3 ms·

Because they both support sedition against the USA. Anything that furthers turmoil in the US is to Russia's advantage. The Government did not shut down Parler,

Because they both support sedition against the USA. Anything that furthers turmoil in the US is to Russia's advantage. The Government did not shut down Parler, the free market did. Parler is free to set up their own infrastructure. Perhaps Rebekah Mercer, the big money behind them, can buy a data center to house their servers, she has the money to do so. Or she can purchase a cloud/ISP company to house her other properties like Brietbart.

acct776 6y ago
> The Government did not shut down Parler, the free market did. The new inception of the Moral Majority did.
- IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
  Again, the Government did not. Rebekah Mercer and the Koch family et al are free to acquire a datacenter or cloud hosting company and build out a payments infrastructure as well. Nothing is stopping them from doing so. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would also be glad to contribute as well. Let capitalism thrive! AWS, Stripe, Paypal, GoFundMe have zero OBLIGATION to provide services to them.
- IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
  Ah, Morality. https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/
tharne 6y ago
An oligopoly is not an example of the "Free Market". It's the opposite.
grawprog 6y ago
>The Government did not shut down Parler, the free market did Amazon's been receiving cia, military and other US government contracts for years now. https://theatlantic.com/article/374632/ https://theatlantic.com/article/374632/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/08/75349/meet-americas-newest-military-giant-amazon/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/08/75349/meet-ameri... https://aws.amazon.com/contract-center/#federal https://aws.amazon.com/contract-center/#federal Amazon took a website off their services critical of the government and incoming administration. If amazon did this to a company critical of one of their private contract companies, this would be anti-trust behaviour.
- Dystopian 6y ago
  > If amazon did this to a company critical of one of their private contract companies, this would be anti-trust behaviour. No it wouldn't be. That is not how anti-trust works. Amazon doesn't need to rent servers to Walmart. Walmart doesn't need to rent storage space or placement to Amazon. There's nothing in anti-trust which compells companies to have to provide services to one another. If people want to talk about these issues they need to frame it in terms of strengthening anti-discrimination laws for speech. If that's something we want to talk about it's valid - it's just not the route most people getting angry about this want to take since it would run against many other opinions they've made previously (Masterpiece Cakeshop, et al.)
  - grawprog 6y ago
    I can't understand why these platforms are being treated just like any other private company to be honest. These companies openly take billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax breaks, most of them have one or more contracts with the US government, several of them received funding from the government during their early days, without which, there's a chance they may not be the giants they are today. How much money should tax payers continue funding these massive corporations before they should finally get a say in their actions? These companies willingly accept these billions of dollars, wllingly chose to put themselves in the position of being the 'new town square', then they hide behind the 'nope private company' argument. All I know is, when I was working off government subsidies and grants years ago, i was publically accountable for anything we did and we had far less public impact than any of these companies. People can argue laws and semantics all they want, but what will it actually take for people to actually recognize the power these companies have over nearly every aspect of modern life and stop just treating them as 'Any other private company'. That's an excuse and as far as i'm concerned a completely bullshit one. It's very obvious that's not the case and how anyone can deny this is mind boggling to me.

acct776 6y ago

> The Government did not shut down Parler, the free market did. The new inception of the Moral Majority did.

IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
Again, the Government did not. Rebekah Mercer and the Koch family et al are free to acquire a datacenter or cloud hosting company and build out a payments infrastructure as well. Nothing is stopping them from doing so. I'm sure Rupert Murdoch would also be glad to contribute as well. Let capitalism thrive! AWS, Stripe, Paypal, GoFundMe have zero OBLIGATION to provide services to them.
IOT_Apprentice 6y ago
Ah, Morality. https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/ https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/

tharne 6y ago

An oligopoly is not an example of the "Free Market". It's the opposite.

grawprog 6y ago

>The Government did not shut down Parler, the free market did Amazon's been receiving cia, military and other US government contracts for years now. https://theatlantic.com/article/374632/ https://theatlantic.com/article/374632/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/08/75349/meet-americas-newest-military-giant-amazon/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/08/75349/meet-ameri... https://aws.amazon.com/contract-center/#federal https://aws.amazon.com/contract-center/#federal Amazon took a website off their services critical of the government and incoming administration. If amazon did this to a company critical of one of their private contract companies, this would be anti-trust behaviour.

Dystopian 6y ago
> If amazon did this to a company critical of one of their private contract companies, this would be anti-trust behaviour. No it wouldn't be. That is not how anti-trust works. Amazon doesn't need to rent servers to Walmart. Walmart doesn't need to rent storage space or placement to Amazon. There's nothing in anti-trust which compells companies to have to provide services to one another. If people want to talk about these issues they need to frame it in terms of strengthening anti-discrimination laws for speech. If that's something we want to talk about it's valid - it's just not the route most people getting angry about this want to take since it would run against many other opinions they've made previously (Masterpiece Cakeshop, et al.)
- grawprog 6y ago
  I can't understand why these platforms are being treated just like any other private company to be honest. These companies openly take billions of dollars in government subsidies and tax breaks, most of them have one or more contracts with the US government, several of them received funding from the government during their early days, without which, there's a chance they may not be the giants they are today. How much money should tax payers continue funding these massive corporations before they should finally get a say in their actions? These companies willingly accept these billions of dollars, wllingly chose to put themselves in the position of being the 'new town square', then they hide behind the 'nope private company' argument. All I know is, when I was working off government subsidies and grants years ago, i was publically accountable for anything we did and we had far less public impact than any of these companies. People can argue laws and semantics all they want, but what will it actually take for people to actually recognize the power these companies have over nearly every aspect of modern life and stop just treating them as 'Any other private company'. That's an excuse and as far as i'm concerned a completely bullshit one. It's very obvious that's not the case and how anyone can deny this is mind boggling to me.