Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

There is a sub dedicated to sharing Parler content that threatens violence, among other things. https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch. You can find many more examples there.

January 6 was a "mostly peaceful" protest.

Thanks for posting this, I was pondering along the same lines!

> Every other utility seems to be regulated. For example even if you have a Confederate flag or a picture of Stalin outside your house, the local electric and water companies are not allowed to turn off your service as long as you are paying the bill.

TIL that this is due to the implied monopoly. I think the difference is that electricity and water are required for survival but internet isn't so it isn't regulated as such. This can also be extended to the difference in buying milk (walk in and pay cash) vs. buying alcohol (need a current govt issued ID).

Is this particular move by Apple, Google, Facebook, and Twitter the end of big tech in the US?

My concern the following. These companies have shown that they wield a huge amount of power. With their actions in the Georgia Senate in removing Republic ads, hey have likely frightened 50 sitting Senators. The democratic party has never shied away from regulation. So we likely now have two parties aligned in their desire for control of social media. Will this result strong federal regulation for social media and its ecosystem (AWS, Google Cloud, App stores)?

I wouldn't expect nationalization or audience distribution limitations, but instead perhaps application of exceedingly strong federal oversight over any media distribution platform and its ecosystem akin to early days of radio and television.

An end result of this would be a dramatic change in how freely they operate, putting them in a regulatory position akin to Microsoft's 2002 consent decree.

I would imagine Amazon is likely to be sued if they continue allowing Parler to remain on their cloud without dramatically improving moderation of violent and illegal content. Sure Amazon could probably fight such a suit and win, but why would they waste that money and take that risk? Plus, who really want to be seen as fighting for Parler right now?

Maybe Amazons motives are not really based on their obligation to protect the company from unnecessary liability. Maybe that is just a handy excuse for getting rid of a customer that is hurting their reputation. It is difficult to say from the outside. But even then how do we decide which companies are allowed cease business with customers damage their reputation. What if a smaller provider has an existentially large customer who threatens to leave if they don't stop doing business with another unsavory customer. Will have a rule that is so strict they just have to go out of business? Or will we not allow the large customer to leave? It is god damned mine field.

This is all such a beautiful example of the immense complexity of the real world. People must make hard decisions where there are no clearly right answers. Maybe they try to do the most ethical thing, maybe they look out for their company, or maybe they serve their own selfish interest. Regardless, there is lots of potential for unintended consequences. For one, others will then frame those actions and the consequences in a narrative to support their own business or political goals.