4 ms·

It is hard to separate the fact that they are distancing themselves from a fascist, white-supremacist platform that was instrumental in a near-overthrow of the

It is hard to separate the fact that they are distancing themselves from a fascist, white-supremacist platform that was instrumental in a near-overthrow of the US government. And even if you think that's okay, this wasn't insurrection in response to oppression, it was an insurrection to overthrow an uncontested democratic result. I guess Parler is so radioactive that Amazon would rather be sued than continue to business with them. Further, there are reports Amazon gave them weeks of warnings and were ignored. AWS has rules.

blitz_skull 6y ago
"near-overthrow" A few hundred people stalled the counting of electoral votes for literally a few HOURS. Hardly a "near-overthrow" of anything other than Trump himself.
- eclipxe 6y ago
  That's only because house and senate members were successfully evacuated - if they weren't, what exactly did you think the rioters were going to do? What do you think they had zip ties for? What was the gallows erected outside for?
  - wolco5 6y ago
    The government was in no danger of being overthrown.
wolco5 6y ago
Reports of the government being overthrown have been greatly exaggerated.
mainstreem 6y ago
If Amazon has rules, why is Twitter still up? The "PacNW Youth Liberation Front" Twitter account is still active. They frequently call for overthrow of the government and organize violent direct actions. Rose City Antifa is still active. They do the same. Salon's Tweet calling for more violence this summer and calling the violence that had already occurred against Federal properties by Leftist activists "justified" is still up, as is Salon's website. Khamenei's Twitter is still active, calling for the elimination of all Jews and Israel. I'm sure this will get downvoted. Probably flagged. But since the government can't shut down companies due to the content their users post, because of Section 230, I guess a small, colluding cartel of corporations can step in to silence people when the government will bend knee to the Leftist mob instead. It's only a matter of time before the people wielding this power find it turned against them, if they do not recognize what they are doing to discourse on the Internet. Pandora's box is fucking open now.
marcod 6y ago
They had 50+ concrete examples of calls for violence on parler that were reported to AWS. > AWS has rules. Also, "we're trying to have a f'ing society here"
Domenic_S 6y ago
> near-overthrow of the US government That's giving WAY too much credit. The US Government is not a room or a building. A coup is considered successful if it holds power for 7 days; these jokers didn't hold power for 7 seconds. > insurrection to overthrow an uncontested democratic result. This is overstating from a certain point of view. It was contested in court (and soundly affirmed). Bear with me for a moment - if what Trump was saying about the election were true, we would want this kind of reaction. I think we can all agree that rigged elections are an affront to democracy. It's just that this election wasn't rigged, as affirmed by courts many times, so the mob wasn't acting righteously. This train of thought has some nuance so I'm not going to be surprised when some folks misinterpret it. There are two things to think about: 1) how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection? We've got Snopes, disclaimers on social media, etc - is deplatforming the only thing left to counter fake news that calls people to violent action? 2) what are the implications of giving social media & hosting platforms the power to arbitrate what's fake news and what's not? This is incredible power and without checks & balances it is probably too much for individual private companies to hold the keys.
- pbronez 6y ago
  > if what Trump was saying about the election were true, we would want this kind of reaction. This is an counterfactual to consider. Indeed, we should defend the integrity of the democratic system at almost any cost. However, facts matter. Trump's statements about the election were not, in fact, true. They are lies. The votes have been counted, recounted and certified. The courts have been consulted. The media has investigated. Election observers from both campaigns watched the whole thing. Some of the insurrectionists may have thought they were defending democracy, but that doesn't change the fact that they were actually attacking the very democracy they claimed to defend. > how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection? Catastrophically bad leadership. While the individual insurrectionists must fact justice, the leaders who intentionally deluded and incited them must also be held accountable. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, a lawful democracy cannot tolerate democratically-elected leaders who use their authority to attack the core mechanisms of democracy.
chmod600 6y ago
I don't think the Jan 6 insurrection was OK, or even close. My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. It's like fitting everyone with a shock collar and saying it will only be used against insurrectionists. The government will be a lot less worried about resistance, and the definition of "insurrectionist" is likely to move over time. It just doesn't seem like a good direction to me.
- throwaway5752 6y ago
  That's a really fair point, and it's a really hard problem. In this case, you had people trying to overthrow a democratic vote. So they are literally the enemies of a free society. But the same laws and infrastructure to prevent this can be misused. That's the hard stop. You can't have a governmental system that is fault tolerant to malicious misrule. You need to apply laws or laws lose power, and you need to trust those carrying out governing to obey some norms.
  - chmod600 6y ago
    Trust isn't about blind, 100% trust. You can trust democracy to work without fitting yourself with a shock collar controlled by the pooular vote. You can trust government officials without assigning them blanket power of attorney. I am just saying that there are limits to trust. And when someone you 99.9% trust tries to convince you to give them 100% trust, you should pause.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. Insurrections were organized well before AWS and the like existed, and they will still be organized well after AWS and the like are gone. Limiting platforms that make it easier to radicalize large numbers of people is still a good thing.
- Natfan 6y ago
  If it helps, I agree with you here. This whole situation has made me a bit uneasy. While I generally agree with the decision made by these private companies in this specific instance, it does feel like there was a domino effect where one platform banned people for inciting violence, and then the rest followed suit when there was media traction on the story. The fact that a few people have this much unchecked power is a bit scary. Yes, these are private companies. Yes, they don't have to spend time, money or infrastructure on anyone they don't want on the platform, I understand all of this. What I merely want to comment on is the ubiquity of these websites. Facebook, Google, Twitter and even TikTok are increasingly becoming primary means that people around the world communicate. If I'm a racist prat that spams that we should "kill all those muslamics, innit", sure I should be warned or removed from these platforms, however that significantly diminish my means of contacting other people. I have friends that I can only really contact through Facebook. I'm trying to add them on multiple services so that I stay away from a single-point-of-failure, however some of my relatives are old and/or technologically inept, and they never check their email or SMS. While I could call them, if I were to get banned from Facebook that could reduce my ability to communicate with these people down quickly and easily to near zero. I understand that there are actions for your consequences, I just fear that with these services becoming so commonplace (see WeChat in China, for example), being locked out of these walled gardens could have severe, real world impacts to those that the platform doesn't like. I don't know, just food for thought.

blitz_skull 6y ago

"near-overthrow" A few hundred people stalled the counting of electoral votes for literally a few HOURS. Hardly a "near-overthrow" of anything other than Trump himself.

eclipxe 6y ago
That's only because house and senate members were successfully evacuated - if they weren't, what exactly did you think the rioters were going to do? What do you think they had zip ties for? What was the gallows erected outside for?
- wolco5 6y ago
  The government was in no danger of being overthrown.

wolco5 6y ago

Reports of the government being overthrown have been greatly exaggerated.

mainstreem 6y ago

If Amazon has rules, why is Twitter still up? The "PacNW Youth Liberation Front" Twitter account is still active. They frequently call for overthrow of the government and organize violent direct actions. Rose City Antifa is still active. They do the same. Salon's Tweet calling for more violence this summer and calling the violence that had already occurred against Federal properties by Leftist activists "justified" is still up, as is Salon's website. Khamenei's Twitter is still active, calling for the elimination of all Jews and Israel. I'm sure this will get downvoted. Probably flagged. But since the government can't shut down companies due to the content their users post, because of Section 230, I guess a small, colluding cartel of corporations can step in to silence people when the government will bend knee to the Leftist mob instead. It's only a matter of time before the people wielding this power find it turned against them, if they do not recognize what they are doing to discourse on the Internet. Pandora's box is fucking open now.

marcod 6y ago

They had 50+ concrete examples of calls for violence on parler that were reported to AWS. > AWS has rules. Also, "we're trying to have a f'ing society here"

Domenic_S 6y ago

> near-overthrow of the US government That's giving WAY too much credit. The US Government is not a room or a building. A coup is considered successful if it holds power for 7 days; these jokers didn't hold power for 7 seconds. > insurrection to overthrow an uncontested democratic result. This is overstating from a certain point of view. It was contested in court (and soundly affirmed). Bear with me for a moment - if what Trump was saying about the election were true, we would want this kind of reaction. I think we can all agree that rigged elections are an affront to democracy. It's just that this election wasn't rigged, as affirmed by courts many times, so the mob wasn't acting righteously. This train of thought has some nuance so I'm not going to be surprised when some folks misinterpret it. There are two things to think about: 1) how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection? We've got Snopes, disclaimers on social media, etc - is deplatforming the only thing left to counter fake news that calls people to violent action? 2) what are the implications of giving social media & hosting platforms the power to arbitrate what's fake news and what's not? This is incredible power and without checks & balances it is probably too much for individual private companies to hold the keys.

pbronez 6y ago
> if what Trump was saying about the election were true, we would want this kind of reaction. This is an counterfactual to consider. Indeed, we should defend the integrity of the democratic system at almost any cost. However, facts matter. Trump's statements about the election were not, in fact, true. They are lies. The votes have been counted, recounted and certified. The courts have been consulted. The media has investigated. Election observers from both campaigns watched the whole thing. Some of the insurrectionists may have thought they were defending democracy, but that doesn't change the fact that they were actually attacking the very democracy they claimed to defend. > how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection? Catastrophically bad leadership. While the individual insurrectionists must fact justice, the leaders who intentionally deluded and incited them must also be held accountable. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, a lawful democracy cannot tolerate democratically-elected leaders who use their authority to attack the core mechanisms of democracy.

chmod600 6y ago

I don't think the Jan 6 insurrection was OK, or even close. My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. It's like fitting everyone with a shock collar and saying it will only be used against insurrectionists. The government will be a lot less worried about resistance, and the definition of "insurrectionist" is likely to move over time. It just doesn't seem like a good direction to me.

throwaway5752 6y ago
That's a really fair point, and it's a really hard problem. In this case, you had people trying to overthrow a democratic vote. So they are literally the enemies of a free society. But the same laws and infrastructure to prevent this can be misused. That's the hard stop. You can't have a governmental system that is fault tolerant to malicious misrule. You need to apply laws or laws lose power, and you need to trust those carrying out governing to obey some norms.
- chmod600 6y ago
  Trust isn't about blind, 100% trust. You can trust democracy to work without fitting yourself with a shock collar controlled by the pooular vote. You can trust government officials without assigning them blanket power of attorney. I am just saying that there are limits to trust. And when someone you 99.9% trust tries to convince you to give them 100% trust, you should pause.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
>My point is that the tools for organizing an insurrection are being removed, and that's at least a little scary. Insurrections were organized well before AWS and the like existed, and they will still be organized well after AWS and the like are gone. Limiting platforms that make it easier to radicalize large numbers of people is still a good thing.
Natfan 6y ago
If it helps, I agree with you here. This whole situation has made me a bit uneasy. While I generally agree with the decision made by these private companies in this specific instance, it does feel like there was a domino effect where one platform banned people for inciting violence, and then the rest followed suit when there was media traction on the story. The fact that a few people have this much unchecked power is a bit scary. Yes, these are private companies. Yes, they don't have to spend time, money or infrastructure on anyone they don't want on the platform, I understand all of this. What I merely want to comment on is the ubiquity of these websites. Facebook, Google, Twitter and even TikTok are increasingly becoming primary means that people around the world communicate. If I'm a racist prat that spams that we should "kill all those muslamics, innit", sure I should be warned or removed from these platforms, however that significantly diminish my means of contacting other people. I have friends that I can only really contact through Facebook. I'm trying to add them on multiple services so that I stay away from a single-point-of-failure, however some of my relatives are old and/or technologically inept, and they never check their email or SMS. While I could call them, if I were to get banned from Facebook that could reduce my ability to communicate with these people down quickly and easily to near zero. I understand that there are actions for your consequences, I just fear that with these services becoming so commonplace (see WeChat in China, for example), being locked out of these walled gardens could have severe, real world impacts to those that the platform doesn't like. I don't know, just food for thought.