The left’s ideas can’t win in an open marketplace. So this is what they do instead.
Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
181–190 of 1001 posts
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#182I've read comments saying, "if you don't like Apple's policies, build a new smartphone." Are these people aware that that the same type of argument lead to the creation of parler: "if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then? At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.
> Information channels based on political ideology.
Is credible threats of violence, especially towards elected officials, a "political ideology" that deserves protection and promotion?
You make it out as if this is an attact on Republicans or conservatists. It's not. It's an attack on extremists who are posting credible threads of extreme harm and violence on others. Is banning ISIS from platforms enough of a "slippery slope" that would prevent the ban?
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#183Reading Amazon's reasoning, tech companies are basically setting a standard that if you want to have user-generated content, you must have professional moderators. This seems like it will be a barrier to innovation.
What was their reasoning? I only saw this.
Amazon declined to comment on the suspension.
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#184Discussions are naturally taking this move to hypothetical extremes, but Apple's stance doesn't seem very inconsistent with previous actions. They're not demanding that Parler moderate anything and everything on their platform, but they aren't ready to allow a completely unmoderated platform that features blatant calls to violence and suggestions to execute public officials. For what it's worth, it appears to be work…
Apple's stance is very consistent with their history of inconsistent action. Where Apple sees a problem, they act.
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#185Reading Amazon's reasoning, tech companies are basically setting a standard that if you want to have user-generated content, you must have professional moderators. This seems like it will be a barrier to innovation.
No, it's not. AWS is saying "we don't believe that your volunteer moderators are gonna do their jobs, and you've already screwed up, and your CEO is out there saying he thinks this doesn't matter." That's a very different thing than "thou must have professional moderators".
Professional moderation is an option, but what you are actually obliged to do is ensure that your platform is not a hotbed of violent content. There are a lot of approaches to that, including aggressive bans of nuts before they get a critical mass. Given that Parler is where the nuts go when they get booted off Twitter, that was never in the cards.
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#186> “[W]e cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others,”
This seems to be the standard
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#187Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that.
- Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups?
- Should we be okay with Google censoring search results?
- Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps?
- Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites?
- Should we be okay with GoDaddy censoring domains?
- Should we be okay with Verizon censoring internet traffic?
Giant corporations aren’t simply following court orders, they are acting on their own now. This is problematic for a multitude of reasons. The precedent has been established.
*
EDIT: By "actual terrorist groups" I mean those that are classified as such by the US Government (e.g. FBI, CIA, NSA). While I think QAnon and Proud Boys have many of the characteristics of a terrorist group, they are not classified as such (personally I think they should be, but it's the government's job to decide that).
*
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#188This proves the multi-cloud advocates were right! If Parler used Kubernetes, they could migrate more quickly. /joke
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#189People on the left are mistaken if they think this is going to help. Someone somewhere in the country will plot something. We are playing with fire with these type of restrictions, root causes are not being solved. 75 million people voted for Donald Trump.
Everything but appeasement with these people is "playing with fire". 82 million people are tired of it.
Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler
#190Where do we draw the line on how we censor the internet? Obviously actual terrorist group sites can and should be taken down, but this feels like it's getting more murky than that. - Should we be okay with Facebook censoring these groups? - Should we be okay with Google censoring search results? - Should we be okay with Apple censoring apps? - Should we be okay with AWS censoring websites? - Should we be okay with Go…
It's a good question, but for the record, I'm fine with the line being somewhere before Parler, which is full of people plotting political assassinations.
This happened to Gab.ai, too, but it happened after one of those plotters committed a mass murder, one he advertised on Gab, at the Tree of Life synagogue.