|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 12 2021 07:24 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 07:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Parler is suing Amazon. By my estimation, Amazon likely has 10x the number of lawyers as Parler has employees. There's no way Amazon doesn't have a clause saying they can cancel service for any reason whatsoever. And here we go: Show nested quote +If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) ("Prohibited Content"), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may remove or disable access to any Prohibited Content without prior notice in connection with illegal content, where the content may disrupt or threaten the Services or in accordance with applicable law or any judicial, regulatory or other governmental order or request. In the event that we remove Your Content without prior notice, we will provide prompt notice to you unless prohibited by law. We terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances. I think that "reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law," applies so... "If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content." takes effect. Parler is starting from behind against one of the richest companies in the world. Good luck. Even if they won against Amazon, they'd have to win against one of either Google or Apple in court too, and I don't see Parler having deep enough pockets to win lawsuits against 2 of the big 5 tech companies.
My understanding is that (as much as I hate it normally) Amazon is so giant they could essentially make this take long enough to where Parler's employees are homeless anyway. But they also appear safe regardless of their gargantuan size.
Edit: I see the Parler situation the same as Trump's. They are so screwed at this point that it makes sense to do anything and everything. Parler is 100% dead, no 2 ways about it, unless they win against Amazon. They may as well fight this fight since they have absolutely nothing otherwise.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Between the security leaks, the significant cost of retooling around not-AWS, and the reputational hit from the social media scandal, I expect Parler is finished as a business, so it's going to be a holding company for ongoing lawsuits from here on out.
Guess I wasn't wrong to ask about lawsuits since Parler thought the same thing. *shrug*
|
|
|
Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship.
The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul.
Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen.
I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship?
|
United States42870 Posts
On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:
Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship?
This is a leading question. I don’t trust big tech when it comes to censorship but what they’re doing isn’t censorship, it’s curating their customer list for PR reasons. Businesses are amoral entities that serve only their shareholders, they’re not interested in public good or public ill, only the bottom line. You’re politicizing a decision that was made for apolitical reasons.
|
I think you raise very valid points Danglars. Tech companies do have way too much power. In the one hand, they can't keep ignoring the ocean of hatred, lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories that have flourished on their platforms in recent years. On the other hand, by having them clean up that mess, we give them an enormous power that they are really not meant to handle and have no legitimacy to hold.
It's an impossible equation. What is certain is that the era of laisser faire is gone, and that's certainly a good thing.
|
On January 12 2021 07:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 07:24 Lmui wrote:On January 12 2021 07:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Parler is suing Amazon. By my estimation, Amazon likely has 10x the number of lawyers as Parler has employees. There's no way Amazon doesn't have a clause saying they can cancel service for any reason whatsoever. And here we go: If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) ("Prohibited Content"), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may remove or disable access to any Prohibited Content without prior notice in connection with illegal content, where the content may disrupt or threaten the Services or in accordance with applicable law or any judicial, regulatory or other governmental order or request. In the event that we remove Your Content without prior notice, we will provide prompt notice to you unless prohibited by law. We terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances. I think that "reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law," applies so... "If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content." takes effect. Parler is starting from behind against one of the richest companies in the world. Good luck. Even if they won against Amazon, they'd have to win against one of either Google or Apple in court too, and I don't see Parler having deep enough pockets to win lawsuits against 2 of the big 5 tech companies. My understanding is that (as much as I hate it normally) Amazon is so giant they could essentially make this take long enough to where Parler's employees are homeless anyway. But they also appear safe regardless of their gargantuan size. Edit: I see the Parler situation the same as Trump's. They are so screwed at this point that it makes sense to do anything and everything. Parler is 100% dead, no 2 ways about it, unless they win against Amazon. They may as well fight this fight since they have absolutely nothing otherwise.
Yeah, I know Parler isn't going to win. Amazon's just too big for that to happen.
My point was more that even if Parler won vs Amazon, it wouldn't matter because their userbase is gone because the app is gone from appstores. You can sideload on android, but the barrier for entry for doing that is incredibly high relative to the average android user. This means that to get any form of user base, you'd have to win a lawsuit against Apple/Google as well to get back onto their official appstores, which is just as high of a barrier as winning a lawsuit against Amazon.
|
On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship. The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul. https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1348704337363673092Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen. I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship?
Let them eat gay cakes.
|
|
|
On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship. The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul. https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1348704337363673092Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen. I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship?
I don't agree with the decision, but being heard by a media company is not a human right.
Websites, newspapers and publishers have absolute power to decide what they want to publish and not. If nobody wants to publish your recording, book or article then tough luck, but you are free to do it yourself.
Social mass media has to be more regulated to be in line with other outlets. That half of GOP still believes the election was stolen tells me this can not continue.
|
So Parler is bank rolled by another Billionaire, Rebekah Mercer, who's husband bank rolled Cambridge Analytica. So I'm guessing they're also going to be losing money in the lawsuit they brought forward to Amazon. Can't wait to see them crushed once more.
|
On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:
Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship.
The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul.
Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen.
I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship? So its a problem when tech companies do it, but applauded when a baker does it?
Why does a baker get to decide who he will or will not bake a cake for, but Amazon, Google or Twitter don't get to decide who they have as a customer?
|
Probably worth noting that close to nobody sides wholeheartedly with Amazon, Google, or Twitter when it comes to exercising their power as a massive and incredibly influential company. The tech sector has been very conveniently unregulated since forever. But it is a matter of fact that they are also private companies who can do whatever they wish with their platform, including banning the president for inciting violence on the capitol. As Kwark says, they do it purely for the bottom line, so it's not as if there's some grand conspiracy at play. Simply the free market in action.
Nobody is infringing on Trump's 1st Amendment rights, because there is no government entity at play. He still has every right to hold a good old fashioned press conference if he has something to say in his capacity as the president.
|
On January 12 2021 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:
Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship.
The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul.
Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen.
I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship? So its a problem when tech companies do it, but applauded when a baker does it? Why does a baker get to decide who he will or will not bake a cake for, but Amazon, Google or Twitter don't get to decide who they have as a customer?
For the same reason it's a problem if the NYT says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and it isn't if a Kebab shop puts a 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' poster on their door.
The issue with the bakery wasn't that they refused a customer, it was the reason for which they refused service.
|
On January 12 2021 08:50 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:
Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship.
The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul.
Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen.
I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship? So its a problem when tech companies do it, but applauded when a baker does it? Why does a baker get to decide who he will or will not bake a cake for, but Amazon, Google or Twitter don't get to decide who they have as a customer? For the same reason it's a problem if the NYT says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and it isn't if a Kebab shop puts a 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' poster on their door. The issue with the bakery wasn't that they refused a customer, it was the reason for which they refused service.
It's weird that you equate a hypothetical where lying about something that never happened with the president being banned for egging on a violent coup that most certainly did happen. I don't begin to see how this is a salient analogy.
|
On January 12 2021 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 08:50 Dan HH wrote:On January 12 2021 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:
Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship.
The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul.
Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen.
I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship? So its a problem when tech companies do it, but applauded when a baker does it? Why does a baker get to decide who he will or will not bake a cake for, but Amazon, Google or Twitter don't get to decide who they have as a customer? For the same reason it's a problem if the NYT says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and it isn't if a Kebab shop puts a 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' poster on their door. The issue with the bakery wasn't that they refused a customer, it was the reason for which they refused service. It's weird that you equate a hypothetical where lying about something that never happened with the president being banned for egging on a violent coup that most certainly did happen. I don't begin to see how this is a salient analogy.
My point is that size matters when it comes to responsibility. I don't see any problem with holding a platform that hundreds of millions rely on to different standards than a small forum.
As much as I disagree with Danglars' stance on the bakery, it's a different situation entirely.
|
When I read about Republican outrage over people being banned, it is truly bizarre. It's like they don't even remember a world before Twitter. People get banned from forums because they are shitbags. Now Twitter is banning shitbags too.
|
Northern Ireland25538 Posts
On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship. The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul. https://twitter.com/MattWelch/status/1348704337363673092Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen. I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship?
No I do not trust anyone to do this. Not purely on a moral sense, I think it’s pragmatically borderline impossible to moderate content in any kind of consistent and non-arbitrary manner.
Big tech as it currently exists is as close to a truly unbreakable monopoly as I can really think of. There has been quite some time to rein that in and it hasn’t been done, indeed it’s been enabled by an increasingly global world where a company can evade billions in tax by setting up shop across the globe and be welcomed where it lands.
While I share your concerns in this domain, I’m rather pessimistic that any kind of joined-up regulation is even possible now and we’re just going to have to suck up the capriciousness of whatever x company feels like doing at any particular point in time.
Frankly from browsing Parler to see what kind of stuff had migrated there, I have no particular issue with the more mainstream platforms scrubbing that stuff
|
On January 12 2021 09:04 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2021 08:54 NewSunshine wrote:On January 12 2021 08:50 Dan HH wrote:On January 12 2021 08:41 Gorsameth wrote:On January 12 2021 07:48 Danglars wrote:
Amazon shows in a court of law the Parler posts that threaten violence against identifiable individuals and groups and lose. They're not the example that will be important in the coming conversation about big tech censorship.
The overreach in de-platforming is the larger issue. Take Ron Paul.
Take a twitter account I used to follow before the recent ban, almost exclusively devoted to articles and research into Trump-Russia investigation, that went by handle Techno_Fog. Banned without explanation from twitter, never encouraged violence, never tweeted about the vote being stolen.
I don't really see the Parler case leading to anything major, outside of people rethinking what if arguments from "make your own platform if you're dissatisfied to theirs" into "make your own internet hosting company if you want to create an alternative platform." It's kind of important that people first see the results of big tech censorship acting as a group, even if the instigating event makes it quasi-justifiable. Then the question becomes, what if the same action were taken against individuals that simply attended a Trump rally? Or if the speech called incitement to violence was "abortion is murder" or "trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports?" Do you have recourse and do you trust big tech companies to always behave responsibly when it comes to censorship? So its a problem when tech companies do it, but applauded when a baker does it? Why does a baker get to decide who he will or will not bake a cake for, but Amazon, Google or Twitter don't get to decide who they have as a customer? For the same reason it's a problem if the NYT says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and it isn't if a Kebab shop puts a 'Saddam has weapons of mass destruction' poster on their door. The issue with the bakery wasn't that they refused a customer, it was the reason for which they refused service. It's weird that you equate a hypothetical where lying about something that never happened with the president being banned for egging on a violent coup that most certainly did happen. I don't begin to see how this is a salient analogy. My point is that size matters when it comes to responsibility. I don't see any problem with holding a platform that hundreds of millions rely on to different standards than a small forum. As much as I disagree with Danglars' stance on the bakery, it's a different situation entirely.
Sure, I don't disagree in theory. I don't personally like how huge a handful of social media companies are, and how much power they have to look after their own interests at the expense of basically everything else. But also, what's the other standard they could be holding Trump to? He got the boiler-plate response for violating their rules. It should've happened years ago. Part of it is also holding Trump responsible to his own example as a citizen.
|
On January 12 2021 09:06 Mohdoo wrote:
When I read about Republican outrage over people being banned, it is truly bizarre. It's like they don't even remember a world before Twitter. People get banned from forums because they are shitbags. Now Twitter is banning shitbags too.
To be fair. There are tons of (far) leftist personas that weren't and aren't banned and its therefore easy for the far right to victimise itself.
I have absolutely no symphaty for any of the banned people, if anything these plattforms should act way quicker against all agitators. The far right is imho much worse but well, reddit doesn't care about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fpresto%2F2020%2F05%2F04%2FPPHX%2F79974ffc-f059-4365-a7e8-7e55aff39817-Open_AZ_Rally_1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D680%26height%3D510%26fit%3Dbounds%26auto%3Dwebp&f=1&nofb=1)
