3 ms·
Amazon employees call for company to cut ties with Parler
- Darmody 6y agoYeah, a good idea. What could go wrong?
- ve55 6y agoUnfortunately it's hard to convince anyone they should care while they're enjoying seeing their enemies being deplatformed. The smart choice for Amazon imo is to defer the decision to others, as much as it's obviously not a full solution and has its own issues. No one wants to be the moderator of the Internet and be blamed for all of our world's problems, and the lower level the provider is (e.g. servers/ISPs), the worse it may end up.
- siruncledrew 6y agoIt’s all fun and games when it’s happening to people that someone hates until it comes back around.
- cecja 6y agoIf we take Parler as an example we will be left with the "Fourth Reich". I'll take your FUD if we can escape this one.
- pmiller2 6y agoApparently nothing, as the article states Amazon has a history of doing similar things with a fundraising site associated with Gab.
- stale2002 6y agoSo, it is one thing to talk about social media companies banning people. There are quite a lot of social media platforms out there to choose from, so I don't really believe that people banned from them are truly "deplatformed". But it is quite another thing to advocate for internet infrastructure to take down websites that have not been proven to be illegal in any court of law. Common carrier laws already exist, and apply to things like water pipes, the telephone network, and electricity. IMO, it is time for those existing common carrier laws to be applied to critical internet infrastructure, if they do not apply already.
- supergirl 6y agosocial media should also be considered infrastructure. but not only social media. everything we use online. email is another obvious example. there are 1000s of email providers, but migrating is a pain. for example, I can easily switch mobile provider because by law I can keep using the same phone number. that should also apply to email. I write a lot more emails than make phone calls so the law needs an update. same for social media. I should be able to easily move from provider to provider. if twitter bans me, I can move to another one and keep my handle and followers and messages. why should twitter be allowed to ban people at their discretion? they are just a medium at this point. the content that is being generated has nothing to do with twitter. the electrical company doesn't care what I use their electricity for. I could be using it to commit a crime and they still wouldn't ban me (as long as I pay of course).
- Gibbon1 6y agoIf people are using your services to plan criminal acts you have an absolute right to kick them off.
- dilyevsky 6y agoAws is not internet infrastructure, not by a long shot. Even actual internet infrastructure is now free to discriminate however they please thanks to trump. Shouldn’t throw stones when you live in a glass house...
- fred_is_fred 6y agoAre you suggesting that companies should be required to provide services to people actively advocating assassination and terrorism?
- supergirl 6y agowould be tragic if the cloud providers start removing apps on a whim, as the app stores do. so far they've been pretty neutral (e.g. I think they didn't remove pornhub but they could have and no one would object much).
- bra-ket 6y agoWhen can we move '1984' to the non-fiction section?