Social Parler back up Hosted by same company as HAMAS

[panamaican]

I just don’t see it like that, of coarse technically Mc Donald’s can ban meat and go straight vegetarian, it’s their right, but does it make sense?
There are two conversations going on here, one is about a companies rights, and the other is about what is right..

Well, the posts that I was reponding originally were about "rights", not what is right.

But I'd still side with the companies here on right vs. wrong. What they're doing is right. They have no obligation to do anything they don't want and I think it is wrong to require them to do so.

I think people have to be careful about confusing "I don't agree with them," with "What they're doing is wrong." You can disagree with someone's choices that doesn't mean they are wrong to make that choice. When disagreements of choice get labelled "right" and "wrong" instead of just disagreements of perspective then we're going down a path that seeks to invalidate individual free will.

 

[genecop]

Well, the posts that I was reponding originally were about "rights", not what is right.

But I'd still side with the companies here on right vs. wrong. What they're doing is right. They have no obligation to do anything they don't want and I think it is wrong to require them to do so.

I think people have to be careful about confusing "I don't agree with them," with "What they're doing is wrong." You can disagree with someone's choices that doesn't mean they are wrong to make that choice. When disagreements of choice get labelled "right" and "wrong" instead of just disagreements of perspective then we're going down a path that seeks to invalidate individual free will.

At the end of the day it’s actually more complicated than that, when we talk about right and wrong, it’s subjective..Using Twitter for example if their making a decision based on their free speech, and their stock price and stock holders loose hundreds of millions, was the decision right, or correct? Once they get labeled and perceived as a company with a political agenda that censors their members, they will take a financial hit as they already have..
Now, if them supporting a political agenda is more important to them than growth, then yes the decision is right..
We can tear this down and look at it in yur way, but at the end of the day the general public won’t unpack it at that level, they will simply view the company as having a politically motivated agenda, and they will be treated as the market sees fit..

 

[Proud American]

Well looks like Parler wasn’t the main platform to create violence by a long shot.

it was shut down in a movement of monopolistic control by the lefts tech platforms.

it got too big too fast and was a competitive threat. That’s all.