101–110 of 485 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth noting that the "Hang Mike Pence" tweets were a reference to what the rioters were chanting when they stormed the Capitol.
I can affirm that at least part of the "hang mike pence" discussion on twitter it was a shocked discussion of the threats, not threats.
Out of curiosity how much time for remediation is generally allowed before service is pulled? Surely the precedent is not "you do something bad and we ban you immediately "? In FTA it says AWS generally gives 30 days per their contract with Parler, but I mean in general, if there is a general precedent. Even if Parler wanted to do the right thing here, they were pretty much banned everywhere immediately.
I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…
It is weird to me that we people seem to be saying "These 4 companies need to be broken up". They are already 4 companies. It seems different than say, the Bell breakup, which was one company.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuk-WSDDRw
Apple may have banned Parler and then Google just decided to go with it, followed by AWS. However, it may also be equally valid they colluded via private channels to make this happen. BOTH ARE EQUALLY POSSIBLE.
Discovery in this kind of lawsuit may lead to the answers. If they did collude, that is a strong argument for anti-trust. Just because they're 4 different companies doesn't negate the fact they control over 80% to 90% of the American market for hosting, non-SMS text communication and mobile access.
It honestly doesn't matter what you believe about Parler's user contributions. That's the entire point of Section 230. From what I've seen they do make a good faith attempt to delete all illegal posts with direct calls to violence. Section 230 doesn't prevent Google/Apple/Amazon from being forced to have them as customers.
You are protected if you're a minority and a business refuses to give you service based on that status. Opinions and viewpoints aren't protected, and maybe they should be.
If you in any way praise this legal yet blatant corporate censorship because it fits your views, you will be next. We are not on a slippery slope. We are in a god damn free fall. If you don't see it, they will come for you next and no one will be there to speak for you.
And here we see the problem with centralized social media. Did anyone think that handing control over to megacorps would end differently? Today it’s Parler, tomorrow it’s whatever political ideology Big Tech finds inconvenient.
The facts are pretty simple here. Parler had illegal content on their servers and refused to moderate it effectively. Companies asked them to fix their moderation issue and they refused, this is the consequence.
They aren't being kicked off because they said "I like Trump" they are being kicked off for inciting violence and hosting content that called for some truly horrendous acts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they aren't actively moderating offensive* content: absolutely. I think he's going to have a REAL tough time convincing a court that Twitter doesn't moderate content given that his justification for starting Parler was Twitter being too aggressive in moderating... https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f... *Offensive probably is the wrong term - content that violates the AWS TOS like calls for…
Twitter didn't actively moderate the President, who broke every single policy in their rulebook, until he lost power. An argument could easily be made that they selectively enforce from that alone, but I don't see Parler's lawyers using that argument lol
And here we see the problem with centralized social media. Did anyone think that handing control over to megacorps would end differently? Today it’s Parler, tomorrow it’s whatever political ideology Big Tech finds inconvenient.
"Handing control over." Seriously, do you have a realistic alternative? If we are going to have social media, at scale, in a capitalist society, it's hard to see how there's much of an alternative to for-profit companies. Do you want the government to run Twitter?
I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…
I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…
A salient difference is that Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation, when push comes to shove. Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. Even if they win this one, the writing is on the wall for them. EDIT: This is not as true as I thought. Interesting information below!
They claim they are for free speech, but they aren't even close. They remove all kinds of things, just not enough of the things that Amazon wanted.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...
"Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was 'Hang Mike Pence.' But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account." Is this true?
It's worth noting that the "Hang Mike Pence" tweets were a reference to what the rioters were chanting when they stormed the Capitol.
I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…
A salient difference is that Big Tech will at least pay lip service to the idea of moderation, when push comes to shove. Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. Even if they win this one, the writing is on the wall for them. EDIT: This is not as true as I thought. Interesting information below!
Absolutely untrue. Parler isn’t a free speech site. Gab on the other hand is and even they moderate. Their policy is to only allow first amendment protected speech, but that excludes quite a bit.