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
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 they can become liable if they don't stop it (it would be up to a jury on whether to make them a co-conspirator). When Parlor doesn't stop these insurrection and planned murder discussions after they are pointed out to them the service providers become an active participant in the conspiracy and the companies can be charged with the same felony.
Amazon, Google, Apple and all the other companies taking action are doing so because whats going on in the discussions on Parler is a potential death sentence for any company providing resources to the conspirators if they go ahead and commit these actions.
I doubt most of the companies wanted to ban parler but the lawyers probably saw the news stories and went and told them the companies could end up on the same criminal indictment if they didn't do something immediately.
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.
The cost of living is going up, and the chance of living is going down.
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: (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: (Score:5, Informative)
As "plotting to kill people"
Re:Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (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 they can become liable if they don't stop it (it would be up to a jury on whether to make them a co-conspirator). When Parlor doesn't stop these insurrection and planned murder discussions after they are pointed out to them the service providers become an active participant in the conspiracy and the companies can be charged with the same felony.
Amazon, Google, Apple and all the other companies taking action are doing so because whats going on in the discussions on Parler is a potential death sentence for any company providing resources to the conspirators if they go ahead and commit these actions.
I doubt most of the companies wanted to ban parler but the lawyers probably saw the news stories and went and told them the companies could end up on the same criminal indictment if they didn't do something immediately.
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.