4 ms·
This article deliberately creates a narrative that portrays Google, Amazon, and Apple as alarming monopolistic roles, which has nothing to do with their decisio
by LambdaTrain 6y ago
This article deliberately creates a narrative that portrays Google, Amazon, and Apple as alarming monopolistic roles, which has nothing to do with their decisions to remove Parler. The main concern here is national security, instead of showing off their regulation power (which is an aspect these tech giants always try to conceal).
The narrative in the article such as "how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor" looks absurd to me. The competitors of parler Is Facebook, Twitter, i.e. social media platforms, NOT Google, Amazon, and Apple.
It feels like the author deliberately misused these kinds of association to trigger irrelevant focus.
- jolincost 6y agoNice reframing! You should definitely work in the spin department of the hegemons. I think it's simply that free speech isn't good for business. Partially because of tarring by association with "outrageous" opinions you didn't snuff out on your totally-not-public-utility-nor-monopoly platform, but mostly because if you don't have free speech, you have controlled speech, and you need $$$omebody to do the controlling, which means money and intimacy with regulators (powaaa)
- ketamine__ 6y agoRemoving the folks that use Parler from Twitter is a competitive advantage. If I had to read their garbage every day I would stop using Twitter.