7 ms·

>we managed our own boxes. The logic is that "your own boxes" is just another layer in the stack of places private companies can deny doing business with you.

>we managed our own boxes. The logic is that "your own boxes" is just another layer in the stack of places private companies can deny doing business with you. Did you manufacture those boxes yourself, from the silicon up? If you didn't, you better hope you don't get blacklisted by parts suppliers. >You cannot change your race by "doing it yourself". The analogy is: if she didn't like being denied because of her race, she should have started her own busline. Of course, we have laws in place that say you can't deny someone service based on race. That's great, and solves that problem. So tell me what law Parler broke? Has it been proven in court? Or did a private company decide that on their own? Why should they have that power? I mean, I'm not naive; I understand what Parler is/was trying to do, and it's gross. But the process shouldn't be arbitrary, at the whims of liability protected pseudo-monopolies.

kingdomcome50 6y ago
Sure we can move the goalposts. No, we did not mine for our own minerals. What is your point? If our company was unable to secure hardware it would have ceased to exist. A shame for the company, its employees, and clients, but that's business. > The analogy is: if she didn't like being denied because of her race, she should have started her own busline. Right. The above is not summarizing the reason why our society has a problem with the events that occurred. The problem is why Rose Parks was denied service. It has nothing to do with her ability to start her own bus line. Does that make sense? Again, the analogy is completely missing the point. > So tell me what law Parler broke? I have no idea nor the inclination to investigate. They don't need to break a law for another business to cut ties. This happens all. the. time. Your problem seems to be a case of "this instance is different than the rest". If you have a problem with antitrust behavior, argue that. You aren't going anywhere with this line of logic.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >Sure we can move the goalposts. Nobody is moving goalposts. The point is that there's always another layer of service providers that can cancel you, some of which are monopolists. If you think that's fine, or "just business", good for you. I do not. >What is your point? People shouldn't be able to put you out of business because they have more power and don't like you. >Does that make sense? Again, the analogy is completely missing the point. You're overthinking things. For the third time: "If you don't like it, build your own competitor" -- oft-repeated-- is a ridiculous statement in most cases. No one is going to build their own App Store, Play Store, Facebook..or yes, bus line. I'm glad you can poke holes in an off-hand analogy though. It was never intended to be a literal 1-1 translation, with Parler filling the role of Rosa Parks. >They don't need to break a law for another business to cut ties. This is news. Thanks. (edited to remove much sarcasm)
  - kingdomcome50 6y ago
    > If you don't like it, build your own competitor That is fundamental axiom of free-market capitalism. How do you think it is supposed to work? I'm trying to imagine a system where competition doesn't exist... oh wait. It's called "Communism". > People shouldn't be able to put you out of business because they have more power and don't like you. You must be young. "I have a bridge to sell you". In 15 years you'll better-understand how the world works and your idealism now will feel rather foolish in retrospect. I'll leave it at that. > some of which are monopolists I think this is actually what you are meaning to argue against. Just poorly. There is nothing wrong with a company deciding that the profit they derive from selling me widgets eclipses the losses they realize elsewhere, and to therefore end the relationship. This literally happens constantly. I could give you an example last month where we had to end a relationship with a client because they are a competitor to a bigger (more profitable) client who didn't like us serving both. It happens. I promise. What it seems like you are actually railing against is anti-competitive behavior which is protected against in antitrust law. Monopolies are not against the law so long as they don't engage in certain market-making behaviors[0]. That is, behaviors that make "building your own competitor" impossible (i.e. undermining the fundamental axiom of FMC). This isn't a case of anti-competitive behavior. This is the market deciding that the financial/political cost of associating their business with an entity is greater than the profits they gain. It's business. Parler, in this moment, simply doesn't have a sustainable business model. The best thing they could do is to turn the narrative, lean in, and applaud AWS for exercising its freedom. But they are young too... And for what it's worth I wasn't "poking holes" in your analogy. I was tearing it down entirely. It doesn't hold at all - even a little bit. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand the very foundations on which the civil rights movement was based, and some respects, liberal democracy altogether. [0] Amazon is currently in court fighting the government in this respect. So is Facebook.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
klyrs 6y ago
> So tell me what law Parler broke? I haven't seen amazon claim that Parler broke the law. They have a TOS policy that forbids the hosting of illegal content. > Has it been proven in court? If a AWS customer is hosting child porn, does AWS take it down as soon as they're aware of the content, or do they wait for a court ruling? > Or did a private company decide that on their own? Why should they have that power? It's not power. You have a responsibility to exercise your judgement, and avoid participating in criminal acts. If you knowingly participate and profit until there's a trial in court, then you're an accessory. Section 230 has some exemptions -- you aren't protected if you maintain illegal content. What happened on 1/6 was an armed crowd breached the capitol building. A plain reading indicates that this is an act of war, and AWS has enough legal problems without opening themselves to charges of aiding an enemy of the state in an act of treason. This isn't "power" it's a matter of legal responsibility.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >I haven't seen amazon claim that Parler broke the law. They have a TOS policy that forbids the hosting of illegal content. If Amazon is saying Parler hosted "illegal content" then they are saying they broke the law. How can it be any other way? >If a AWS customer is hosting child porn, does AWS take it down as soon as they're aware of the content, or do they wait for a court ruling? Child porn is illegal, hate speech (and in lots of places, "incitement") is not. In fact, in many jurisdictions the latter are protected speech. There is no moral equivalence here. Society's rules are clear on child porn. They are less clear on what constitutes incitement. That should be evident if you're following these events. >It's not power. "ALCU Counsel Warns of Unchecked Power of Twitter, Facebook After Trump Suspension" https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aclu-counsel-warns-of-unchecked-power-of-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension/ar-BB1cC029 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aclu-counsel-warns-o...
  - klyrs 6y ago
    > If Amazon is saying Parler hosted "illegal content" then they are saying they broke the law. How can it be any other way? Because I'm not clear on the specific exemptions for section 230. I can't say one way or another whether Parler itself broke the law. > That's kind of the point here. Society's rules are clear on child porn. They are less clear on what constitutes incitement. That should be evident if you're following these events. Did people openly plan an armed attack on the capitol building? Yes. Did people follow through on aforementioned plans? Yes. Violence was incited. Having read quite a few relevant posts on Parler, I'm reasonably sure that their users broke the law. There is a lot of gray area between voicing frustration and incitement, but this is not one of those cases.
vlod 6y ago
>But the process shouldn't be arbitrary Curious to know what the process other than market forces should be. Government? Paaah.. they can't even protect kids in schools being shot, control the pandemic or even distribute vaccine in any competent manner. (lots of other examples also come to mind!) If the president calls for the boycott of Goodyear [0], isn't it also fair for Goodyear to not sell to any of Trumps companies? (Too lazy to look at other boycott tweets) [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/20/finance-202-trump-call-goodyear-boycott-joins-long-history-bullying-companies-that-cross-him/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/20/finance-2...

kingdomcome50 6y ago

Sure we can move the goalposts. No, we did not mine for our own minerals. What is your point? If our company was unable to secure hardware it would have ceased to exist. A shame for the company, its employees, and clients, but that's business. > The analogy is: if she didn't like being denied because of her race, she should have started her own busline. Right. The above is not summarizing the reason why our society has a problem with the events that occurred. The problem is why Rose Parks was denied service. It has nothing to do with her ability to start her own bus line. Does that make sense? Again, the analogy is completely missing the point. > So tell me what law Parler broke? I have no idea nor the inclination to investigate. They don't need to break a law for another business to cut ties. This happens all. the. time. Your problem seems to be a case of "this instance is different than the rest". If you have a problem with antitrust behavior, argue that. You aren't going anywhere with this line of logic.

itsoktocry 6y ago
>Sure we can move the goalposts. Nobody is moving goalposts. The point is that there's always another layer of service providers that can cancel you, some of which are monopolists. If you think that's fine, or "just business", good for you. I do not. >What is your point? People shouldn't be able to put you out of business because they have more power and don't like you. >Does that make sense? Again, the analogy is completely missing the point. You're overthinking things. For the third time: "If you don't like it, build your own competitor" -- oft-repeated-- is a ridiculous statement in most cases. No one is going to build their own App Store, Play Store, Facebook..or yes, bus line. I'm glad you can poke holes in an off-hand analogy though. It was never intended to be a literal 1-1 translation, with Parler filling the role of Rosa Parks. >They don't need to break a law for another business to cut ties. This is news. Thanks. (edited to remove much sarcasm)
- kingdomcome50 6y ago
  > If you don't like it, build your own competitor That is fundamental axiom of free-market capitalism. How do you think it is supposed to work? I'm trying to imagine a system where competition doesn't exist... oh wait. It's called "Communism". > People shouldn't be able to put you out of business because they have more power and don't like you. You must be young. "I have a bridge to sell you". In 15 years you'll better-understand how the world works and your idealism now will feel rather foolish in retrospect. I'll leave it at that. > some of which are monopolists I think this is actually what you are meaning to argue against. Just poorly. There is nothing wrong with a company deciding that the profit they derive from selling me widgets eclipses the losses they realize elsewhere, and to therefore end the relationship. This literally happens constantly. I could give you an example last month where we had to end a relationship with a client because they are a competitor to a bigger (more profitable) client who didn't like us serving both. It happens. I promise. What it seems like you are actually railing against is anti-competitive behavior which is protected against in antitrust law. Monopolies are not against the law so long as they don't engage in certain market-making behaviors[0]. That is, behaviors that make "building your own competitor" impossible (i.e. undermining the fundamental axiom of FMC). This isn't a case of anti-competitive behavior. This is the market deciding that the financial/political cost of associating their business with an entity is greater than the profits they gain. It's business. Parler, in this moment, simply doesn't have a sustainable business model. The best thing they could do is to turn the narrative, lean in, and applaud AWS for exercising its freedom. But they are young too... And for what it's worth I wasn't "poking holes" in your analogy. I was tearing it down entirely. It doesn't hold at all - even a little bit. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand the very foundations on which the civil rights movement was based, and some respects, liberal democracy altogether. [0] Amazon is currently in court fighting the government in this respect. So is Facebook.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

klyrs 6y ago

> So tell me what law Parler broke? I haven't seen amazon claim that Parler broke the law. They have a TOS policy that forbids the hosting of illegal content. > Has it been proven in court? If a AWS customer is hosting child porn, does AWS take it down as soon as they're aware of the content, or do they wait for a court ruling? > Or did a private company decide that on their own? Why should they have that power? It's not power. You have a responsibility to exercise your judgement, and avoid participating in criminal acts. If you knowingly participate and profit until there's a trial in court, then you're an accessory. Section 230 has some exemptions -- you aren't protected if you maintain illegal content. What happened on 1/6 was an armed crowd breached the capitol building. A plain reading indicates that this is an act of war, and AWS has enough legal problems without opening themselves to charges of aiding an enemy of the state in an act of treason. This isn't "power" it's a matter of legal responsibility.

itsoktocry 6y ago
>I haven't seen amazon claim that Parler broke the law. They have a TOS policy that forbids the hosting of illegal content. If Amazon is saying Parler hosted "illegal content" then they are saying they broke the law. How can it be any other way? >If a AWS customer is hosting child porn, does AWS take it down as soon as they're aware of the content, or do they wait for a court ruling? Child porn is illegal, hate speech (and in lots of places, "incitement") is not. In fact, in many jurisdictions the latter are protected speech. There is no moral equivalence here. Society's rules are clear on child porn. They are less clear on what constitutes incitement. That should be evident if you're following these events. >It's not power. "ALCU Counsel Warns of Unchecked Power of Twitter, Facebook After Trump Suspension" https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aclu-counsel-warns-of-unchecked-power-of-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension/ar-BB1cC029 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/aclu-counsel-warns-o...
- klyrs 6y ago
  > If Amazon is saying Parler hosted "illegal content" then they are saying they broke the law. How can it be any other way? Because I'm not clear on the specific exemptions for section 230. I can't say one way or another whether Parler itself broke the law. > That's kind of the point here. Society's rules are clear on child porn. They are less clear on what constitutes incitement. That should be evident if you're following these events. Did people openly plan an armed attack on the capitol building? Yes. Did people follow through on aforementioned plans? Yes. Violence was incited. Having read quite a few relevant posts on Parler, I'm reasonably sure that their users broke the law. There is a lot of gray area between voicing frustration and incitement, but this is not one of those cases.

vlod 6y ago

>But the process shouldn't be arbitrary Curious to know what the process other than market forces should be. Government? Paaah.. they can't even protect kids in schools being shot, control the pandemic or even distribute vaccine in any competent manner. (lots of other examples also come to mind!) If the president calls for the boycott of Goodyear [0], isn't it also fair for Goodyear to not sell to any of Trumps companies? (Too lazy to look at other boycott tweets) [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/20/finance-202-trump-call-goodyear-boycott-joins-long-history-bullying-companies-that-cross-him/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/20/finance-2...