saw the source was some blog post. :joker::joker:

No. He had his free speech, he's been banned as a result of how he used it. There is no such thing as consequence-free speech. I've explained a number of different reasons why you're wrong imo here. We'll see when trump takes these companies to court whether or not it is a free speech issue. If we're both still around, would you like a make a bet on how that issue is decided in court? Charitable donation to a foodbank?

When it comes down to it, Amazon isn't legally obligated to give anyone server space, they have the right to refuse anyone to use their servers, because they are their servers.

yup he had many chances to post in a better way, people like him have no rights now at free speech, if you only abuse that for the worse


Pence for example posts in a correct manner and he gets to stay on social media

It's because allegedly Parler weren't banning the members making the violent content rather than there were violent content on Parler, because as you rightly say all Social Media (and Forums tbh) would be banned.

Parler lacked the discipline to take on ''violent content'' so it is rightfully removed from the internet

every social media has their rules/policies and i totally support Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube to take on all far right people who do nothing but post hateful nasty content (whom abuse their social media status for the worse, which is not what social media is meant for)


also calling it ''censorship'' how ridiculous :joker: the people who continue to spread more hate in the world, do not deserve to have freedom of speech if they just abuse it

and who specifically was doing the judging what content was "violent" and then checking that the person was not banned?

who is the judge here and what are their credentials?:conf:

Saying something is censorship when it isn't won't make it censorship. Repeating something incorrect because it benefits your agenda does not validate it.

I am just using the dictionary’s definition of censorship and using that as evidence... obviously you know more than the dictionary and everyone else.

I thought as an author you would understand the meanings of words such as censorship, and understand definitions and meanings.

Just because it’s censorship doesn’t mean it’s always a bad thing, a lot of things get censored for good reasons

I have a far better understanding than you, it seems.

You're not grasping the concept beyond the basic idea because doing so invalidates your point. Freedom of Speech is just that, you are free to speak and believe what you want to believe but freedom of speech does not entitle you to use a private platform against the owner's wishes.

Imagine you own a house and and you invite someone in but they are destructive and and they break something, it would be within your rights to tell them to get out, breaking the TOS of a social media site is no different. You agree to follow the rules of the site and when you do not, it's up to them if they want to keep you around.

That was my first thought, not gunna lie :D

I kind of see where cases like this are coming from,. but at the end of the day, amazon is a private company, and can ban whoever they see fit, for any reason tbh.