So when Stormfront [wikipedia.org] was blackholed many people, myself included, pointed that it won't stop there. When they went after Gab [wikipedia.org] it became a clear pattern. Now Silicon Valley is attempting to destroy Parler.
Democracy cannot exist when a set of unelected and unaccountable technocrats are deciding who gets to have modern communications and what ideas get to be heard.
The assholes on Parler have been openly plotting to kill people and stage another coup. This is not a question of Democracy.
I don't think you understand how Internet works. There are X doing Y everywhere on the Internet for any value of X and Y. To demonstrate - there are pedophiles sharing kid porn via Gmail. It is absolutely unrealistic to expect to stop every instance of bad behaviour. Twitter doesn't come anywhere close to that. Why is Parler is expected to solve this problem?
It is absolutely unrealistic to expect to stop every instance of bad behaviour. Twitter doesn't come anywhere close to that. Why is Parler is expected to solve this problem?
I saw what you did there. Twitter takes steps to control 'bad behaviour' and it doesn't always succeed. But you object to Parler supposedly being held to a different standard when it basically does nothing at all. There's a reason the 'deplorables' are flocking to it.
Parler also takes steps to control bad behavior. Here is direct quote from Parler's terms of services:
Any content that you post to the Services must satisfy all of the following criteria, and you affirm that any content posted, submitted, or otherwise provided by you to the Services satisfies these criteria:
4.1 You have the legal right to post the content to the Services.
4.2 The content and the purpose for posting it complies with all laws, rules, and regulations that may apply
As "plotting to kill people" is illegal, it would also against Section 4.2.
-1 Troll. Parler does *not* take steps to control bad behavior. If you read the letter from Apple, it is *not* a form letter like a small app would get. It is personalized and includes quotes from the Parleor CEO about how Parleor is "not responsible" for things that, well, you have to be responsible for if you want to bein the app store.
The issue for Amazon is that Section 230 doesn't protect Amazon for things like people on Parlor planning terrorist actions. Section 230 is about copyrights and basic liability. It doesn't protect the company if someone plans a murder/terrorist action on their system and the service provider knows about it and doesn't do anything. (and these messages are being pointed out, major news orgs are calling about it).
Illegal actions are strictly forbidden in the TOS of every internet provider specifically because
Have you ever actually read Section 230? It doesn't mention copyright at all. It is about liability, but it rather obviously says that Amazon must not "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" -- whether that other information content provider is a Parler user or even Parler itself. Amazon, Google and Apple are simply not liable for information provided by Parler or its users.
They take steps to control the behavior that they think is bad. Unfortunately, what they think is bad is posting content which is critical of Parler's management [techdirt.com], or the conservatives which have huddled there. They claim to support free speech, but when speech they don't like shows up on their site, they terminate the accounts it comes from.
As "plotting to kill people" is illegal, it would also against Section 4.2.
And yet they've put drastically more effort into stifling liberal speech than they have removing users who plot insurrection, kidnapping, and murder. Parler's actions are the very opposite of a good faith attempt at moderation according to their ToS, while what Parler's users are demanding happen to Section 230 is that sites should have to post a clear policy and then stick to it. It's hypocrisy all the way down.
They take steps to control the behavior that they think is bad. Unfortunately, what they think is bad is posting content which is critical of Parler's management [techdirt.com], or the conservatives which have huddled there. They claim to support free speech, but when speech they don't like shows up on their site, they terminate the accounts it comes from.
This is entirely separate discussion, unless you are now arguing that cutting Parler's AWS hosting for over-moderating some topics is justifiable.
Don't get me wrong, I am not on Parler and only see them as a fair-weather friends to free speech. This doesn't change the facts in Silicon Valley vs. Parler scuffle. Parler got blackholed on pretexts.
No, Twitter absolutely doesn't take steps to control 'bad behaviour' when it comes from certain groups - only in the most performative way when people start loudly objecting to what the hell is going on and pointing out a clear double standard will it ever move and ban a couple of the "privileged" violence-callers.
Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (Score:4, Insightful)
Democracy cannot exist when a set of unelected and unaccountable technocrats are deciding who gets to have modern communications and what ideas get to be heard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Democracy also can't exist when you allow a group who wants to kill everyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint.
The assholes on Parler have been openly plotting to kill people and stage another coup. This is not a question of Democracy.
Re: (Score:1)
The assholes on Parler have been openly plotting to kill people and stage another coup. This is not a question of Democracy.
I don't think you understand how Internet works. There are X doing Y everywhere on the Internet for any value of X and Y. To demonstrate - there are pedophiles sharing kid porn via Gmail. It is absolutely unrealistic to expect to stop every instance of bad behaviour. Twitter doesn't come anywhere close to that. Why is Parler is expected to solve this problem?
Re:Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (Score:3)
It is absolutely unrealistic to expect to stop every instance of bad behaviour. Twitter doesn't come anywhere close to that. Why is Parler is expected to solve this problem?
I saw what you did there. Twitter takes steps to control 'bad behaviour' and it doesn't always succeed. But you object to Parler supposedly being held to a different standard when it basically does nothing at all. There's a reason the 'deplorables' are flocking to it.
Re:Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
As "plotting to kill people" is illegal, it would also against Section 4.2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a cut take on it. They have TOS that they don't bother to enforce, but it's all OK, because they have the document in place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue for Amazon is that Section 230 doesn't protect Amazon for things like people on Parlor planning terrorist actions. Section 230 is about copyrights and basic liability. It doesn't protect the company if someone plans a murder/terrorist action on their system and the service provider knows about it and doesn't do anything. (and these messages are being pointed out, major news orgs are calling about it).
Illegal actions are strictly forbidden in the TOS of every internet provider specifically because
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever actually read Section 230? It doesn't mention copyright at all. It is about liability, but it rather obviously says that Amazon must not "be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" -- whether that other information content provider is a Parler user or even Parler itself. Amazon, Google and Apple are simply not liable for information provided by Parler or its users.
Re:Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)
Parler also takes steps to control bad behavior.
They take steps to control the behavior that they think is bad. Unfortunately, what they think is bad is posting content which is critical of Parler's management [techdirt.com], or the conservatives which have huddled there. They claim to support free speech, but when speech they don't like shows up on their site, they terminate the accounts it comes from.
As "plotting to kill people" is illegal, it would also against Section 4.2.
And yet they've put drastically more effort into stifling liberal speech than they have removing users who plot insurrection, kidnapping, and murder. Parler's actions are the very opposite of a good faith attempt at moderation according to their ToS, while what Parler's users are demanding happen to Section 230 is that sites should have to post a clear policy and then stick to it. It's hypocrisy all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler also takes steps to control bad behavior.
They take steps to control the behavior that they think is bad. Unfortunately, what they think is bad is posting content which is critical of Parler's management [techdirt.com], or the conservatives which have huddled there. They claim to support free speech, but when speech they don't like shows up on their site, they terminate the accounts it comes from.
This is entirely separate discussion, unless you are now arguing that cutting Parler's AWS hosting for over-moderating some topics is justifiable.
Don't get me wrong, I am not on Parler and only see them as a fair-weather friends to free speech. This doesn't change the facts in Silicon Valley vs. Parler scuffle. Parler got blackholed on pretexts.
Re: Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (Score:2)
It is not a separate discussion at all.
Parler is crying about free speech while fraudulently claiming to support it, but actually shitting on the whole idea.
They lost the right to cry about free speech and be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)