Amazon shuts off Parler's servers

[RDKirk]

They just took the presidency and both houses of congress. Tell us more about how they are unable to win.

I still suspect the social media companies have been advised by their lawyers that they could be sued by surviving relatives as enablers in wrongful deaths if they didn't show "due diligence" in cutting Trump's ability to rouse his rabble.

 

[Erik Nelson]

"prosecuted more journalists than all other administrations combined" [paraphrase]

Glenn Greenwald: Obama started war with media, not Trump [VIDEO] (washingtonexaminer.com)

 

[Erik Nelson]

They just took the presidency and both houses of congress. Tell us more about how they are unable to win.

what about the "open debate" ("democracy") part ?

 

[Belk]

what about the "open debate" ("democracy") part ?

That would be the part where they won the elections. You know, the thing no one is claiming was rigged in the senate races.

 

[cow451]

what about the "open debate" ("democracy") part ?

What about it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Parler users say their goodbyes as site taken down: "FREE SPEECH WILL WIN"



Is this anti-trust? Another instance of a private company having all rights to simply deny service to another? Thoughts?

I don't know....I'm not on Parler or Twitter....

I do remember the common response from many liberals when conservatives complained about being censored by Twitter. It was basically "go make your own Twitter".

Well conservatives did that....and apparently they're still being censored.

If big tech companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter basically have total control over all free speech social media apps.....then perhaps they should be broken up to allow for competition within the market.

Monopolies are good for no one....and they obviously aren't good for free speech.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know....I'm not on Parler or Twitter....

I do remember the common response from many liberals when conservatives complained about being censored by Twitter. It was basically "go make your own Twitter".

Well conservatives did that....and apparently they're still being censored.

If big tech companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter basically have total control over all free speech social media apps.....then perhaps they should be broken up to allow for competition within the market.

Monopolies are good for no one....and they obviously aren't good for free speech.

There ain't no monopoly. There are more new social media platforms in the competition every year: Instagram, TikTok, even MySpace is still out there.

There's no reason other than lack of real intention that conservatives can't set up their own server farms and host their own social media platform. Individuals do it...they then just upscale server-by-server to meet their growing clientele. If the market is actually there, then they can either charge their subscribers a fee, sell advertising, or sell subscriber data (as the other social media platforms do).

Pirate Bay is a website that has been ruthlessly hunted for years by every nation on the planet. They can find no home anywhere...yet they're still online. The founder of Pirate Bay thinks Parler and its supporters are a bunch of puny whiners.

Pirate Bay Founder Thinks Parler’s Inability to Stay Online Is ‘Embarrassing’

 

[variant]

I don't know....I'm not on Parler or Twitter....

I do remember the common response from many liberals when conservatives complained about being censored by Twitter. It was basically "go make your own Twitter".

Well conservatives did that....and apparently they're still being censored.

If big tech companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter basically have total control over all free speech social media apps.....then perhaps they should be broken up to allow for competition within the market.

Monopolies are good for no one....and they obviously aren't good for free speech.

When the folks on the right wing want to make internet access for free speech purposes a basic protected right available to all, and break cooperate monopolies in tech allowing for free and fair internet access, I will be fully behind them.

I'm not too keen on having no recourse for a platform for what Parler was allowing but there should be a set way that such complaints like that are adjudicated rather than simply having it arbitrated by whatever amazon thinks is best.

The current suggested idea is to simply allow lawsuits over user generated content, which I am not interested in seeing because I don't think it really fixes or addresses the problem.

 

[tall73]

I don't know....I'm not on Parler or Twitter....

I do remember the common response from many liberals when conservatives complained about being censored by Twitter. It was basically "go make your own Twitter".

Well conservatives did that....and apparently they're still being censored.

If big tech companies like Google and Facebook and Twitter basically have total control over all free speech social media apps.....then perhaps they should be broken up to allow for competition within the market.

Monopolies are good for no one....and they obviously aren't good for free speech.

After Gab was deplatformed years ago Parler had to know it was a liability to work with a major platform instead of developing their own. After Gab built back up they were in a position to receive many folks looking for a platform.

I think for Amazon under the current structure they are in little danger of law suits as section 230 has given protection for such platforms. However, politicians have put them in a difficult situation in which on the one side some complain about viewpoint discrimination, and on the other some complain about not enough removal of incitement, hate speech etc.

There has been talk from various politicians regarding section 230 reform, which could put all of them out of business. So what at times looks like coordination to deplatform may be more coordination to save the industry from section 230 reform.

The perception of parler as toxic, and pressure to act both from their own employees, and politicians likely made the decision necessary from their standpoint.

They probably also looked at the political shift and realized that the Trump administration which was more interested in viewpoint discrimination is out, and now they have to guard more against politicians who feel they are not doing enough to prevent illegal, or distasteful speech.

If they are viewed as doing so out of good faith actions on their own part they are less likely to incur a change of the legislative framework which has helped them tremendously.

 

[Ana the Ist]

When the folks on the right wing want to make internet access for free speech purposes a basic protected right available to all, and break cooperate monopolies in tech allowing for free and fair internet access, I will be fully behind them.

I'm not too keen on having no recourse for a platform for what Parler was allowing but there should be a set way that such complaints like that are adjudicated rather than simply having it arbitrated by whatever amazon thinks is best.

The current suggested idea is to simply allow lawsuits over user generated content, which I am not interested in seeing because I don't think it really fixes or addresses the problem.

Yeah....I'm not exactly sure what the best solution is. I used to be of the mind that corporations are the ones who rightly decide what content to allow....but it's quickly becoming obvious that they capitulate to governments like China just because China doesn't allow free access to their markets.

The end result is that instead of our government limiting free speech...or even our businesses limiting free speech....China decides what we get to say and what we don't.

Personally, I'd rather have to put up with every type of bigot, racist, political extremist, and troll than allow a foreign government to decide the limits of free speech in the US.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There ain't no monopoly. There are more new social media platforms in the competition every year: Instagram, TikTok, even MySpace is still out there.

No...I'm afraid it's not that simple. If these companies are the "taxis" that we get to choose from, Google is the road they all drive on.

If Google and Amazon decide to bury a competitor.....that competitor isn't going to get off the ground. It doesn't matter if they provide a service everyone wants.

The internet today isn't the open ground it was 20 years ago.

 

[Ana the Ist]

After Gab was deplatformed years ago Parler had to know it was a liability to work with a major platform instead of developing their own. After Gab built back up they were in a position to receive many folks looking for a platform.

I think for Amazon under the current structure they are in little danger of law suits as section 230 has given protection for such platforms. However, politicians have put them in a difficult situation in which on the one side some complain about viewpoint discrimination, and on the other some complain about not enough removal of incitement, hate speech etc.

There has been talk from various politicians regarding section 230 reform, which could put all of them out of business. So what at times looks like coordination to deplatform may be more coordination to save the industry from section 230 reform.

The perception of parler as toxic, and pressure to act both from their own employees, and politicians likely made the decision necessary from their standpoint.

They probably also looked at the political shift and realized that the Trump administration which was more interested in viewpoint discrimination is out, and now they have to guard more against politicians who feel they are not doing enough to prevent illegal, or distasteful speech.

If they are viewed as doing so out of good faith actions on their own part they are less likely to incur a change of the legislative framework which has helped them tremendously.

Does the government have the right to demand these platforms censor otherwise legal content? Hate speech is protected. Incitement to violence is a pretty high legal standard. If I remember correctly, the violence has to be immediate.

Certainly the government can demand that a platform guard against actual crimes like child inappropriate contentography....but limiting other types of speech seems like it should be unconstitutional.

 

[RDKirk]

No...I'm afraid it's not that simple. If these companies are the "taxis" that we get to choose from, Google is the road they all drive on.

If Google and Amazon decide to bury a competitor.....that competitor isn't going to get off the ground. It doesn't matter if they provide a service everyone wants.

The internet today isn't the open ground it was 20 years ago.

That's not true. Now, if all the Internet service providers--the people who own the transmission infrastructure-- in the country get on board, you would have a point. But Google and Amazon as hosts can only be bigger. They cannot prevent anyone from setting up a server and hosting a social media service.

 

[tall73]

Does the government have the right to demand these platforms censor otherwise legal content? Hate speech is protected. Incitement to violence is a pretty high legal standard. If I remember correctly, the violence has to be immediate.

Certainly the government can demand that a platform guard against actual crimes like child inappropriate contentography....but limiting other types of speech seems like it should be unconstitutional.

I am not arguing they should. I am arguing they could. Broadcast TV and radio still have limits on indecent and profane content for instance.

But the more pressing problem for the platforms is the clearly illegal speech. They can't catch it all even with algorithms. Currently they are not required to except in cases where they are aware of material supporting trafficking, etc., due to revision in 2018, and some copyright material. But they still try to remove it, and are protected when removing content through 230, so that they are not then considered a publisher.

That is why I argued that Amazon's actions were hypocritical considering they also provide support services to Twitter, who also had and continues to have incitement.

However, they may be trying to guard against politicians over reaching because the perception of Parler was worse than Twitter.

 

[variant]

Yeah....I'm not exactly sure what the best solution is. I used to be of the mind that corporations are the ones who rightly decide what content to allow....but it's quickly becoming obvious that they capitulate to governments like China just because China doesn't allow free access to their markets.

The end result is that instead of our government limiting free speech...or even our businesses limiting free speech....China decides what we get to say and what we don't.

Personally, I'd rather have to put up with every type of bigot, racist, political extremist, and troll than allow a foreign government to decide the limits of free speech in the US.

So, I think there should be some guarantee of reasonable accomodation of speech on platforms with a well defined process for the platform to remove items.

I would rather not require Amazon to service plaforms that don't remove speech calling for violence for instance but I don't think Amazon should arbitrarily drop people for any reason.