Amazon shuts off Parler's servers

[98cwitr]

These electronic PLATFORMS are protected by congressionally made laws from lawsuits because of a unique arrangement.

They are to be PLATFORMS and NOT PUBLISHERS.

This is a key distinction...the individuals themselves publishing under their own name are to be held responsible for the things they publish.
IOW if Tom Gephardt says something that Nancy finds so offensive that it is libel...she can sue Tom for publishing it. She cannot sue the platform he used. The platform is supposed to just be a piece of paper and mail service all rolled into one.

You can't sue the postman or the paper in the envelope.

These Social Media giants then had an agreement that they were going to remove things posted that violated "Common Decency" standards. (They are different in every nation)

Meaning that adult materials could not be viewed by children...nor would offensive/illegal activities be promoted. (Nude/inappropriate contentographic materials on instagram or child inappropriate contentography anywhere)
Soliciting for murder or narcotics would be prohibited.
Basic community standards would be upheld so that Nancy could show pictures of the nice dinner she had the maid cook for her.

What has happened now is something that isn't unique...but just stupidity of "following the leader off a cliff".

One of these platforms (facebook) has decided to become an editor and because of this has stopped being a platform and become a publisher of ALL materials.

When you edit political rhetoric or innocuous religious speech...even de-monetizing their website... you are now a publisher. Those congressional protections will no longer apply.

And the LAWSUITS have begun. Make no mistake about it.
If the Big Four are dumb enough to take this to SCOTUS...it still isn't going to work. They are going to have to give these people enough money that it's going to hurt ALOT.

Fred Gagnon is going to be filthy rich afterwards...and because of who he is probably not stop blogging and writing. Might even become more "shocking" just for the fun of it.

Grandma will also be allowed to post her nudist day picnic photos. (Fleas come with the dog) and the white supremacists will get to spew their sewage.

And everyone will sigh and say "Remember the good old days?"

This is why Section 230 needs to be repealed

 

[Occams Barber]

Or if we go the Amazon route...maybe Twitter and Facebook should be completely shut down if they're being used? That's at least the logic that's being supported and championed when considering Parler.

That will be up to whoever owns the servers Twitter and Facebook are running on and whether they believe that the content allowed by Twitter and/or Facebook breaches their terms of service.

OB

 

[Dave G.]

We do need something a little more than the usual inappropriate contentography and leftist insanity. The only ones rebelling are the hackers, scammers and child inappropriate contentographers on the dark web. On the overt side of things we have leftists dominating everything and shutting down conservative voices, and we have even more inappropriate content. It's an evil, perverted world.

...and anyone wanting something different is labelled a right-wing extremist?

Rest assured it will get worse.

 

[JohnDB]

This is why Section 230 needs to be repealed

Repealed isn't necessary...

If there's a law covering plumbers and I decided to leave plumbing to make gas lines that has no legal protection because I hate getting wet all the time...I'm no longer protected by the laws covering plumbers.

I can whine about it and claim i should be protected...but if there's no laws...there's no laws protecting the gas man. And that house that burned down is solely my fault and I have to replace it. Plus any other damages the homeowner suffered.

 

[98cwitr]

Rest assured it will get worse.

I have already been labelled an extremist by some of my in-laws due to the fact they are now aware I have a Gadsden Flag hanging in my garage while also "believing in" (as they put it) voter fraud. I did my best to reassure them I wasn't, that the flag has a long history and a good one with a truly American message behind it, but they're not buying it. I was literally called their "enemy" in a written letter and then they quoted Matthew 5 to me, saying they still love me despite the "fact." This is getting quite crazy on a personal level.

 

[durangodawood]

....When you edit political rhetoric or innocuous religious speech...even de-monetizing their website... you are now a publisher. Those congressional protections will no longer apply....

So having decency standards on your platform makes you a publisher? Not sure I buy that.

 

[JohnDB]

That will be up to whoever owns the servers Twitter and Facebook are running on and whether they believe that the content allowed by Twitter and/or Facebook breaches their terms of service.

OB

It's not servers...
It's space in a building that houses servers. Cooled space with telecom access that has power backups.

Many server farms have shrunk in needed square footage as the equipment gets smaller. So they have rented out the space to other companies. Over the past 10 years what used to require 3200 SQ feet is now done in 100.

It won't take long for them to find space somewhere...they likely already have acquired it.

 

[98cwitr]

So having decency standards on your platform makes you a publisher? Not sure I buy that.

This isn't about decency standards...it's about political and economic bias. The excuses Amazon is publishing do not warrant a shutting down of servers to silence everyone on the platform.

 

[JohnDB]

I have already been labelled an extremist by some of my in-laws due to the fact they are now aware I have a Gadsden Flag hanging in my garage while also "believing in" (as they put it) voter fraud. I did my best to reassure them I wasn't, that the flag has a long history and a good one with a truly American message behind it, but they're not buying it. I was literally called their "enemy" in a written letter and then they quoted Matthew 5 to me, saying they still love me despite the "fact." This is getting quite crazy on a personal level.

Oh you heretic you...ROFL.
,(It's sarcasm...not a real accusation)

Yeah I completely agree...the level of false accusations are way over the top anymore.

Does anyone remember when rhetoric was considered rhetoric and not truth?
When did the switch take place?

 

[Occams Barber]

Rest assured it will get worse.

If most threatening post are deleted quickly and serial offenders are denied access, then chances are a lot of this aggravation will die down.

Things may actually get better or, at least, get no worse.

OB

 

[durangodawood]

This isn't about decency standards...it's about political and economic bias. The excuses Amazon is publishing do not warrant a shutting down of servers to silence everyone on the platform.

Except Amazon doesnt get to be the moderator. Their claim is Parler fails to moderate. So their only way for Amazon to disconnect from the awful content is to release Parler entirely. In principle at least this seems a fair rationale.

 

[Occams Barber]

This isn't about decency standards...it's about political and economic bias. The excuses Amazon is publishing do not warrant a shutting down of servers to silence everyone on the platform.

Since Amazon can't shut down individual Parler users and Parler will not do it, what choice does Amazon have?

OB

 

[98cwitr]

Except Amazon doesnt get to be the moderator. Their claim is Parler fails to moderate. So their only way for Amazon to disconnect from the awful content is to release Parler entirely. In principle at least this seems a fair rationale.

Let's run down this logic, but use say "Capital One" as the example and not Parler. Capital One has no policy for people using their services to purchase a Nazi flag (or tactical gear, or pick something that is protected under the Constitution or is legal [for now]), for example. Would it be in line, since Capital One isn't stopping the purchase of "hateful" or "paramilitary" items, then should Amazon shut off Capital One's servers?

See the slippery slope yet?

 

[98cwitr]

Since Amazon can't shut down individual Parler users and Parler will not do it, what choice does Amazon have?

OB

The fair choice? To see that their customer, Parler, is within their rights to run their service how they wish, and to give them the decency to vacate to another platform to avoid interruption in service to their customers. That didn't happen.

 

[JohnDB]

The fair choice? To see that their customer, Parler, is within their rights to run their service how they wish, and to give them the decency to vacate to another platform to avoid interruption in service to their customers. That didn't happen.

Here's the problem...
If Parler doesn't exercise any controls for age discrimination...then Amazon can get in real trouble for distribution of inappropriate contentography to a minor and be labeled as a sex offender.

 

[durangodawood]

Let's run down this logic, but use say "Capital One" as the example and not Parler. Capital One has no policy for people using their services to purchase a Nazi flag (or tactical gear, or pick something that is protected under the Constitution or is legal [for now]), for example. Would it be in line, since Capital One isn't stopping the purchase of "hateful" or "paramilitary" items, then should Amazon shut off Capital One's servers?

See the slippery slope yet?

I think the difference is that Amazon is concerned about the propagation of actual violent threats against other people, which is different than just owning distasteful objects.

 

[98cwitr]

Here's the problem...
If Parler doesn't exercise any controls for age discrimination...then Amazon can get in real trouble for distribution of inappropriate contentography to a minor and be labeled as a sex offender.

As in any cloud service, the customer "owns" the data, whereas the provider "owns" the infrastructure. I see your point, but it wouldn't hold up in court.

 

[Michael]

Which is what gab has done...

But that doesn't mean platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Apple etc. doesn't hold a monopoly on speech platforms in the U.S. and have now proven they have more power than the president of the United States.

That's something quite frightening in reality, and something that needs to be addressed.

When only one side of the conversation is heard, elections and other democratic processes are in very real danger.

We are against book burnings, and this is no different from a modern day book burning.

These people on the left have near total domination over all speech, all media, centers of education, and over all that's called "truth"... this is Hitler's wet dream come to life.. and it should frighten anyone.

"No shoes, no shirt, no service."

First of all, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple are all *different* companies, not one, so there is no 'monopoly' even if there are a limited number of 'popular' ways to share data on the internet at the moment.

Secondly, almost everyone has terms of service, including CF. If you break the rules at CF, you're banned from forums, or banned from the website entirely. Such "policies" and enforcement of polices are the norm on the internet, not the exception.

Lastly, as you noted, Gab and others have simply created their own servers so they are not at the mercy of Amazon, or anyone else in terms of providing them with "services" which require adherence to various policies.

I don't like censorship, but it's the right of every private business to set their own policies. It's not unusual.

 

[JackRT]

yet when a single customer in the US does something they don't like (like permit free speech) they shut them down?

As has been frequently pointed out, the constitutional free speech protections apply only to attempted government suppression of free speech. Twitter and Facebook and the like are not government. They are free enterprise companies providing a free service to the general public and they have every right to set their own rules and suspend services for violations. Personally, I think it is far past time that hate speech and promotion of violence were banned by social media,

 

[iluvatar5150]

Do you even know whose being removed from Facebook right now? Yesterday morning a 2,600 member private group on Facebook, made up solely of veterans of the Coast Guard who speak among themselves in their little group, was taken down by Facebook...

They aren't right wing extremists who are being silenced... they are normal, average people... they just have more conservative opinions politically.

Source?

I have already been labelled an extremist by some of my in-laws due to the fact they are now aware I have a Gadsden Flag hanging in my garage while also "believing in" (as they put it) voter fraud. I did my best to reassure them I wasn't, that the flag has a long history and a good one with a truly American message behind it, but they're not buying it. I was literally called their "enemy" in a written letter and then they quoted Matthew 5 to me, saying they still love me despite the "fact." This is getting quite crazy on a personal level.

I've seen enough of your posts to know that you at least flirt with the ideas that fuel extremism, with the election fraud thing being a pretty good example. I don't necessarily condone your family's response, but your ideas are often neither mainstream, nor reasonable.