5 ms·

I do not support this action. Public safety concerns should route through law enforcement, not AWS.

by peytn 6y ago

pixl97 6y ago
Amazon can freely choose to do business with whomever they choose to. They have no legal carrier responsibility to host hate speech with violent calls to action if they choose not to do so.
- peytn 6y ago
  I am aware of that. I do not believe this action is right. I do not support it.
  - pixl97 6y ago
    Then feel free to discontinue business with Amazon.
    - peytn 6y ago
      That’s my goal this evening.
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      We're nearly at the point where "Feel free to discontinue business with Amazon" makes about as much practical sense as "Feel free to grow your own food." Makes a great quip in social media but is completely unrealistic. The reason we have government is to solve these kinds of disputes and force businesses to behave. Of course, sadly, nowadays government doesn't act fairly, and will always come down on the side of their political 'tribesmen' rather than faithfully and impartially executing the law.
wpietri 6y ago
They do. But that doesn't mean Amazon is obliged to do business with any particular group if they decide it's not in their best interests. Freedom of association is a right.
- WClayFerguson 6y ago
  What about phone companies then? Should a phone company be able to disconnect service of customers because of perfectly legal political speech? The phone companies are "free" to associate right? What everyone fails to seem to realize is that once you are a public pipe (phone, internet, etc.) for millions of Americans to communicate over there should be laws that stops you from being able to be a gatekeeper for speech just because you own the hardware. In order to be allowed to remain in operation you should be required to certify that you do not censor.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    It's not clear that the speech in question is perfectly legal. Parler is being cut off because of an inability to prevent the organization of crimes on their platform. But no, it's not clear to me that there should be laws like that. Why should a phone company be obliged to do business with the American Nazi Party? A law like that might have made sense back when a) phone companies were monopolies, and b) the telephone network was the only way for people to get in touch. But neither is true now. There are plenty of competitors to AWS. Why should the government take away the freedom of association of hosting businesses?
    - WClayFerguson 6y ago
      Well I decided yesterday to convert my own social media platform (quanta.wiki) to fully decentralized where each user runs the full system, like a blockchains. Then people can communicate as long as the internet is kept running. People like you aren't going to admit there's a problem until your own phone, power, or banking account is cut off. People on the left are happily giving up their rights and freedoms because they think the government won't come after them too some day, but if you understand history, human nature, and power, you should realize that's quite an ignorant stance.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        You're the one advocating taking away rights, bub. I'm the one saying that as a general rule, both people and their businesses have the right to free speech and free association. If you're all that concerned about government power, then why are you advocating to increase government power?

I do not support this action. Public safety concerns should route through law enforcement, not AWS.

by peytn 6y ago

I do not support this action. Public safety concerns should route through law enforcement, not AWS.

Amazon can freely choose to do business with whomever they choose to. They have no legal carrier responsibility to host hate speech with violent calls to action if they choose not to do so.

peytn 6y ago
I am aware of that. I do not believe this action is right. I do not support it.
- pixl97 6y ago
  Then feel free to discontinue business with Amazon.
  - peytn 6y ago
    That’s my goal this evening.
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    We're nearly at the point where "Feel free to discontinue business with Amazon" makes about as much practical sense as "Feel free to grow your own food." Makes a great quip in social media but is completely unrealistic. The reason we have government is to solve these kinds of disputes and force businesses to behave. Of course, sadly, nowadays government doesn't act fairly, and will always come down on the side of their political 'tribesmen' rather than faithfully and impartially executing the law.

wpietri 6y ago

They do. But that doesn't mean Amazon is obliged to do business with any particular group if they decide it's not in their best interests. Freedom of association is a right.

WClayFerguson 6y ago
What about phone companies then? Should a phone company be able to disconnect service of customers because of perfectly legal political speech? The phone companies are "free" to associate right? What everyone fails to seem to realize is that once you are a public pipe (phone, internet, etc.) for millions of Americans to communicate over there should be laws that stops you from being able to be a gatekeeper for speech just because you own the hardware. In order to be allowed to remain in operation you should be required to certify that you do not censor.
- wpietri 6y ago
  It's not clear that the speech in question is perfectly legal. Parler is being cut off because of an inability to prevent the organization of crimes on their platform. But no, it's not clear to me that there should be laws like that. Why should a phone company be obliged to do business with the American Nazi Party? A law like that might have made sense back when a) phone companies were monopolies, and b) the telephone network was the only way for people to get in touch. But neither is true now. There are plenty of competitors to AWS. Why should the government take away the freedom of association of hosting businesses?
  - WClayFerguson 6y ago
    Well I decided yesterday to convert my own social media platform (quanta.wiki) to fully decentralized where each user runs the full system, like a blockchains. Then people can communicate as long as the internet is kept running. People like you aren't going to admit there's a problem until your own phone, power, or banking account is cut off. People on the left are happily giving up their rights and freedoms because they think the government won't come after them too some day, but if you understand history, human nature, and power, you should realize that's quite an ignorant stance.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      You're the one advocating taking away rights, bub. I'm the one saying that as a general rule, both people and their businesses have the right to free speech and free association. If you're all that concerned about government power, then why are you advocating to increase government power?