4 ms·

I'm getting a little tired of seeing this specious meme floating around. It's barely more sensical than the one that Parler is a free speech zone. The reason f

I'm getting a little tired of seeing this specious meme floating around. It's barely more sensical than the one that Parler is a free speech zone. The reason for the Amazon ban is not the simple fact that Parler had people making threats. Per Amazon's email to Parler, it's that they had seen an on-going escalation of credible (much more so than the two tweets you linked) incitements to violence, Parler had a history of dragging its feet about responding to specific complaints about infringing content, Parler failed to furnish a tenable plan for how to implement an effective content moderation policy, and public communication by executives indicated that they had no good-faith intent to do so. Furthermore, while I agree that Twitter doesn't do as great a job at stuff like this as one would like, either, this is just a really ill-chosen place for Parler's supporters to try and make their stand. The cast iron pot does not help its case by calling the steel kettle black.

ttt0 6y ago
> Parler had a history of dragging its feet about responding to specific complaints about infringing content, Parler failed to furnish a tenable plan for how to implement an effective content moderation policy, and public communication by executives indicated that they had no good-faith intent to do so. Is it any different from Twitter though?
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  So, I don't think I could have explained the key thing that's different about Twitter any better than it was done in this evening's court filing from Amazon: Parler’s Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend Twitter’s account and thus discriminated against Parler. . . But AWS does not host Twitter’s feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    That's ok, I'm just asking the question in general. It's not that Amazon just decided to do it out of nowhere, people demanded it. So shouldn't Twitter be shut down by their cloud service provider, DDOS protection provider, domain registrar, payment processor or whatever service they do business with? Because I don't see anyone arguing for that. Just as an aside, did they really tried to argue in court that AWS should suspend Twitter too despite not having anything to do with them? Jesus Christ, the incompetence in some of these people.
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      The problem with JAQing off is that, even when it's done after taking the time to fully understand the situation, that generally isn't evident. So it typically inserts vastly more noise than signal into the discussion.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        I don't know. For example, did anyone argued for shutting Facebook down entirely when they refused to remove holocaust denial? I think this is precisely what people mean with this "meme" and it is a fair point.
        mumblemumble 6y ago
        Yes. And even suggesting otherwise furthers the whole, "I reject reality in order to substitute my own narrative that better supports the position I'm trying to take," thing. And, in this particular context, it's also a non sequitur. Go read the court filings. The story of what actually happened is being told there. It's a public record.
        ttt0 6y ago
        The reason I was asking is because I legitimately haven't seen anyone doing that, which suggested to me that this opinion certainly wasn't anywhere near as popular as the opinion that tech companies should take down basically everything that was ever associated with Trump. Most people generally accept that strictly legally speaking tech companies have a right to shut down anyone they want, as long as it doesn't violate the contract (I personally disagree that it should work like this), but I just don't think that is the point.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Wait until you see what people tweeted about the police and ICE officers in 2020.
- elmomle 6y ago
  Please point to an example from last Summer of large-scale left-wing coordination on Twitter to subvert and/or overthrow our system of government! Bonus points if it resulted in a putsch....
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Does CHAZ count?
    - elmomle 6y ago
      CHAZ was radically smaller in scale and scope. It was a far, far cry from violently storming the nation's capital. I'm not condoning it, but it was never an existential threat to our democracy.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Neither of them was ever an existential threat to our democracy. Please don't fall into this hyperbole.
        ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        If given the opportunity, do you think the protesters would have burned down the federal courthouse in Portland like they did the third police precinct in Minneapolis?
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      No
  - benjohnson 6y ago
    Not last summer, but the Kavanaugh protests got a bit feisty - delayed Congress and tried to break into the supreme court.

ttt0 6y ago

> Parler had a history of dragging its feet about responding to specific complaints about infringing content, Parler failed to furnish a tenable plan for how to implement an effective content moderation policy, and public communication by executives indicated that they had no good-faith intent to do so. Is it any different from Twitter though?

mumblemumble 6y ago
So, I don't think I could have explained the key thing that's different about Twitter any better than it was done in this evening's court filing from Amazon: Parler’s Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend Twitter’s account and thus discriminated against Parler. . . But AWS does not host Twitter’s feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content.
- ttt0 6y ago
  That's ok, I'm just asking the question in general. It's not that Amazon just decided to do it out of nowhere, people demanded it. So shouldn't Twitter be shut down by their cloud service provider, DDOS protection provider, domain registrar, payment processor or whatever service they do business with? Because I don't see anyone arguing for that. Just as an aside, did they really tried to argue in court that AWS should suspend Twitter too despite not having anything to do with them? Jesus Christ, the incompetence in some of these people.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    The problem with JAQing off is that, even when it's done after taking the time to fully understand the situation, that generally isn't evident. So it typically inserts vastly more noise than signal into the discussion.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      I don't know. For example, did anyone argued for shutting Facebook down entirely when they refused to remove holocaust denial? I think this is precisely what people mean with this "meme" and it is a fair point.
      - mumblemumble 6y ago
        Yes. And even suggesting otherwise furthers the whole, "I reject reality in order to substitute my own narrative that better supports the position I'm trying to take," thing. And, in this particular context, it's also a non sequitur. Go read the court filings. The story of what actually happened is being told there. It's a public record.
        ttt0 6y ago
        The reason I was asking is because I legitimately haven't seen anyone doing that, which suggested to me that this opinion certainly wasn't anywhere near as popular as the opinion that tech companies should take down basically everything that was ever associated with Trump. Most people generally accept that strictly legally speaking tech companies have a right to shut down anyone they want, as long as it doesn't violate the contract (I personally disagree that it should work like this), but I just don't think that is the point.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Wait until you see what people tweeted about the police and ICE officers in 2020.

elmomle 6y ago
Please point to an example from last Summer of large-scale left-wing coordination on Twitter to subvert and/or overthrow our system of government! Bonus points if it resulted in a putsch....
- ttt0 6y ago
  Does CHAZ count?
  - elmomle 6y ago
    CHAZ was radically smaller in scale and scope. It was a far, far cry from violently storming the nation's capital. I'm not condoning it, but it was never an existential threat to our democracy.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Neither of them was ever an existential threat to our democracy. Please don't fall into this hyperbole.
      - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
        If given the opportunity, do you think the protesters would have burned down the federal courthouse in Portland like they did the third police precinct in Minneapolis?
  - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
    No
- benjohnson 6y ago
  Not last summer, but the Kavanaugh protests got a bit feisty - delayed Congress and tried to break into the supreme court.