Ah yes, freedom[0] of speech[1].

0: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...

1: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...

What's your point?

Parler isn't a bastion of free speech. They make the same "we don't want to be associated with certain users" decision that FB and Twitter do, often in the exact same ways. They just don't ban or limit far-right conspiracy.

So should we also cancel sites like Twitter that don't ban far-left conspiracy?

You can cancel them if you want. Whoever heeds your call to cancel Twitter will stop using Twitter. If Twitter bought some LACNIC IP space but didn't have a DC or office there, I'd support revoking those IPs as well since it'd be fraud.

Straight up, I believe this is the only comment who understands the situation.

If those far-left conspiracists are using the platform to coordinate terrorist attacks, absolutely.

@judge2020 I'm aware Parler is a subpar platform (compared to Gab for example). But this de-platforming BS needs to stop. It's pathetic.

So someone with ARPANET in their handle is ok with abuse of NICs and IP space?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Deplatforming is a freedom of association issue.

> Deplatforming is a freedom of association issue.

Its a freedom of speech issue: The right to choose what speech one will expend one’s resources promoting.

Or fear of the mob. We will be using DDoS-Guard going forward to show support for those with a spine.

Dunno that sounds vaguely like virtue signaling to me. Also, I'm personally not a big fan of a russian company MITMing my company's traffic.

Being a man of principal is not virtue signalling.

Ah yes, when you're doing it's "being a man of principal", when they do it it's "virtue signaling". I fail to see how this is any different than chinese people buying huawei in droves to "show support" for huawei/china/meng wanzhou.

@gruez who is "they"?

The other side, people who you don't agree with.

That’s quite a strawman you’re boxing with.

Dangerous speech isn't free.

Then again, harmless speech never needed protecting in the first place.

I'm well aware of what speech is and is not legal under US law. Parler's TOS are inline with US law.

Being lawful doesn't magically make it not-dangerous. And being lawful doesn't mean a private entity can't revoke service.

So is choosing not to do business with them.