I was wondering if you were online to see it and thinking about that comment. I was really surprised to read that, AWS is another level beyond social media de-platforming. Wouldn't there be other harmful things hosted on AWS? Who governs this?
People weren’t and aren’t up in arms when Isis gets deplatformed.
Obviously, we aren't talking about people actually plotting attacks though.
One might object "Sure, enforcement is not perfect and some bad actors will get by. But at least we are removing some things instead of nothing!", and while they are right about this as a first-order effect, they are missing what happens afterwards: people will, rightfully so, identity that policies are not evenly enforced, and this can have many further effects down the line.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Free speech is in grave danger
Congress completed their duties later in the evening.
Why are you apologizing for the insurrection's actions?
In particular, free speech only applies to speech you don't like, because nobody is attempting to shut down memes of cute kittens.
For economy to work, large number of people who dislike each other need to cooperate, so it is generally a good strategy for the society to arrange consequences in such a way as to not cause escalating chain of feud.
If there’s a bar where the owner lets a gang hang out and recruit members and plans crimes, the thing to do is shut down that bar. Not let it go unchecked because the gang will be mad about it.
That said, Parler is not being shut down.
Also, Section 230 has nothing to do with AWS’s relationship with Parler.
Then the thing to do is call the police, not gather a mob to shut down the bar.
If people openly plan violence on Parler, then shutting it down will only make it harder for police to prevent it.
Parler’s business partners are abandoning it, sure, but that’s by no means a “mob”. It’s much more akin to the bar’s suppliers refusing to sell it ingredients for drinks, if we want to stick with this analogy.
AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
Disagree, loud and resolute by all means, but stifle not the discourse, lest civility lapse to violence.
Do you see a substantial difference between your statement and the one above?
This is more like dropping a person from club membership due to incompatible views or behaviors.
In fact, in 1986, the California ACLU sued a restaurant for excluding Nazis, under California anti-discrimination laws.
The restaurant settled.
http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-ca...
And I agree the settlement doesn’t prove the claim was valid. But why would protection matter less when you’re wearing the garb of the political view you’re trying to express?
If the law is trying to protect unpopular political views from being excluded in public services, it matters the most precisely when they’re wearing MAGA hats or Newsom 2022 pins.
Private censorship is still censorship, particularly when the public square is privately owned.
if we can't stop the tit for tat between left and right from escalating further I truly fear for this country.
I can't even go out and speak in a public square, because it's illegal. Internet censorship by corporations is still censorship.
(moronically but nonetheless - amen:a-woman? Hate speech? Removing gendered terms while insisting on identifying as a gender)
Look up New Speak from 1984. This is where we are, and where the Party wants us to be :-)
I agree, it's a very complicated issue, and there will be repercussions, but that shouldn't stop a company from taking down this sort of thing. No reasonable company wants to be associated with this. Especially if people on Parler are planning something worse in the future.
Does this look like a buncb of people dancing around?
It's not punishing all Parler users for the actions of a small group on Parler, it's punishing Parler itself for failing to keep that small group from breaking its own rules, along with Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, etc. I don't see anything wrong with that.