DDoS-Guard to forfeit internet space occupied by Parler

It's a distinction without a difference. I don't want to host violence provoking content. I don't think others should either. You think they should, and you have your reasons. Everyone (and every organization) can make up their own minds.

Clearly, we disagree about which approach is better for society, and happily we do so cordially, which is just the sort of conversation we need more of.

> No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today. Quoting https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-parler-violent-content-w...

"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints," Amazon's lawyers stated in a court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."

"Parler's refusal to moderate content resulted in a "steady increase" in violent content on the network, breaching Amazon's terms of service, AWS contended.""

Edit: here, I'll do it for you:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

Put more succinctly: one ought to reserve the right to not tolerate the intolerant without limit, but we should always err to engage with them on the level of rational argument. Once they claim that rational argument is no longer the field on which they want to argue, and violence is, the right we reserve is to counter with our own intolerance of that, through violence if necessary, even though that is contrary to our principles of never being intolerant (hence the paradox.)

So no, it doesn't mean you shouldn't tolerate intolerance. On the contrary, it means you should tolerate it as much as humanly possible, but not limitlessly. It's basically the inverse of what you and others claim it says. The paradox is the fact that unlimited tolerance of the intolerant is paradoxical, not that any tolerance of the intolerant is. People who use this paradox to try to suppress speech that isn't directly connected to violence, specifically, are actually sitting on the "intolerant" side of this argument, funny enough.

I think this is going to lead to a faster restructuring of internet routing, I was going to say “antifragility” but am I correct in that this term has also been co-opted by specifically far-right extremist groups who also think these attacks make them naturally select into more resilient forces

Still no. Nobody wants to be hosting it. The question is what happens when perfect moderation is impossible, which it is.

> That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today.

You're quoting Amazon's lawyers, not the judge.

Wanting to do something hard and being less than 100% successful is not the same thing as not wanting or trying to do it.

If you fear Parler being online, you are being tricked by the media.