[Yetanfou]

If there is one lesson to be learned from these last few weeks it is that you can not rely on any external service if you do anything which goes against the dominant political narrative. I have never been on Parler's site so I can not check the veracity of their supposed implied or direct support for seditious acts but that does not seem to matter anyway, it is enough to stand accused to be considered a witch and burned at the stake.

Build your own is the device, keep your equipment on your own premises, make sure not to have single points of failure - that implies you need to have a backup access provider just in case your internet connection gets cancelled. Don't rely on electronic payment processors, you can use them but make sure to have a backup. Don't rely on a single bank, have multiple accounts, preferably in more than one country.

It is a sad thing that it has to come to this but I think we'll eventually end up with politicised service institutions which cater to "progressives", others which cater to "conservatives". They won't state this directly but it will be known that a conservative builder is better of at this bank and that insurance company, he'll prefer to buy this coffee and that brand of razor, etc. A shame, really, the more divided society becomes, the harder it will be to find a common cause when such is needed, e.g. in case of a national emergency like an epidemic.

[Cthulhu_]

There's going against the dominant political narrative, and there's organizing and committing federal crimes like breaking and entering into congress.

You have freedom of speech and the government cannot arrest you from saying things on the internet. However, organizing a raid on the government will get you in trouble, and never forget that nobody is obligated to give you a platform.

[emilsedgh]

You have freedom of speech and the government cannot arrest you from saying things on the internet. However, organizing a raid on the government will get you in trouble, and never forget that nobody is obligated to give you a platform.

This sums the whole thing up pretty neatly.

[Traster]

> if you do anything which goes against the dominant political narrative

I'm so tired of this. The reason people are getting banned from these platforms and services isn't because of just run of the mill political views. They're getting banned because they are hosting content calling for the violent overthrow of the US government. Apple didn't ban Parler from the app store for their attitude towards capital gains tax, they banned them because they found

> direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action

The reason people are being banned now isn't some sudden decision by publicly traded companies to try and endorse a left wing agenda. It's because there's been a massive uptick in the number of people advocating violence as a means of advancing their political agenda.

People keep acting as if these actions are being taken in the context of the 2008 election where everyone was pretty much civil and there was no real question of violence. In that context, yes, it's an outrage that liberties are being crushed. But that's not the context of today. Today we have people openly talking about murdering democratic (and somewhat bizarrely, insufficiently local republican) politicians, and credible evidence they plan to carry out those attacks.

The issue isn't that those people are being censored, the issue is they exist in the first place.

[AniseAbyss]

America is going off the deep end. Who would have believed 10 years ago that members of Congress would dispute the outcome of the elections?

What was once extreme and crazy is now the new normal.

[cbozeman]

> direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action

And we see that every single day on Facebook and Twitter. Its against their terms of service, just like its against Parler's.

As a single entity, I don't really give a shit about Parler. What I do give a shit about is treating everyone fairly. If Parler goes because it has a shitton of users and can't swiftly police all content, then Facebook needs to go because they have a child pornography problem.

Listen to this podcast if you want to learn just how widespread the issue is: https://samharris.org/podcasts/213-worst-epidemic/

[Traster]

I don't see how you can make the argument that child pornography is the same systemic risk as allowing people to openly plan to overthrow your democracy.

If child pornography is happening on your site, the FBI can come along and crack down, arrest those involved, and of course you're keeping logs to help them. If I plan a revolution on your site, the FBI are coming - not for me, for you. Once I'm in charge sure as shit you're not going to have the freedom to overthrow me the way I overhtrew you.

[Ragnarork]

> the dominant political narrative

Funny, I thought the dominant political narrative was that terrorism is bad.

[cycrutchfield]

It has nothing to do with "the dominant political narrative", and it has everything to do with violent rhetoric on their platform that they refuse to moderate. This violent rhetoric is against the Terms of Service for the external services that they rely on, hence the termination of those relationships.