4 ms·

Section 230 gives platforms the right but not the obligation to moderate. The reasoning I've heard is, "well if you don't want to be moderated by that platform

Section 230 gives platforms the right but not the obligation to moderate. The reasoning I've heard is, "well if you don't want to be moderated by that platform, use a different platform." There's a potential argument to be made that collusion between firms to crush an individual platform customer (aka Parler) is anticompetitive. In that approach, the problem isn't censorship, it's horizontal conduct.

bootlooped 6y ago
I don't think they could ever prove there was collision though. For one, I don't think anybody except Gab was worried about Parler as a competitor. For two, if you do something egregious in front of 3 shopkeepers, and the whole town is looking at the shopkeepers to see what they'll do, and they all decide to ban you from their respective stores, it's not collision.
- crmrc114 6y ago
  Don't forget gab was banned by visa. It gets a bit crazy when you consider the nz mosque shooting was livestreamed on facebook- no one shut Facebook down. I can go on Twitter right now and find calls for violence. The whole thing feels like a very selective attack aimed at any small competition the dares base it's moderation in line with the first amendment. 1. They are a private company, don't like it build your own Twitter A. Okay, that has been done twice now. 2. Well aws is a private company don't like it build your own servers. B. Okay that has also been done twice now. 3. The next items in the list of deplatforming attacks are DNS, Certs and ability to process credit cards. It gets a bit silly when it's rules for thee with the tech olagarchs yet I can still find elsagate videos on YouTube and calls to harm others on Twitter.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  In less than a week, all the major tech players banned/ended the same entity. While sure, they found certain infringements due to their ToS, there's a large swath of entities that infringe on their ToS who are not banned. Along with, it's painfully easy to prove it's because the ones not banned are politically aligned with the platform. To state it's a ban due to violence, absolute bullshit. There are tons of Facebook livestreams of violence, gang based, that NZ shooting, and just random people thinking they're cool and hurting folks to gain popularity (and making an easy case for prosecutors). Facebook hasn't been banned from Google Play Store or Apple App Store yet. "But they don't have to moderate due to 230". Well, why does Parler have to then? I'm actually okay with Parler being shut down (mostly because I never used it or really care) but then I want to see the same punishment for other social media platforms. Hold one accountable, hold them all accountable. No favoritism just because you wear a certain color tie during political meetups. Sure, maybe there is no law that really punishes selective enforcement of company policy. However, can you really say that it's not absurd and ethically fucked up? Can you really not see, "Wow, these companies do hold too much power in public discourse and can twist, bend narratives in their favor"? As the general public, we need to vote with our wallets as well as ballots. These companies need to know that this shit isn't cool or funny. Giving them blank cheques everyday because we're too lazy to change our habits will never help. Complacency isn't an excuse after a certain point.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    It’s not clear to me that those companies have more power in our information landscape than MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. Nor is it obvious that it is more ethically problematic for them to have an editorial slant.
  - 1MachineElf 6y ago
    The culture of the companies that ban and report on Parler are predominantly left of center. It is not realistic to expect fairness in any way, including ToS enforcement. In an alternate universe where Parler had been a tech giant and the rest of SV aligned with them, it would be Twitter who got shut down.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
ojnabieoot 6y ago
I don’t think the anticompetitive thing really holds water: Parler is in no way a competitor to Alphabet’s companies, or Amazon, and not really a competitor to Facebook (whereas I could say it was a serious competitor to Twitter). So it’s hard to see what the economic or market benefits of the horizontal conduct would be. Amazon, Facebook, and Google have defensible reasons to block Parler that has nothing to do with their bottom line. For example, Parler’s irresponsible refusal to moderate violence if it’s ‘political’ poses a serious threat to these companies’ workers and leadership [1]. I also find the whole idea that there was collusion to be a claim without evidence or plausibility: Parler was correctly associated with the Capitol Hill riot and had been deliberately stoking far-right aggression for years - it was Parler’s business model. It makes far more sense to me that Big Tech leadership all decided to ban Parler independently because they read the news last week. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1349172320594767872 https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/13491723205947...
- totalZero 6y ago
  I don't think you have to prove that the anticompetitive action is directly beneficial to the actors. Regardless, at least two of the three firms have a direct contractual, financial relationship with Twitter. Twitter is a Google customer since at least 2018: https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastructure/2018/a-new-collaboration-with-google-cloud.html https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastruc... Twitter cut a multi-year AWS deal last month: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/twitter-selects-aws-strategic-provider-serve-timelines https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det... Coordinated backlash against Twitter (such as a boycott or other mass exodus) could have spillover effects to Facebook, not the least of which would be a movement to repeal S230.

bootlooped 6y ago

I don't think they could ever prove there was collision though. For one, I don't think anybody except Gab was worried about Parler as a competitor. For two, if you do something egregious in front of 3 shopkeepers, and the whole town is looking at the shopkeepers to see what they'll do, and they all decide to ban you from their respective stores, it's not collision.

crmrc114 6y ago
Don't forget gab was banned by visa. It gets a bit crazy when you consider the nz mosque shooting was livestreamed on facebook- no one shut Facebook down. I can go on Twitter right now and find calls for violence. The whole thing feels like a very selective attack aimed at any small competition the dares base it's moderation in line with the first amendment. 1. They are a private company, don't like it build your own Twitter A. Okay, that has been done twice now. 2. Well aws is a private company don't like it build your own servers. B. Okay that has also been done twice now. 3. The next items in the list of deplatforming attacks are DNS, Certs and ability to process credit cards. It gets a bit silly when it's rules for thee with the tech olagarchs yet I can still find elsagate videos on YouTube and calls to harm others on Twitter.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
NoOneNew 6y ago
In less than a week, all the major tech players banned/ended the same entity. While sure, they found certain infringements due to their ToS, there's a large swath of entities that infringe on their ToS who are not banned. Along with, it's painfully easy to prove it's because the ones not banned are politically aligned with the platform. To state it's a ban due to violence, absolute bullshit. There are tons of Facebook livestreams of violence, gang based, that NZ shooting, and just random people thinking they're cool and hurting folks to gain popularity (and making an easy case for prosecutors). Facebook hasn't been banned from Google Play Store or Apple App Store yet. "But they don't have to moderate due to 230". Well, why does Parler have to then? I'm actually okay with Parler being shut down (mostly because I never used it or really care) but then I want to see the same punishment for other social media platforms. Hold one accountable, hold them all accountable. No favoritism just because you wear a certain color tie during political meetups. Sure, maybe there is no law that really punishes selective enforcement of company policy. However, can you really say that it's not absurd and ethically fucked up? Can you really not see, "Wow, these companies do hold too much power in public discourse and can twist, bend narratives in their favor"? As the general public, we need to vote with our wallets as well as ballots. These companies need to know that this shit isn't cool or funny. Giving them blank cheques everyday because we're too lazy to change our habits will never help. Complacency isn't an excuse after a certain point.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  It’s not clear to me that those companies have more power in our information landscape than MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. Nor is it obvious that it is more ethically problematic for them to have an editorial slant.
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  The culture of the companies that ban and report on Parler are predominantly left of center. It is not realistic to expect fairness in any way, including ToS enforcement. In an alternate universe where Parler had been a tech giant and the rest of SV aligned with them, it would be Twitter who got shut down.
- gamblor956 6y ago

ojnabieoot 6y ago

I don’t think the anticompetitive thing really holds water: Parler is in no way a competitor to Alphabet’s companies, or Amazon, and not really a competitor to Facebook (whereas I could say it was a serious competitor to Twitter). So it’s hard to see what the economic or market benefits of the horizontal conduct would be. Amazon, Facebook, and Google have defensible reasons to block Parler that has nothing to do with their bottom line. For example, Parler’s irresponsible refusal to moderate violence if it’s ‘political’ poses a serious threat to these companies’ workers and leadership [1]. I also find the whole idea that there was collusion to be a claim without evidence or plausibility: Parler was correctly associated with the Capitol Hill riot and had been deliberately stoking far-right aggression for years - it was Parler’s business model. It makes far more sense to me that Big Tech leadership all decided to ban Parler independently because they read the news last week. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1349172320594767872 https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/13491723205947...

totalZero 6y ago
I don't think you have to prove that the anticompetitive action is directly beneficial to the actors. Regardless, at least two of the three firms have a direct contractual, financial relationship with Twitter. Twitter is a Google customer since at least 2018: https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastructure/2018/a-new-collaboration-with-google-cloud.html https://blog.twitter.com/engineering/en_us/topics/infrastruc... Twitter cut a multi-year AWS deal last month: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/twitter-selects-aws-strategic-provider-serve-timelines https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det... Coordinated backlash against Twitter (such as a boycott or other mass exodus) could have spillover effects to Facebook, not the least of which would be a movement to repeal S230.