81–90 of 485 posts
"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.
everyone can also cherry pick out instances where moderation has failed or things have fallen through the cracks. parler's entire MO has been to breed this kind of environment for growth.
removing one of the DIRECT causes to an attack on our foundational institutions is completely warranted IMO. save the slippery slope argument for something else, please.
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…
That is an interesting proposition, but I wonder what would fill the void created. I believe advertising does not increase consumption per-se, but that it redistributes it among a different set of product and services, so who would be the winners and losers of such an effort?
Parler is blowing it in the third paragraph:
> 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.
The distinction, of course, is that the it was trending because the tweets were discussing the videos of violent Trump supporters chanting "Hang Mike Pence", and not calling for violence, as was widely occurring on Parler. That weak sauce isn't going to go far in court.
P4 is speculation on Amazon's motives. Parler would need some good evidence to show this claim is true.
P5 seems the strongest. If their contract really says 30-days notice (given the disingenuous p3, I wouldn't assume that), Amazon could be forced to replatform them for a while and have some damages.
I don't know whether it is DNS censorship as well or just poorly configured TTL caching on some DNS servers, but if you have a link to video.parler.com and it doesn't resolve anymore, you can replace video.parler.com with the actual IP address of the server 8.240.251.252 8.240.147.124 8.240.248.252 they are still online though the DNS is beginning to fail globally.
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…
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!
Run your own metal.
If you’re a business, do you really want to be on a provider that can pull your card with little to no notice? That’s a lot of power. The boot is coming down hard right now. The cloud is looking like a risky bet.
As a business we only do business with vendors that don’t host controversial sites due to risk from boycotts and negative press. I picked AWS because it was a safe choice because of actions like kicking off Parler.
but customers like you are probably why AWS is taking the position they are. They don't want to risk other customers just to keep parler. That actually sounds like something a profit motivated company would do.... no conspiracies required.
edit: should probably note, customers/advertisers have boycotted companies before for having a whiff of scandal around them..
This coordinated banning of a service by Silicon Valley is indicative of collusion between these giant monopolies. If the Justice Department does not go after these companies for antitrust, we don't have a Justice Department.
None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies. And this sort of 'collusion' isn't illegal - the illegal collusion is a completely different thing. Actually there isn't even any collusion of either kind to begin with.
Then why is Amazon facing action or under investigation for antitrust from Congress, the European Union, the DOJ and 3 states?