Herland Report: Now that the social media platform Parler is up and running again, the Dinesh D’Souza interview with Parler CEO, John Matze on Rumble is worth revisiting.
Matze suggests Big Tech’s main motive for shutting down Parler was stopping Trump from accessing the social platform, deplatforming him from every social network and thereby prohibiting him from communicating with the massive, multimillion participants movement MAGA.
Matze points out the massive infringements on civil liberties that now are being implemented in the United States and across the West, as Big Tech monopolies have gone all out political. He points out the seriousness in a system where private tech companies determine politics, not governments.
Dinesh D’ Souza: – Could it be that if Trump is on the verge of building his new following on Parler, that was the reason Big Tech decided to go after you?
Parler CEO, John Matze: – I think that was entirely their primary motive. They did not want him to have a platform and used everything else as an excuse. If violence was their problem, we could have worked with them. We were cooperating with the authorities any time illegal activity was going on, to make sure people were found.
If violence and incitement was really their problem, they would be looking at Twitter where it is very, very rampant or Facebook where the Capitol events were organized.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Marxism produces Slavery: The Atheist Soviet Experience
- The destructive effect of moving American jobs to China
- PARLER, The Big Tech silenced free speech platform is back in business, log in her
- The killing of PARLER: Competitors of Twitter, Google, Facebook Attacked to End Free Speech
Matze: – They have all these facts and did not care about those, so I feel that the primary motive was really that Trump could join Parler.
They knew that Parler, standing for free speech meaning everybody has the right to speak. They knew that we would not ban it, so I think that was the primary motive.
Their secondary motive was that of competition. They have a monopoly on speech. Amazon controls a lot of infrastructure, Apple controls the ability to access IPhones. If you cannot access to AppStore you cannot be on the IPhone at all and most influencers use IPhones.
Matze: – If Apple or Google decides to ban your app, they follow one another. As you saw with what happened to Parler, when Amazon, Apple or Google or any of them come out and make a harsh statement saying they will not support you, we get SMS vendors saying no, credit card processers saying no, every other back-up cloud vendor providers say no.
Amazon then said in their brief that “why don’t you build your own data center”, which is shocking because we are a software company. We are not a hardware company. It is like saying to Burger King, why don’t you make your own water line or power grids. It is ridiculous.
Looking at the landscape, we have seen strange and horribly abusive governments throughout history. The one thing that we have not seen is what is forming here is not a government, but a country ran by a few, big companies.
It seems that there is a vocal minority and outraged mob, which is on Twitter, saying “everybody go after Parler now” and they work together, they target every vendor that works with us and the clients of those vendors. They say “cancel Parler”.
It it seems very weird that the country and the marketplace is not ruled by a government, but an outraged mob who goes to these private corporations and determine who can or cannot exist in the marketplace.
It is very strange to see and very dangerous. Witnessing this, I think someone is derailed in these companies, they are too powerful. If you are providing infrastructure services, what does it matter what we are doing as long as it is legal?
Amazon claims Section 2.30 gives them the right to boot us from their infrastructure, but the content that they claim they want to boot us over, we have Section 2.30 immunity over as well. So, it does not quite make sense that they get to weaponize theirs against our company for stuff that we are immune from anyway, legally speaking. So it does not make any sense why they can all do this. It can happen to literally any company or any person in any point in time, if they want to do it to you.
Listen to the full interview here.
Also check out these topics at CNN or FOX News. Other sources may be New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post or from the British angle, BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph or Financial Times.
