Truth be told, I'm not particularly bothered by the success or failure of Twitter. It's just good to see them no longer providing a platform for a maniac who incited an attempted coup that killed people.

No need to bother because Eric will not be responding here.

I will "respond" as if it was towards Eric, but it's basically to explain the decision, and more meant for the community than Eric. To anyone who wants to complain he doesn't get a chance to respond, he's had at least 5, and that's the issue.

If you are making claims, you are obliged to present support for them. This is in our rules. This is especially true when you are saying something very inflammatory like the Democrats are going to punish anyone who dares go against them to the point where republican states might secede... That's something that needs to be backed up. Here is the quote in question.

"2 years of full Dem Gov control is going to cause major tension, but I don't see the disobedience from Rep states until they have some Fed Gov control again. Could very well end up like Obama's first term. The Dems won't just sit back and watch like Trump did. If you go against them they'll make you pay and make an example of you for other states who dare disobey. Unless it's a bunch of Rep states that do so in unison with the intention of separating if they can't come to terms, I think it would take a few years before any big moves were attempted on a political level."

First off this is clearly talking about states. Dunno why we're switching that up, except to make it a slightly less absurd argument. 

My question to you, whether or not this happened in the past, was a yes or no question. Either they have done that, or they have not. There is in fact NO POSSIBLE ANSWER to this question besides yes or no (well except I don't know, that's be valid). Your response is apparently suggesting that the Democrats may have done this in the past but did so without leaving any evidence. Which makes no fucking sense, because the point of this revenge was "to make an example of them". So, the democrats have attacked someone in a way that will be so obvious and harmful that others will be scared into compliance, and so extreme that it may lead to secession, yet it was done in a way that did not leave evidence. Dafuq? Did they beat Texas with a bag of oranges?

Also, nobody asked you for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to use legal terms, I was asking for a rational basis, which is a very low bar, and you couldn't even pass that. Pretending I was asking for an unreasonable amount of evidence is a dishonest way to avoid presenting ANY evidence. You also went to the old trope of "even if I did present the evidence those who oppose me wouldn't believe it". If that's how you feel, then no point posting here.

But this is not just about my post. @sundin13 and @IvorEvilen challenged you on the point that Trump just sat back and watched when people opposed him. Ivor in particular did so by providing actual examples, exactly the sort that you couldn't provide. They were ignored.

Then you made more claims that people at the Capitol were actually Antifa posing. When @Torillian debunked the claim, you did not in any way respond to his evidence, simply said "Oh I've seen the fact checks"... At that point, if you think his fact check is wrong, then you need to present counter evidence. For an example of that see @Hiku 's post. When you questioned his point about barbarian he didn't just say "oh you're wrong", he presented actual evidence about why your position was incorrect.

I am legitimately unsure if your posts are simply an effort to troll and waste people's time or if this is your best attempt at communicating, but it doesn't matter at this point. Your posts are adding nothing to the conversation, and users who in good faith are trying to argue against it are having their time wasted.

Don't think this is monopolistic practice. If Apple and Google both individually decided that supporting this app was a bad idea for reasons other than Parler's potential as a rival (which I'm not sure how it works since to my knowledge neither has a rival social media platform), then that's perfectly acceptable business behavior.

If there is any legal issue, it's definitely not anti-trust. What is the anti-trust market here, and how are Google and Apple's actions preventing others from competing with them in that market?

Also, braindead take, is probably not the best response :).

THIS seems to be the main issue to me: iOS and Android are not platforms, they are operating systems. This is like Microsoft deciding you can't run XYZ on Windows. It's my device and my OS. I should be able to run code to hack the world's nuclear arsenals and cause doomsday if I freaking want to. Google has sideloading at least, but iOS? They clamp down on that! I do hope this does get brought up in court so Apple has to hand over the keys to the sideloading castle (and Google is forced to ease up on sideloading procedures). 

They don't have a platform. They have an OS, one with around half marketshare each and among them only one of them has access to sideloading without using sidestepping methods like AltStore. It's one thing if Apple doesn't want to distribute X on their OS, but they should let people add alternate sources with which to run content they wouldn't touch. An OS being treated like this is like applying console rules to a computer: it's unacceptable, no matter your rationale. My computer, my rules. 

Fox being Fox again.

Uhhhh... ok? Whatever consumer rights argument you want to make has nothing to do with anti-trust law. I'm assuming you think it's wrong for a company to prevent sideloading whether they had 1% or 100% of the marketshare, so nothing to do with monopoly. 

LMAO @ Eric,

This is the thought process of some trump supporters.... "Of course we didn't break in, it was all Antifa. Here look at our fake evidence". And the crowd goes with it. You should look up "confirmation bias". One of the driving forces for conspiracy theorist.

It does. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

Now apply the logic to the App Store. It's the same issue here: an OS controls distribution of what's usable/unusable on their OS. Said OS is in a dominant position and other alternatives are either unrealistic or unpalatable (note that not once was the party involved told "you can use Linux/OS2 and even though alternatives were available, MSFTs dominant position meant they had to comply). 

MS released a version without WMP. Apple could be forced to release a version of iOS without the Apple App Store. 

Very hard disagree here.

The United States has NOT voted for Trump, a minority did. The system has been fucked over for decades by a minority. Fucked up in a way that lets the minority rule and disenfranchises everyone else. Every part in the US system, the economy, education, welfare, politics, everything is rigged up in a way that lets a minority rule while filling the people's brains with lies and propaganda to make them believe it's perfect that way. The American people are the victims here. That includes the majority of Republican voters wo have been brainwashed the most. They are living one of the worst lives but have been programmed to believe that it cannot be better or that a better life would be somehow worse for them.

If you want to blame someone then try the rich elites.

The average US citizen is not stupider or smarter than the average European citizen. We're all humans. The difference is the cult-like propaganda and the deprivation of education and support from the day they are born. Some are lucky enough to acquire the necessary tools to be able to break out of the cycle, but a lot of people are not.

Saying it's the people's fault is like saying it's the depressed person's fault for killing themselves.

Happy the democrats have the senate, the house, and the white house, and a loud progressive wing in the congress. I will look at what that leads to in a year or so.