3 ms·

these are explicitly illegal activities with clearly argued jurisprudence. perhaps what parler hosted was illegal, but that should be up to a court to decide, n

these are explicitly illegal activities with clearly argued jurisprudence. perhaps what parler hosted was illegal, but that should be up to a court to decide, not amazon.

chillwaves 6y ago
18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
- billy_beef 6y ago
  I'm not exactly disagreeing that maybe parler should be taken to task, but amazon should not be the ones to do it. although, the historical application of the insurrection act has been incredibly political and inconsistent (the pullman strikes), so citing it as the primary reason for booting parler seems a little suspect to me.
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    They were literally talking about/planning on attacking the process of peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next. I'm pretty sure you know why this cannot be tolerated.
cal5k 6y ago
I also think there's an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance from people who staunchly defend Section 230, then turn around and cite comments submitted by users as an excuse to shut down the entire platform. There's no way in hell they're able to keep up with the moderation requirements given how fast the platform must be growing right now. I don't even like Parler, but I think this is a dangerous, dangerous precedent that will only turn up the temperature.
- billy_beef 6y ago
  strong agree. I don't exactly want to been seen as defending parler here. I think what amazon is doing is creating a dangerous precedent, regardless of whether parler is as odious as I've been led to believe it is.

these are explicitly illegal activities with clearly argued jurisprudence. perhaps what parler hosted was illegal, but that should be up to a court to decide, not amazon.

chillwaves 6y ago

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

billy_beef 6y ago
I'm not exactly disagreeing that maybe parler should be taken to task, but amazon should not be the ones to do it. although, the historical application of the insurrection act has been incredibly political and inconsistent (the pullman strikes), so citing it as the primary reason for booting parler seems a little suspect to me.
- chillwaves 6y ago
  They were literally talking about/planning on attacking the process of peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next. I'm pretty sure you know why this cannot be tolerated.

cal5k 6y ago

I also think there's an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance from people who staunchly defend Section 230, then turn around and cite comments submitted by users as an excuse to shut down the entire platform. There's no way in hell they're able to keep up with the moderation requirements given how fast the platform must be growing right now. I don't even like Parler, but I think this is a dangerous, dangerous precedent that will only turn up the temperature.

billy_beef 6y ago
strong agree. I don't exactly want to been seen as defending parler here. I think what amazon is doing is creating a dangerous precedent, regardless of whether parler is as odious as I've been led to believe it is.