> So why did Democratic politicians and journalists focus on Parler rather than Facebook and YouTube? Why did Amazon, Google and Apple make a flamboyant showing of removing Parler from the internet while leaving much larger platforms with far more extremism and advocacy of violence flowing on a daily basis?
- Denying the current covid-sars-2 pandemic
- Direct calls to violence
I have seen people that were "fact-checked" (which is itself discussion, not silencing) for claiming that the 2020 election result is fraudulent.
None of this is silencing because your views don't align with the left. If you believe covid is a hoax created by George Soros or that Bill Gates bought votes in the 2020 election, your views don't align with reality.
I am not sure whether to assume you have not researched how he lost his platform or if you feel that defending molestation is "views that don't align with the left".
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/02/facebook-...
> Traditional far-right views
Can you give an example of a traditional far-right view any of the 3 people in the article were banned for?
The article mentions Alex Jones and Laura Loomer. They were taken off of social media repeatedly encouraging followers to harass people (mobbing). Encouraging/organizing mobbing will even get you banned from 4chan. The number of sites that allow such behavior is exceedingly low, and Alex Jones got several chances to stop before being taken off of youtube and facebook.
Regarding Laura Loomer, her twitter ban doesn't appear to constitute harassment by any reasonable definition[2]. Even if we grant she harassed Omar on twitter, that doesn't justify being banned from payment processors, uber, and food delivery services[3].
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farra...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/laura-loomer-banned-tw...
[3] https://www.newsweek.com/paypal-bans-pro-trump-anti-muslim-f...
"I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim. Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have," he began a news conference in Manhattan. "This isn’t how I wanted my parents to find out about this either.”
"My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say almost anything on the subject, no matter how outrageous," he said. “I do not advocate for illegal behavior...I believe the age of consent is right.”
- Milo Yiannopoulos
Although I think Milo is rude, bigoted, and unapologetic, he is a victim, and I agree that he should have plenty of latitude to speak on the subject. What he said in the podcast was inappropriate, and based on his apology, Milo seems to agree.
"The law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age; it's probably about okay. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them." - Milo Yiannopoulos
Perhaps you mean why did we focus so much of our efforts on a single website? In this very moment, it's because this website was used to coordinate the efforts of a national group of potential terrorists. The pot boiled hard and fast.
In this particular case Trump directly ordered the attack. (At first I put quotes on order and attack, but alas no quotes needed, it's what it is.) But he has been flaring these flames since ... that fucking birth certificate dog whistle.
The idea that Democrats have been easy and kind on Twitter and FB is so disconnected with reality it’s actually kind of funny.
I am not sure this is true? The point could have been made without resort to hyperbole stretching into disingenuousness. What about that other platform should not be the issue - social network apps/sites are all subject to and propagate abuse.