Parler Booted Off Amazon's AWS Hosting Service, Suspended by Apple (buzzfeednews.com) 628
"Apple has suspended Parler until the makers of the app solve its content moderation challenges," reports Forbes, citing a statement from Apple saying "there is no place on our platform for threats of violence and illegal activity. Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats..."
Meanwhile, BuzzFeed News reports: Amazon notified Parler that it would be cutting off the social network favored by conservatives and extremists from its cloud hosting service Amazon Web Services, according to an email obtained by BuzzFeed News. The suspension, which will go into effect on Sunday just before midnight, means that Parler will be unable to operate and will go offline unless it can find another hosting service...
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service's plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective. "Recently, we've seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service."
Earlier in the day, Bloomberg supplied some context: A group representing some Amazon.com Inc. employees has called for the company's cloud unit to cut ties with Parler after reports that the social media network was used by those who planned Wednesday's riot at the U.S. Capitol...
It's unclear how many employees the group represents. Participation in rallies, social media statements and open letters has ranged from dozens of workers to thousands at events held before the Covid-19 pandemic. Amazon last year fired two of the group's leaders for what it said was violation of company policy. The employees say they were terminated for their activism.
Meanwhile, BuzzFeed News reports: Amazon notified Parler that it would be cutting off the social network favored by conservatives and extremists from its cloud hosting service Amazon Web Services, according to an email obtained by BuzzFeed News. The suspension, which will go into effect on Sunday just before midnight, means that Parler will be unable to operate and will go offline unless it can find another hosting service...
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service's plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective. "Recently, we've seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service."
Earlier in the day, Bloomberg supplied some context: A group representing some Amazon.com Inc. employees has called for the company's cloud unit to cut ties with Parler after reports that the social media network was used by those who planned Wednesday's riot at the U.S. Capitol...
It's unclear how many employees the group represents. Participation in rallies, social media statements and open letters has ranged from dozens of workers to thousands at events held before the Covid-19 pandemic. Amazon last year fired two of the group's leaders for what it said was violation of company policy. The employees say they were terminated for their activism.
Voltaire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, they're free to "say" whatever they want. They're not entitled to a platform for it though.
I wish a lot of people running their mouths about stories like Twitter banning Trump would actually take the time to read the 1st amendment.
Exactly (Score:3)
Trump has an entire room in his house dedicated to talking with members of the print, television, and radio. Of course that would mean he'd have to answer questions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Voltaire (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, they're free to "say" whatever they want. They're not entitled to a platform for it though.
I wish a lot of people running their mouths about stories like Twitter banning Trump would actually take the time to read the 1st amendment.
Listen to what you are saying though. "They can go speak somewhere else".
Well, that's what they tried to do ...
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Informative)
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I really wonder how a company cutting ties with another company makes the US a Communist dictatorship in the eyes of people like you.
Re:Voltaire (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because he won't be able to post on his Parler account, and he's mad as hell.
Let's be blunt, most of those bitching when Twitter suspends some right wing nut job's are also either cross eyed libertarians or right wing nut jobs. They want to force other people to host shit on private property. Which of course, ironically, makes these alt-righters more like communists than any liberal. They want to force private property owners to host their diseased ramblings .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Evidently you're unaware that Twitter has been arbitrarily banning "left" personalities for a good while now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Off the top of my head:
Victoria Fierce
Rose McGowan
Daily Beast's Joseph Cox
Daniel Sieradski
Ken White's Popehat account
Notably, multiple accounts related to Mike Bloomberg's 2020 campaign.
Also, that's not why Trump was banned. Look up his very latest tweets if you want a glimpse into the reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Which of those were actually banned? I can find Victoria Fierce, Rose McGowan, Joseph Cox, and Popehat on Twitter very easily. I have no idea who Daniel Sieradski is, so I have no idea whether the Twitter accounts mentioning him are his or they are targeted harassment (in violation of Twitter's rules). Saying "multiple accounts related to Mike Bloomberg's 2020 campaign" provides no way to figure out who you might be thinking of, or to investigate your claim in a meaningful way.
Also, Twitter explained [twitter.com] why
Re:Voltaire (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.theverge.com/2017/... [theverge.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09... [techcrunch.com]
https://forward.com/fast-forwa... [forward.com]
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
https://www.latimes.com/busine... [latimes.com]
These took me literally 6 minutes to look up. Please do your homework, or fuck off.
Re:Voltaire (Score:4, Interesting)
They banned Trump because saying he wouldn't attend Biden's inauguration was "glorification of violence".
They banned Trump for inciting insurrection. The only reason to lie so brazenly about it is because you support that and you want democracy overthrown and replaced with Trump. You'd most likely wrap yourself in the flag (though maybe a confederate one) while it happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "left" aren't the ones insisting that corporations must be allowed to do whatever they want.
That particular shibboleth belongs to the right. The left wants corporations, if they're allowed to exist at all, to be strictly regulated and limited.
And it's amusingly ironic when it comes back and bites you fascist cunts on the arse.
Re: (Score:3)
You’re free to access any website you want. You’re not entitled to access it through your ISP though.
Funny, i remember people like you cheering the end of net neutrality around here.
Re: Voltaire (Score:3)
So you would be in favor of curtailing the free speech and property rights of a private entity in order to give a seditionist access to his insurrectionist throngs?
Sounds a lot like socialism to me, as you would have to nationalize the social networks to get around the Bill of Rights. And bat-shit crazy.
Re: Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not, because this is not an issue of free speech. Parler is not being "censored"; they just want the convenience of AWS without having to respect the TOS on the contract they signed with Amazon.
They're more than free to find another ISP with less restrictive rules regarding the hosting of hate speech content.
Re: (Score:3)
I mostly agree with you on that. I think this brings up a secondary issue of unequal enforcement of those ToS. That's the basis of the AWS termination. AWS is not claiming they're a certain offset of center that they disagree with.
Is AWS applying the same standards to other customers? If they host Twitter, there's a lot of objectionable content that fails the litmus test. In that case, they should just say we don't like your side's objectionable content.
IANAL. Where AWS actions might become "censorful" is i
Re: Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
Is AWS applying the same standards to other customers? If they host Twitter, there's a lot of objectionable content that fails the litmus test.
Is there, though? Is there in fact "a lot"? Are you measuring as a percentage of content, or by absolute volume? Are you taking into account what Twitter is itself doing to police that content, and whether they have a system in place for people to report content for moderation?
In that case, they should just say we don't like your side's objectionable content.
You mean like how Parler bans liberal users [marketrealist.com]? Parler has zero moral high ground here. They are not the bastion of free speech they claim to be. They exist specifically to promote conservative speech, and then lie about whether they exist to promote all speech. They don't, and they've proven it by their actions of suppressing liberal speech while doing nothing to control violent speech.
Parler is what hypocrisy looks like when you give it a URL.
Re:Voltaire (Score:4, Informative)
Seriously look up public forum. There are places in the US that anyone literally has the right to say what they want. I'll even give you a link [wikipedia.org].
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Voltaire (Score:4, Insightful)
An even more direct comparison would be the infamous gay wedding cake. If those bakers can refuse service to on religious grounds, i.e. because they disagree with the ideology of the customer, then Amazon can boot off Parler.
Can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That misrepresents the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. That 7-2 decision held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to give the cake shop it's due process, and was hostile to religion in a manner that violated the First Amendment.
That is a tremendously flawed analogy anyway. Amazon is not like an LLC or closely held business; it is a widely held, publicly traded firm. Jeff Bezos has a bit more than 10% of the shares. Even if he had a legitimate, deeply held religious belief
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a tremendously flawed analogy anyway. Amazon is not like an LLC or closely held business
It is and it isn't. Amazon is like an LLC in that it is a corporation, which is a legal construct. It doesn't exist in the real world, being a creature only of words on paper.
Amazon is larger and has more influence, but the principle is the same. Either you do or don't have the rights of free speech, and free association. And as we have ruled that corporations do enjoy freedom of speech, they do have a right to not provide a platform to those they find objectionable.
under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Amazon is not enough "his" business to claim RFRA protections.
The Hobby Lobby decision was a bad one. It doesn't matter whose business it is, or how big it is. Employees deserve the same protections under the law. That decision was over the treatment of employees, and not anything else, so it doesn't apply here regardless. That's why the gay cake example is more on point, if these are the options to compare to. Perhaps some third example would be superior.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Voltaire (Score:3)
Remember how the United States has property rights, and that you don't get to use other people's shit without their permission? And that permission can be revoked?
You act as if you have a right to use AWS resources. You have no such right - you only have permission granted by AWS under their terms of use and whatever contract you sign when you open your account.
Violate their terms, your permission goes away. Don't like it? Build your own cloud provider, or nationalize AWS - but that would be socialism!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, Voltaire was worried about governments, particularly those nasty Kings/Queens of the era running around and throwing people in jail/killing for saying things the Royal didn't like.
Voltaire wasn't talking about the local pub owner throwing you out for saying shit.
The 1st amendment is a protection on government action, not PRIVATE people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
--- Abraham Lincoln
Re: (Score:2)
"Your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's face beings"
-- Bill Gates
That quote dates back to before Bill Gates was born. [quoteinvestigator.com]
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Amendment:
I disapprove of what you say, and I will defend to the death your right to say it, but don't expect me to hand you my megaphone.
The employees at Amazon don't want to maintain a platform used to promote hate speech and plan sedition.
And you can't make them.
Re: (Score:3)
The employees at Amazon don't want to maintain a platform used to promote hate speech and plan sedition.
It's not about planning sedition, sedition is generally unplanned. It's about planning insurrection. Parler was literally used as the planning grounds for a hostile, armed invasion of the capitol.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If they had their own iron plugged into the interwebs and a telco cut their feed, I’d agree. But this is like Parler set up shop inside of a mall, and the landlord got tired of the riff-raff it was attracting. Or, you know, how your apartment landlord will evict you if you keep having loud parties every night...
The only true abuse of power going on here is Apple (yet again) reminding folks that they don’t own the devices they’ve paid for.
the eternal slashdot freedom fighter (Score:4, Funny)
slashdot freedom fighter "I have memorized several dozen quotes about freedom of speech"
mom "Yes, but have you taken out the trash?"
slashdot freedom fighter "Mooom I'm trying to save freedom of speech"
mom "you can do that after you take out the trash"
slashdot freedom fighter "You are just like Pol Pot. You probably don't even know who that is"
mom "i actually TAd a class in the cambodian genocide when i was studying at the university"
slashdot freedom fighter "im not talking about cambodia im talking about Pol Pot"
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA! The issue isn't what they're saying, it's what they're PLANNING.
You are free to talk about your favorite ism all you want. You're free to teach about your pet ism. You can even recruit more people to your ism. You may not plot a violent and destructive demonstration in favor of your ism.
Re:Voltaire (Score:5, Insightful)
Voltaire’s quote is about as applicable here as it would have been in the Japanese war room where the attack on Pearl Harbor was planned.
There’s active planning taking place on Parler to stage a second armed attack on the 19th. Given that the previous attack on the Capitol building—in which four people were killed, pipe bombs were found, and supplies were discovered that indicate some of them intended to take hostages—was also planned in part on Parler, it should be fairly evident that we’re not talking about speech we simply disapprove of. Planning and engaging in violence is not protected speech and never has been. It’s criminal behavior, and whether you realized it or not, you’re suggesting they have a right to plan such attacks on our nation.
They don’t.
I’ll defend people’s right to spew horrible, hateful things—that vi is better than emacs, that walnuts belong in brownies, etc.—but I do a hell of a lot more than merely disapprove when there’s an attack on our nation, whether it be domestic (e.g. Oklahoma City bombing) or foreign (e.g. 9/11).
Free speech cannot exist where literal, physical violence is tolerated.
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.
They've still got modern telecoms (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, Parlar has backing from a billionaire, so you don't need to shed any tears for them. You should probably be asking yourself if said billionaire really has your best interests at heart though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...if you want to be a part of the digital commons, don't shit on the lawn.
Trouble is, wingnuts like shitting wherever they want: indeed, they will claim that fertilizing the commons is a public service.
Re: (Score:2)
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:3)
> The assholes on Parler have been openly plotting to kill people and stage another coup.
You do know that the big users of Parler, prior to the Trumpkins, is 'Jesus' groups where people go online to pray over social media ... right?
But, sure, deep-six the whole thing this week because of new users doing the same thing they've been doing on Twitter for years.
C'mon, nobody believes the 'outside' story.
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:Precedent is reinforced by Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
As "plotting to kill people" is illegal, it would also against Section 4.2.
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: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.
Contracts. (Score:2)
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.
If you want your site hosted you sign a contract and if you violate that contract then they are no longer required to provide you service. Parler agreed to the terms of the contract with several other companies and have since been found in breach of contract.
What are you suggesting, we replace the free market server hosts with some government owned internet host? That would be literal socialism.
Re:Contracts. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want your site hosted you sign a contract and if you violate that contract then they are no longer required to provide you service. Parler agreed to the terms of the contract with several other companies and have since been found in breach of contract.
What happened to Parler is not a contract breach, but selective and excessive rule enforcement of overly vague clause. Essentially they stated that Parler wasn't doing enough to combat hate speech, failing to define what they meant. More so, it is demonstrable that no other social media platform gets anywhere near being able to do what is being asked of Parler. Just think about this rationally - there are death threats on Twitter and there are so many messages that most these threats get through and stay up.
Personally, I see what happened as Silicon Valley doing everything to shut down Parler in fear that Trump would pull a sizeable percentage of conservatives away from Twitter and Facebook and into Parler. Basically, SV is afraid of consequences of their own actions.
Re:Contracts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon is a bakery and Parler is a gay wedding cake. Conservatives fought for that.
Re: (Score:3)
unaccountable technocrats are deciding who gets to have modern communications
If you're going to be a tech startup that's all about free speech, you should build your own infrastructure. If literally the whole reason you're building your platform is that you think you're blocked in by large companies that don't agree with you, why would you expect it to stop at the top layer?
This is why you don't "Big Cloud" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not really. The will terminate your services without recourse if you violate the terms of those services. You know, the ones you sign a contract for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No right of due process, no right of appeal, no rights at all. Wait... isnâ(TM)t that basically unconstitutional.
Due process? What in the name of the fuck are you babbling about?
I don't know if you got the memo, but Amazon is not the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: This is why you don't "Big Cloud" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
LOLZ START uR OWN PLATFORM (Score:2, Insightful)
JUst CReaTE Your oWn tWITTeR (Score:5, Insightful)
When it was Twitter, people were saying "it's a private service, just create your own website." Then it was Google/Apple App stores, so I guess "just create your Android/iOS app store." Now with AWS I suppose it's "just create your own scalable cloud hosting architecture and server farms." Imagine next it will be "just fabricate your own microchips."
Is anyone ready to admit that we have reached the point of de facto corporate censorship?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's your self awareness, dipshit?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, just something the average person will do... a logical hoop to jump through for a platform that is grounded in a foundational American value and fundamental human right.
What, you mean hypocrisy? It's well-documented that Parler has terminated users for criticizing Parler, and for posting leftist content. Parler does NOT believe in hosting free speech, only in hosting the speech with which it agrees. Slashdot literally has freer speech than Parler.
Also, watch out for system updates.
What do system updates have to do with sideloaded applications? I mean, it's not reasonable to expect people to do it on iOS (where you have to have a developer account, and know how to use it) but on Android sideloading can liter
Data residency laws to be expanded (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Data residency laws to be expanded (Score:5, Insightful)
After AWS has done this, I'd rather host a service with some Chinese or Russian server farm than anything in the US. I'd ironically have better assurance of free speech.
That's probably true, if your goal is to plot insurrection against the US. But post one too many winnie the pooh memes when hosted in China, and you'll find your service down. Post one too many Putin memes and... well, you'll probably find your tea contaminated with polonium. But if you're lucky, you'll just find your site down.
TL;DR: Bullshit.
Thought Police (Score:4, Insightful)
One day the thought police will come for you too.
I think AWS should have the right to chose who they want to do business with. I just don't think they're asking Twitter (assuming they host Twitter) to clean up their objectionable content as well. The same concern applies to Apple's seemingly arbitrary enforcement (blind eyes to Twitter) as well. Have we also forgotten about underage nudity on Snapchat (GCP right?)?
On the subject of App Store / Play Store bans, what would happen if regulators demanded that Apple and Google decouple their browsers from their operating systems (like Microsoft)? The Parler App bundles have no content, they just connect to the content. Would Safari and Chrome pass the litmus test to be allowed to be hosted by their respective stores?
I don't want to get to far into the weeds trying to find equivalencies, but I'm very concerned about two separate echo chambers being created.
Re: (Score:3)
They were plans of action.
What are you talking about, so that I may clarify my position?
What you're basically arguing here is people should be able to translate their thoughts to actions with no restrictions at all.
I wasn't arguing that in my OP, but now that you mention it; I don't believe people should be persecuted on their thoughts/views. A call to action, specifically a call to violent action is different. That should be moderated/restricted.
To expand:
Twitter, a predominantly left platform: (violent calls to action by left wing (and right wing) extremists)
Parler, a predominantly right platform (violent calls to action by right wing (maybe some left win
We're going to miss state censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon/Google are now demonstrating their powers to shut down speech. While I personally agree that Parler (or any other site that encourages murdering people, including left radicals) needs to be shut down, I do not trust Amazon/Google to only use their power in this case. I think what's really going on is that they are trying to test the limits, and in the future we might see corporate censorship used more often, possibly as yet another competitive tool.
Call me crazy, but I think corporate censorship is going to make us miss good old state censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:5, Informative)
Planned for what? Build their own IT infrastructure? People really underestimate the amount of resources running these take - even for relatively obscure services such as Parler.
Re:Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, eventually we have to treat these providers like utilities. Is your phone company allowed to deplatform gay people?
Re:Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:4, Insightful)
No. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to deplatform right-wing milita groups though...
Re:Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:5, Interesting)
No. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to deplatform right-wing milita groups though...
That's the really hilarious part about all this. Let's review:
A bakery, run by so-called "conservatives", pursued a lawsuit over a gay-themed wedding cake, all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. The U.S. Supreme Court, also controlled by "conservatives", ruled that a private business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
So now it's offical. It is now the law of the land.
Thanks to that lawsuit, private companies (Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc) can kick people off their platforms, for any reason they want, and it's all perfectly legal.
So, to anyone complaining about being "de-platformed": You won. You got what you wanted. What's the problem?
Re:Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:5, Insightful)
No. I'm pretty sure they're allowed to deplatform right-wing milita groups though...
That's the really hilarious part about all this. Let's review:
A bakery, run by so-called "conservatives", pursued a lawsuit over a gay-themed wedding cake, all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. The U.S. Supreme Court, also controlled by "conservatives", ruled that a private business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
So now it's offical. It is now the law of the land.
Thanks to that lawsuit, private companies (Amazon, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc) can kick people off their platforms, for any reason they want, and it's all perfectly legal.
So, to anyone complaining about being "de-platformed": You won. You got what you wanted. What's the problem?
You should post from an account. Excellent comment - deserves to be modded up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Trump himself said, "I love the poorly-educated."
Re: Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:4, Insightful)
The KKK (which is a left wing militia group)
Oh, you sweet summer child...
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you sweet summer child...
It's not naivety, it's application of perverse logic stemming from the notion of the American right that you can never question the right. So if the right does something beyond the pale, you can't cal them out because that would be questioning the right. The only option is to simply claim they're the left instead. That's also why RINO is a thing: you cannot question the right, so the only option to attack is to claim they're not of the right.
So you see it makes sense in a certai
Re: Well, that's the end for Parler (Score:5, Informative)
You neglect the fact that the parties flipped in 1968 when the democrats supported the Civil Rights Act. All the segregationists went to the Republican Party which opposed the Act.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> Planned for what? Build their own IT infrastructure? People really underestimate the amount of resources running these take - even for relatively obscure services such as Parler.
That's precisely what they did. They were smart and didn't use any proprietary AWS features so they'll be up on apolitical infrastructure by Tuesday.
Smart.
Imagine making your business 100% dependent on another business. You're basically a voluntary subsidiary at that point. Not smart.
Re: (Score:3)
are you a bit thick or something?
Don't you realise that Trump is Putin's revenge against the US for the fall of the Soviet Union?
And Putin's won. He must be pissing himself laughing at what he's got you fucking morons to do to yourselves...and he did it by hijacking the propaganda channels that American powers-that-be, the rich and powerful and well-connected, have used for decades to keep the American people ignorant and stupid.
THAT is why you were so vulnerable to it, the propaganda systems were already
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Section 230? (Score:5, Informative)
Please read at least the summary. AWS is claiming that the calls to violence violate the AWS terms of service. In that internet access is not under "common carrier" status, if your content is "far enough" out there, it will be hard to host it anywhere, unless you can be supported by a foreign government. This is how porn sites lose their credit card processors.
Section 230 means that others can not sue Parlor for content posted by users. It does not require "all companies" to agree to do business with Parlor. The best action you could take against AWS was to accuse them of monopolistic discrimination with Parlor on the basis of business interests.
And if Trump ever starts a media company and Section 230 is repealed, then Trump will be the first to get sued.
The terms of service rules can be claimed to be arbitrary. You can claim they discriminate against a political viewpoint. But they are not blocking talk of "low taxes", or "closing the borders", or "insert policy here". This is a terms of service that does not allow calls to violence. If a left leaning website was calling for the "death of Trump", it would be shut down just as fast. And calling for the "jailing of Trump" under a specific statute like "inciting sedition" is a reasonable and honest discussion, and hopefully one that federal prosecutors are having right now.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, they didn't moderate the posts calling for violence:
47 U.S. Code  230(c)(2)(A): Civil liability: any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
IANAL, so I'm not sure this applies:
47 U.S. Code  230(e)(1): No effect on criminal law: Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
Technically, any site that doesn't moderate posts containing threats or plans for violence can be on the hook for the same treatment. What's happening now is a bit of knee-jerk reaction though, but I'm not terrible surprised since Parler could have been better at cleaning out the worst of the knuckle-draggers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You had a MAGA mob trying, incited by the President himself, to take over the Capitol last Wednesday because they didn't like the result of an election. But sure, lecture us all some more.
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:slippery slope (Score:5, Insightful)
Please describe how a private company deciding not to host another company's website after terms of service were violated is censorship again?
It's still censorship, it's not government censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Please send me the password to your account ASAP, so that I can use it to express my opinion. After all, your failure to express my opinion is censorship of my opinion.
Thanks,
Guy who you're unjustly preventing from using "phantomfive."
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
Now do it with a cake.
Insurrectionists aren't a protected class.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Parler wants a gay wedding cake and Amazon won't bake it. Amazon has 1st amendment free speech rights.
Re: (Score:2)
"this is nothing like how China and other totalitarian states run things"
"So, you're saying this is like China?"
Were you dropped on your head as a baby? Repeatedly?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you also aware how the bulk of slashdot' s left supported that because it was a Christian baker not wanting to create a gay marriage themed cake? But forcing him to do so or get fined / shut down was good?
It's a very fine line. But refusing to make a cake would be illegal under the equal protection clause. Refusing to design the cake in a specific way or in a specific theme is a free speech right. I believe the baker refused to make a wedding cake at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, OK. Not equal protection clause. It's getting late. Whatever it is I mean, it's similar in theme and everyone knows what I mean - except me because I'm too tired.
Re: (Score:2)
Bake me a cake. The court says you -have- to.
I assume you're aware of that case?
Apparently you aren't. SCOTUS sided with the baker. Alas.
Re:What they cannot control, they will ban (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wish people who quote 1984 would take some time to actually read it.