web analytics

One of those MAGA Terrorists

By Patrick Van Roy On January 15th, 2021

98 Responses to “One of those MAGA Terrorists”

  1. So there was a black guy in there after all? None of the video or photos I’ve seen shows anything other than white guys and gals, so well done to the guy that sussed him out.

    That sure puts a whole new complexion on that Capitol riot. Maybe it was an Antifa false-flag job after all?

  2. It was idiots Peter and Animals no mater what politics were motivating them. It seems to be a mixed bag though.

  3. It seems to be a mixed bag though.

    Yes Patrick, a mixed bag of MAGAs and far-right militias like the Proud Boys and a lot of Jew-haters. Not forgetting a big QAnon presence. One Antifa guy among hundreds of right wingers doesn’t change the fact that this was a Trumpist insurgency.

  4. Yes Peter and the ones who got shot deserved to have been shot and if they had shot a few more and sooner that cop would still be alive.

    The second they crossed the perimeter fence they should have been teargassed and flashbanged, the second anyone breach the interior should have been dealt with deadly force.

    At least that’s my view.

  5. One guy in a group of very many hundreds

    Does Donald love him too?

    Is he a “ patriot “?

  6. And not sure why you’d be so proud of this would be “gotcha”

    It’s long been known that the far left and far right converge at times – ie in hatred of Jews, hatred of a free press, hatred of intellectuals

    Here, what looks to be a black racist extremist joins up with Trump radicals when they have a shared goal of destroying an American free and fair election, of attacking the American system ( that Trump himself has publicly attacked from the stage for years ), of murdering American leaders. This is Trump, this is BLM. Some of us have been saying things like this for a long time

    None of this makes the Trumper participation in these riots look better. It makes them look much worse.

  7. Phantom is correct. This isn’t the big gotya that Patrick thinks it is.

  8. It looks like Crooked Rudy is not going to get that pardon:

    “Donald Trump has fallen out with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and is refusing to pay the former New York mayor’s legal bills, it was reported, with the president feeling abandoned and frustrated during his last days in office…

    According to the Washington Post, relations between Trump and Giuliani have dramatically cooled. Trump has instructed his aides not to pay Giuliani’s outstanding fees. The president is reportedly offended by Giuliani’s demand for $20,000 a day – a figure the lawyer denies, but which is apparently in writing. White House officials have even been told not to put through any of Giuliani’s calls…

    The rift with the president may sink Guiliani’s lingering hopes of receiving a presidential pardon. Last year, Giuliani held discussions with Trump about receiving an amnesty over his work on the president’s behalf in Ukraine. Criminal charges of illegal campaign donations have been filed against two Giuliani associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The trio worked to try to dig up dirt on Biden and his son Hunter.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/14/trump-refusing-to-pay-rudy-giuliani-legal-fees-after-falling-out

  9. Andrew Sullivan sets out the choice now being faced by the GOP:

    “The thing we most need to understand right now is how you deprogram people who have been in a cult. By cult, I mean a group of people living out an imaginary world view created by a charismatic leader. These things sometimes end with the guru hopping on a private plane to escape the authorities; others end in mass suicide; still others go up in literal smoke, as David Koresh did, or sometimes they collapse in a welter of claims of abuse and corruption. But when the cult is political, and when the guru is the sitting president of the United States, it all gets a little messier. That’s what the core of the Trump movement is. Not all Trump voters, by any means. But the core: a cult. And these lost souls will believe anything and everything the leader says…

    The trouble is that Trump is mentally ill and delusional and will never concede an election he still claims he won in a landslide, and his diehard followers will always believe him. That’s been the core problem for five years. Trump created a mass movement that took over an entire party. That party has done nothing but appease him. And the immense gravity of Trump’s charge — a grotesque rigging of the election — is such that violence of various sorts is a terrifyingly rational response. That threat is going to hang over the looming inauguration, and will not go away after Wednesday.

    From that day on, America will have not just one man claiming to be the legitimate president, but two. Only Joe Biden will exercise any legal or constitutional authority, of course. But he will have a pretender to the throne cavorting around the country, with a third of the population believing he is not the pretender at all. The years in which Republican elites could pretend not to have heard Trump speak or tweet, or put the most benign gloss on grotesque rhetoric, or just muddled through as his unhinged ambitions became clearer, are now over. You either have to endorse the illegitimacy of the last election and therefore of the US government (including the Congress, elected in the same ‘rigged’ election); or you can attempt to put a lawful, sane party back together again without him…”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-cult-of-donald-trump?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=WEEK%20%2020210116%20%20AL+CID_5fe627eac5d54ca0c7a3793f24fd12d6

  10. It was idiots Peter and Animals no mater what politics were motivating them.

    Quite a different tone to the “Biden supporting BLM rioters” of last summer !

  11. Niall Ferguson analyses the other coup last week, the one that succeeded:

    “It is only a slight overstatement to say that, while the mob’s coup against Congress ignominiously failed, big tech’s coup against Trump triumphantly succeeded. It is not merely that Trump has been abruptly denied access to the channels he has used throughout his presidency to communicate with voters. It is the fact that he is being excluded from a domain the courts have for some time recognised as a public forum…

    This is not to condone Trump’s increasingly deranged attempts to overturn November’s election result. Before last week’s riots, he egged on the mob; he later said he ‘loved’ them, despite what they had done. Nor is there any denying that a number of Trump’s most fervent supporters pose a threat of further violence. Considering the bombs and firearms some of them brought to Washington, the marvel is how few people lost their lives during the occupation of the Capitol. Yet the correct response to that threat is not to delegate to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey and their peers the power to remove from the public square anyone they deem to be sympathetic to insurrection or otherwise suspect. The correct response is for the FBI and the relevant police departments to pursue any would-be Trumpist terrorists, just as they have quite successfully pursued would-be Islamist terrorists over the past two decades.

    It is tempting to complain that Democrats are hypocrites — that they would be screaming blue murder if the boot were on the other foot and it was Kamala Harris whose Twitter account had been cancelled. But if that were the case, how many Republicans would now be complaining? Not many. No, the correct conclusion to be drawn is that the Republicans had their chance to address the problem of over-mighty big tech and completely flunked it. Only too late did they realise that Section 230 was Silicon Valley’s Achilles heel. Only too late did they begin drafting legislation to repeal or modify it. Only too late did Section 230 start to feature in Trump’s speeches. Even now it seems to me that very few Republicans really understand that, by itself, repealing 230 would not have sufficed. Without some kind of First Amendment for the internet, repeal would probably just have restricted free speech further…”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tech-supremacy-silicon-valley-can-no-longer-conceal-its-power?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=WEEK%20%2020210116%20%20AL+CID_5fe627eac5d54ca0c7a3793f24fd12d6

  12. Anyone who isn’t concerned about the unaccountable power of big tech is being really short-sighted. Today they’re going after someone you don’t like, but tomorrow it’ll be someone you do like. As easy as A,B,C.

  13. Petr

    I agree.
    But it doesn’t help when people claim that their free speech is being taken away because they can no longer post on Twitter or Facebook. They’re either falsely claiming this for dramatic effect, or they don’t understand the meaning of free speech.

  14. I’d think that there is Significant concern on all sides of the political spectrum about the power of big tech

    Even facebook’s Zuckerberg Has been for sometime calling for revised regulation

    The Question is what would it be

    And it’s a devilishly complicated matter. The countries and blocs of the world won’t want the same thing.

    For starters, the EU is much stronger on internet privacy rights of the individual than the US is.

    https://www.privacyshield.gov/article?id=European-Union-Data-Privatization-and-Protection

  15. Phantom.

    It’s a minefield mate. Let’s be honest, different countries are not going to come to an conclusions on how to deal with big tech.
    For instance, they have this ridiculous ‘right to be forgotten’ rule in the EU. Or as I call it, right to erase history.

  16. I agree to a point Dave, but the reality is that these platforms have become the public square. somebody banned by Twitter and Facebook is of course free to dig a hole and yell in it, but nobody will hear them. So they are kind of being removed from the public sphere. That’s a problem.

    Why don’t you like the right to erasure in the GDPR? I think it’s great.

  17. First off it’s not a gotcha anything, it’s a post in response to Phantoms trump derangement syndrome “These are terrorists” yet those during the earlier part of the year are just angry yoots letting off steam….

    This crazed psycho in the picture above has been at riots all year. The reason for me doing this post was to reinforce the understanding that it’s the same wackos.

    For some reason there is this feeling or tone that I will show some kind of support for these animals because “these are Trumps People”……. lol sorry not how it works

    You firehouse and tear gas rioters, you shoot security threats White, Black, Democrat, Republican, Man or Woman if your committing violence for ANY REASON you need to be caged or put down. And if your committing violence for politics you should be shot twice for general principle.

    to me it has always been Human or Animal……. I don’t care about shading, genitalia, or cause…. and animals are meant for hunting….. period.

  18. meanwhile troll wallows in the fraudulent election lies and conspiracy theories that led to insurrection and the appearing of floods of maga terrorists – now he says he’s not with them
    whilst believing everything they believe
    coward really .. doesn’t want to get his hands dirty,. and do some hard time for the proud boys .. pontious pilate and faux condemnation springs to mind
    you own this buddy .. everyone knows the stain and stank on you .. deal with it or be forever a stinker

  19. I am sympathetic to the ” right to be forgotten ” rule and to what GDPR is trying to do

  20. You do have your own unique style of writing kurt. It adds flavour to the crazy soup that is ATW 🙂

  21. I am sympathetic to the ” right to be forgotten ” rule

    It depends on how it is used. If it is used by individuals to remove unsavoury but undeniable facts about them, to ‘whitewash’ their existence, that’s wrong.

  22. never heard of this rule…… what does it do? and for who?

  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

  24. thank you

  25. the reality is that these platforms have become the public square

    Exactly. I despise Trump, but what Twitter did was wrong for the reasons Ferguson states at 12.32 above. It’s clear that Kamala Harris condoned rioting at the peak of the BLM protests last summer, but there was never a chance that her Twitter account would be cancelled.

  26. Yes, very many Democrats condoned the rioting and looting last summer, including plenty of senior Democrat politicians

    Some never called it rioting, as in the case of the disgusting Maxine Waters

    The base of both parties hates rioting when it’s done by the other guy. When their people do it, it often becomes very understandable to them. Oh, how they explain it away

  27. lol….. here is your right to forget….. it’s called “Clean Slate”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7mqfdzYLE&ab_channel=AntoineMovies

  28. Even in quiet middle income parts of NYC, we have proud boy and terrorism supporters

    One was arrested this week. His wife knew how angry he was but did not know what he was up to. She will divorce him.

    Prosecutors allege the 40-year-old software engineer posted about sending an armed caravan to the Capitol and also threatened the life of Sen.-elect Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) hours before the Jan. 6 riot.

    on Tuesday, an FBI vehicle rolled down the couple’s quiet street in Middle Village to take Eduard into custody.

    FBI agents said they seized over 1,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, two dozen shotgun rounds and approximately 75 military-style combat knives, two hatchets and two swords from the home.

    Joni declined to comment on whether she knew about her husband’s alleged armory, saying she is waiting to speak to authorities again first.

    She and Eduard married in 2014 and have two young kids together.

    Over the last four years, Eduard has become a “radical idiot” in regard to his politics and has been fighting with her mom, a liberal who “hates Trump.”

    “He was like angry and upset and definitely being brainwashed by the right-wing media,” Joni said.

    Prosecutors say Eduard was a Proud Boy supporter and had applied to join the right-wing group but hadn’t attended enough meetings yet to qualify as a member.

  29. Prosecutors say Eduard was a Proud Boy supporter and had applied to join the right-wing group but hadn’t attended enough meetings yet to qualify as a member.

    Well at least he had enough weapons to qualify. I suppose.

  30. Petr

    I agree to a point Dave, but the reality is that these platforms have become the public square. somebody banned by Twitter and Facebook is of course free to dig a hole and yell in it, but nobody will hear them. So they are kind of being removed from the public sphere. That’s a problem.

    I disagree mate. The evidence shows that people banned from these platforms still have a voice. This image that once you’re banned from the most popular social media sites means your disappear from view is demonstrably false. Many of those banned, such as Stefan Molyneux, Katie Hopkins and even our own David Vance, (to name just a few), are still popular on alternative platforms. And I say that as someone who doesn’t support banning them in the first place.

    Why don’t you like the right to erasure in the GDPR? I think it’s great.

    Because a law that prevents people from holding data on others is wrong.
    I don’t think paedophile child killers have the right to be forgotten. Or criminal bankers.

  31. Many of those banned, such as Stefan Molyneux, Katie Hopkins and even our own David Vance, (to name just a few), are still popular on alternative platforms.

    Dave

    They were on Parler which was also closed down last week, this time by the oligarch who controls Amazon.

  32. A sensible balance is needed. It is right that a person could insist on the removal of unverified derogatory claims, genuine private information (like home addresses or medical records) , or that a sort of ‘ statute of limitations’ for public information on minor criminal convictions could apply, but there would have to be a high bar or vigorously examined good reasons before someone could insist that other more serious but clear facts online about them could be removed. It shouldn’t be entirely up to the individual to decide what information is permitted online about them.

  33. Peter.

    They weren’t just on Parler. They are also on Dailymotion, Twitch, Freedomain, Vimeo and a host of other alternative social media sites.

  34. Fair comment Colm.

  35. Because a law that prevents people from holding data on others is wrong.

    The principle in GDPR is that your data is yours, and you have rights regarding what is done with it. This gives power to the individual. GDPR does not prevent data controllers from holding data on others, it puts reasonable conditions on it.

    The right to erasure is not absolute, there are numerous exceptions. There are all manner of companies out there, for example, that you no longer do business with but still hold your data. Under GDPR, you are entitled to tell them to delete it. That’s good.

  36. Regarding platforms, I note that Milo Snuffleupagus has said that since being kicked off the major platforms, he has become more or less invisible. That peado no loss to the public sphere, but his example shows how if people aren’t seeing you where they go every day, you are quickly forgotten.

    There are no doubt examples of people who still do well after being banned but many more do not, and fade away. Tech bros shouldn’t be the ones who get to choose who is widely heard and who is on fringe platforms.

  37. It’s a hard issue, that needs extended discussion.

    It’s not the ” all speech of any kind is mandatory on all websites ” or ” private websites should be subject to no rules at all ” slam dunk that some think it is.

  38. It’s not the ” all speech of any kind is mandatory on all websites ” or ” private websites should be subject to no rules at all ” slam dunk that some think it is.

    Nobody here is saying that.

  39. Peter,

    “They were on Parler which was also closed down last week, this time by the oligarch who controls Amazon.”

    Not true. Amazon booted Parler off but Parler was ready to run elsewhere (and there are plenty of other places to run).

    What Parler was not ready for was multiple other third parties who also did not want to do business with them.

  40. Yes I think the part of the GDPR rergulations regarding private companies data they hold on you should be with your permission, that’s correct. Demanding the removal of public knowledge ‘news’ info that is factual is another thing.

  41. Dave

    Not true at all.

    Patrick has repeatedly said that facebook and sites like that should not be able to remove highly objectionable content from their site. That is forcing them to print things that they never want to print. Ask him.

    And that’s mandatory control of content that he wants.

  42. Regarding platforms, I note that Milo Snuffleupagus has said that since being kicked off the major platforms, he has become more or less invisible. That peado no loss to the public sphere, but his example shows how if people aren’t seeing you where they go every day, you are quickly forgotten.

    Petr, I’ve already provided demonstrable examples that show you can still be popular and get noticed on the web, without access to the major social media sites. Your Milo example is a silly one.
    To give another example, David Icke was banned from YouTube and Twitter, and remains as popular as ever. People can easily seek out those they want to follow. Wherever they are.

  43. Phantom.

    When I said no one here, I was referring to the more reasonable people on ATW. I don’t usually include Patrick and Allan in those groups. But yes, I stand corrected.

  44. Frank

    Not true. Amazon booted Parler off but Parler was ready to run elsewhere (and there are plenty of other places to run).

    A point I’ve made several times myself.

  45. here for gaity colm, such a happy place init 😉

  46. Parler is again a very unsympathetic company run by very unsympathetic bunch of owners

    They intentionally didn’t moderate when they knew that there site was being used as a lair for violent extremists.

  47. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.” — Ulysses S. Grant.

  48. GOP snowflakes , no-one cries and whines like a GOP squealer

    Marjorie Taylor Greene is accusing Keith Olbermann of “extremely threatening violent rhetoric” and vowing to report him to the FBI, simply because he tweeted that she was “going to prison.” Yeah, that’s not how anything works. lol

  49. Prison is too good a place for her.

    We should have more talk about that QAnon gun moll on these pages

  50. Petr, I’ve already provided demonstrable examples that show you can still be popular and get noticed on the web, without access to the major social media sites.

    No you haven’t. Your examples are silly.

  51. And sorry, but I do have to come back to this clanger.

    Because a law that prevents people from holding data on others is wrong.

    What are you talking about? Nobody has a right to hold your data because it’s your data.

    I don’t think paedophile child killers have the right to be forgotten. Or criminal bankers.

    You will be delighted to know that “paedophile child killers” do not have a right to have their crimes erased or forgotten!

  52. Petr

    No you haven’t. Your examples are silly.

    Don’t just make the claim Petr, provide evidence.
    I’ve given examples, (and I can provide more) of popular people who have been banned from the major social media sites, yet still have thousands of followers and video views on other platforms. How are they ‘kind of being removed from the public sphere’ or being ‘quickly forgotten’ as you claim?

  53. Petr

    What are you talking about? Nobody has a right to hold your data because it’s your data.

    Who said? Many companies hold data about you. CCTV footage, businesses of all kinds. How is that my data just because it might contain information about me.

    You will be delighted to know that “paedophile child killers” do not have a right to have their crimes erased or forgotten!

    I never said they did. Why are you trying to claim otherwise.
    But this is a fact. A child killer can have information about his crimes removed from a private website using right to be forgotten.

  54. You said the Milo example was silly but provided no evidence for the claim, so I thought it was cool to so that.

  55. You said the Milo example was silly but provided no evidence for the claim, so I thought it was cool to so that.

    The Milo example was silly because I’d already proved your claim that you can’t remain popular and/or be noticed on the web without access to the major social media sites is false.

  56. Jacob Anthony Chansley, the shirtless, horned, conspiracy theory-touting U.S. Capitol rioter receiving an organic diet while in jail — now wants a pardon from President Donald Trump.

    Defense attorney Albert Watkins told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday that clemency would be the only “honorable” thing after the president’s rhetoric whipped his supporters into a frenzy that sparked last week’s bloody Capitol riot. Trump, he added, “has an obligation” to dish out pardons.

    Watkins said Chansley — also known as Jake Angeli and the QAnon shaman — hung “on every word” of the president and felt “very, very, very solidly in sync” with him. It was “like his voice was for the first time being heard,” the lawyer added.

    Chansley, 33, of Phoenix, “loved” Trump and “felt like he was answering the call of our president,” Watkins said. He was in Washington “at the invitation of our president, who was going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue with him,” he added. Trump told his supporters at the pre-riot rally that he would accompany them to the Capitol, but went back to the White House to watch the insurrection on TV instead.

    Huffington Post

    These are all very much Trump’s people

  57. Dave — I don’t think you know anything about evidential standards. Providing a few carefully selected examples of well known people who got kicked of social media and still did okay really isn’t the slam dunk you seem to think it is.

  58. https://nypost.com/2021/01/15/private-jet-flying-capitol-rioter-bragged-about-job-charged/

    The Texas real estate broker who flew on a private plane to Washington, DC, to participate in the Capitol riot last week bragged about her realtor job as she stormed the Capitol with throngs of other Trump supporters, according to court papers unsealed Friday.

    The suspect, Jenna Ryan, of Frisco, faces two charges in the nation’s capital for disorderly conduct on the Capitol grounds and remaining in a restricted building, according to a criminal complaint filed in DC federal court.

    In court papers, a federal investigator said Ryan posted a plethora of evidence online that showed her boarding a plane bound for DC and a video of her on the Capitol grounds.

    “Ryan posted multiple videos on her Facebook account that appear to be taken on board a small private aircraft, on which she was traveling with others to Washington DC,” an FBI agent wrote in court papers.

    “We’re gonna go down and storm the Capitol. They’re down there right now and that’s why we came and so that’s what we are going to do. So wish me luck,” she said in one of the videos, according to the documents.

    Flew in a private jet to DC to storm the Capitol and to plug her real estate business.

    Now that’s draining the swamp, like the holy founding fathers wanted.MAGA!!

  59. Many companies hold data about you. CCTV footage, businesses of all kinds. How is that my data just because it might contain information about me.

    Sorry, I mistook you for someone who knew something about data, privacy, and GDPR. It is your personal data if it identifies you. That gives you certain rights such as right of access and right of erasure.

  60. Petr

    Dave — I don’t think you know anything about evidential standards. Providing a few carefully selected examples of well known people who got kicked of social media and still did okay really isn’t the slam dunk you seem to think it is.

    Yet you provide no evidence to the contrary. Has Milo tried to get back into the public eye and failed?
    They are not ‘carefully selected examples’. What does that even mean? They are examples of popular people who’ve been removed from the main social media sites and still maintained a high profile presence on the web. Sorry if that destroys your claim.

  61. Petr

    Sorry, I mistook you for someone who knew something about data, privacy, and GDPR. It is your personal data if it identifies you. That gives you certain rights such as right of access and right of erasure.

    Since it was necessary for me in my previous job, I do know about GDPR Petr. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with all aspects of it. For instance, I don’t agree that a private website hosting videos about past crimes has to remove a particular video because the criminal it was about used ‘right to be forgotten’ rules.

  62. So far all we know is that Democrats and BLM terrorists attempted a coup. This John Sullivan was accompanied by a CNN staffer in his attempted coup.

    https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1349904573117341698

  63. So far all we know is that Democrats and BLM terrorists attempted a coup.

    And to think we used to have to wait for Allan to reveal the real truths to us.. 🙂

  64. Pete is a funny guy.

  65. Colm.

    And to think we used to have to wait for Allan to reveal the real truths to us..

    I direct you to my comment I made earlier:

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=87546#comment-827444

  66. Missed that one Dave. Hopefully Allan will return soon and say “Move over underlings the master is back ” 🙂

  67. Allan is now probably off hiking the Essex hills somewhere with a pile of English history books in his bag, when he isn’t filling his head with heavy metal.

  68. Patrick has repeatedly said that facebook and sites like that should not be able to remove highly objectionable content from their site. That is forcing them to print things that they never want to print. Ask him.

    I’m going to use this and just run with it….. Pearls for the swine…..

    Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube were sold to the American Public and the Government as a Communications Utility. Platforms for people to communicate and share their creativity. The cost for the maintenance of the networks will come from advertising these will be free to the open public.

    Since being a free and open communications platform open to all, things are going to be said that someone’s going to sue over, but for maintaining the communications platform you will be granted immunity from Liability.

    That was the agreement and that is perfectly reasonable. We have a million laws to deal with anyone making public threats you don’t hold the phone company to account for the guy who used a phone to detonate a bomb. It’s called common sense and reasonable legal protection.

    HOWEVER……

    That is what the companies are they are phone companies nothing more nothing less.

    The lines of communication the isp’s, the hosting sites these are no different then the phone lines running pole to pole down your street. And companies have just been told by the isp’s that they can’t even transmit any signal on any line World Wide. Without an ISP you don’t exist.

    And the Phone company has just told everyone world wide. We are monitoring everything you say and if we don’t like it we will terminate your call, and if you are a company and we don’t like your views we will terminate your ability to do business.

    Now you can play all the little games you want and you can believe any fantasy you choose to believe but this is tyranny on a scale that has never been done before.

    You have less than a half dozen people in the world that control the entire worlds communication network and those six people just told everyone FU we will tell you what you are allowed to talk about or we will shut you up, and then destroy your business and life if you really annoy them.

    You call that whatever you want. I call it a violation of Human Rights.

    If it isn’t corrected soon it is going to lead to violence, that is not a threat it’s just a fact in the natural course of human behavior. Oppression breeds violence.

  69. That’s a threat alright.

    And an ISP is an entirely thing than a website – not the same at all.

    And I say that as a critic of what apple, facebook and amazon have done.

  70. Once again Patrick, you’re confusing social media platforms and ISPs

  71. entirely different thing

    Throwing someone off a website for inciting violence or spewing hatred in violation of the rules isn’t ” oppressing ” them.

    The people of North Korea are oppressed. Donald Trump and Dan Bongino ( the supposed owner of parler ) aren’t oppressed at all.

  72. a knock knock joke before bed 😉

  73. I Repeat Parler was told buy the ISP’s they can’t have service it is part of the Law suit.

    Dave you work in computers I believe, so tell me since I got my degree from the University of Pennsylvania in Computer Science 38 years ago has the definition of an ISP changed ?

  74. Phantom

    Dan Bongino ( the supposed owner of parler ) was shut down from the ISP’s are you saying that because it was him and you disagree with his view and he’s an ass so f’ him…

    your ok with that?

  75. They were told by internet hosting companies ( who are not ISPs ) to start doing some moderating to get rid of the incitements and planning of violence. Parler didn’t do it, was in violation, and were cut loose for that reason.

    Your ISP as the word is used here is your cable or phone / internet company that provides internet access -not hosting. An ISP company theoretically has no idea of what you are saying on those lines, unless they have tapped into them.

  76. Yes Patrick

    As I understand it Parler was using Amazon’s servers and has not been able to find a substitute so far. But the main point is that it’s outrageous that billionaire tax-dodging oligarchs like Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos can make huge political decisions like this with no accountability.

  77. An Internet Service Provider (ISP) is the industry term for the company that is able to provide you with access to the Internet, typically from a computer. If you hear someone talking about the Internet and they mention their “provider,” they’re usually talking about their ISP.

    Your ISP makes the Internet a possibility. In other words, you can have shiny computer with a built-in modem and could have a router for networking, but without a subscription with an ISP, you won’t have a connection to the Internet.

    For the typical homeowner or apartment dweller, the ISP is usually a “cable company” that, in addition or offering a TV subscription, also offers an Internet subscription. You don’t get both for the price of one, however. You can get just cable TV or just high-speed Internet, or both

    From a website.

    Bongino wasn’t cut off by an ISP provider unless he didn’t pay his family’s cable bill

  78. Parler was taken down completely to the ISP level they stomped this company into the dust.

    I don’t care if it was the Company raising Money to Clone Stalin they have a right to engage in communication.

    It’s called Free Speech you can’t oppress it. There is no such thing as Hate speech the only wrong speech is speech that advocates violence period.

  79. Bongino wasn’t cut off by an ISP provider unless he didn’t pay his family’s cable bill

    Oh ok you just consider him a liar. Your not interested in the event because of the politics.

    That’s fair but I put you up higher on the thinking ladder. Phantom think what you will of the guy. He was for SS, frmr NYPD I think he’d understand the repercussions of saying exactly that on air and sending it out.

    He said exactly the Parler was denied survived down to the ISP level the ISP included denies the company service.

    You say though it just simply isn’t true. Tell me what are basing the analysis of truth on?

    Bongino is just full of shit or that the ISP’s wouldn’t go along with google, and amazon ?

  80. Pat are you being intentionally obtuse or are you just confused

  81. Can you send a link to where Bongino said that please

    I see where Amazon cut him off, and Amazon isn’t an ISP anywhere. They’re very big in the hosting and storage business.

    What other companies cut him off- what ISP. Be very precise.

  82. I’ll pull them up it’s one of two or both…. hour long shows but talked about in the beginning I believe bear with me I’ll dig them up

  83. I believe it’s this one but I have to dble check

    https://rumble.com/vcrepj-ep.-1434-the-purge-continues.-the-inside-story-the-dan-bongino-show.html

  84. The point being if true and I really don’t doubt it. the guys blustery an a bit of an ass but he’s not stupid and with his back ground he’s not going to set himself up for liability especially against the ISPs.

    No he’s a former cop, former secret service, I’m sorry he’s not going to say the ISP shut parler down in the middle of a casa about parler being shut down. It makes no sense

    I have no problem seeing the ISP going along with both Google and Amazon. Why wouldn’t they?

    no if this nonsense spreads it will get bad Phantom. Tell me I’m wrong….

  85. Patrick

    Dave you work in computers I believe, so tell me since I got my degree from the University of Pennsylvania in Computer Science 38 years ago has the definition of an ISP changed ?

    Not that I know of.
    Amazon, Facebook, YouTube and twitter are not ISPs. They provide a service on the internet. An ISP provides access to the internet. As far as I’m aware, Parler had their apps removed from the Google and Apple app stores and their website removed from Amazon. Their access to the internet hasn’t been removed.
    In fact, Parler were looking at other hosting companies, which would not have been possible if they had been denied access.

  86. Internet Service Providers in the US are regulated at the federal and state level. They are utilities, who would have to serve all.

    I don’t think that say Verizon or Comcast has any right to cancel ISP or phone service due to a political disagreement with anyone. That would be illegal.

    Web hosting companies AFAIK are not regulated in that way at all. They would have a smaller roster of sophisticated customers, who are mostly companies and not the general public.

  87. Patrick

    Parler was taken down completely to the ISP level they stomped this company into the dust.

    Where are you getting this information from?

  88. phantom

    Internet Service Providers in the US are regulated at the federal and state level. They are utilities, who would have to serve all.

    I don’t think that say Verizon or Comcast has any right to cancel ISP or phone service due to a political disagreement with anyone. That would be illegal.

    Absolutely spot-on.

  89. Web hosting companies AFAIK are not regulated in that way at all. They would have a smaller roster of sophisticated customers, who are mostly companies and not the general public.

    Exactly who else would even know who to approach in that arena…. maybe the largest server farm provider in the world Amazon they might know a little about the existence of what an ISP even is let alone have their phone number but hey maybe they looked it up in the yellow pages…..

    There is your smoking gun of monopolistic power 2 companies and a utility acted in harmony against a company over it’s political views…….

  90. I see no evidence that any utility did anything to parler.

    Amazon isn’t a utility.

  91. so you don’t believe the ISP’s acted with Google and Amazon.

    I hope you’re right.

  92. so you don’t believe the ISP’s acted with Google and Amazon.

    Why do you keep going on about ISPs?
    Where are you getting this information from?
    I can literally find no reference anywhere that parler have been denied access to the internet. In fact, I can find no evidence anywhere that anyone banned from social media sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have ever been denied access to the internet.

  93. “Amazon isn’t a utility.”

    It claims that it installs the pipes but isn’t responsible for what goes through them.

    A bit like a utility.

  94. A plumber installed the pipes in your building, but he is not responsible for what goes through them

    Are your local plumbers utilities?

  95. Pete

    It claims that it installs the pipes but isn’t responsible for what goes through them.

    Amazon does not provide the ‘pipes’.
    Those ‘pipes’, are provided by the the various cable companies in the US, (and worldwide) who supply the infrastructure that makes up the internet. As well as the US phone and cable companies who provide access. This is a gross misunderstanding of what Amazon does.

  96. It claims that it installs the pipes but isn’t responsible for what goes through them.

    No, the ISPs supply the pipes. Amazon supplies the storage of the info that goes through the pipes. Without that storage no website can operate. ISPs also supply storage but if you want mega storage like Parler you probably need Amazon or Microsoft or Google.

    It would be really interesting to know how much contact there has been this month between Bezos, Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Gates.

  97. Peter

    ISPs also supply storage but if you want mega storage like Parler you probably need Amazon or Microsoft or Google.

    Or one of the thousands of other companies worldwide that can provide the same service. Just to point out, as I have already pointed out, parler didn’t actually require a major service provider. I didn’t require ‘mega storage’. They weren’t that big. They weren’t a small operation, but they were certainly no YouTube.

  98. It would be really interesting to know how much contact there has been this month between Bezos, Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Gates.

    They have have a request for subpoena’s of all there emails in the lawsuit against them… good luck with that but the allegations are they worked in harmony and that would be the only way to prove anything.

    your description of Amazon and the ISPs is right on the money Peter and the ISPs are also on that list of requests for subpoenas to see which of that group communicated to them and why.