5 ms·

I’m an engineer at Amazon. Your post is misguided and incorrect. This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part. I don’t work on whichever service was

I’m an engineer at Amazon. Your post is misguided and incorrect. This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part. I don’t work on whichever service was specifically used to host this content and don’t know about what specific mechanisms they have to discover and take down illegal content. This was obviously a miss. Amazon should and has to do better. There’s no question about that. By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken. Unfortunately, this issue wasn’t so visible. Once it was identified, corrective action was taken. And your accusations of being “okay with terror organizations” is wrong. For full disclosure: I’m not speaking on behalf of the company, and I see you have political grievances with Amazon. But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too.

throwawaysea 5y ago
> This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part. How convenient that unequal application of censorship can be excused as just a “miss”. > By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken. I remember checking out Parler and not finding any violent content - if it was there it must have been exceedingly rare. I also have seen numerous articles mention there was a lot more problematic content pertaining to the Capitol riot on other social media platforms - and yet those apps are in the app stores and Amazon surely has no problems doing business with them, since they maintain a presence on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands. Glenn Greenwald wrote about all this at https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... > But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too. Terrorism is the use of violence and other illegal acts to pursue political goals. Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity. And yes unequally applying censorship to one group and not the other is tantamount to supporting the other - you can’t hold the keys and also deny culpability.
- ozzythecat 5y ago
  > Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands. AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC. > Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity. I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests. The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress. I don’t think Amazon supports any violent protests, nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election. Btw… much of that was organized on Parler. You’re obviously super angry. Frankly I don’t think there’s anything I can or anyone else can say that would make this a productive discussion. I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot”, but on the other hand, you’re upset about the Taliban. These terrorist organizations also have goals to subvert America’s system in favor of their own, just like your “one day rioters”. One makes you very upset, and the other one you’re quick to dismiss. I won’t engage with any further. Good luck, and I suggest taking a break from the Internet.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    > AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC. What relevance does this have? I’m saying that Amazon and other tech companies responded to a request for censorship of conservative voices emerging from liberal politicians. Carrying out their request as they come into power following an election is not somehow better because AOC blocked Amazon’s bid for NYC as their second headquarters. > I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests. Then you’re either extremely unaware of current events, or lying. Obviously BLM organized events included a significant amount of rioting, death, and destruction. A simple google search will reveal billions in damage and at least double digit deaths. You mentioned you work for Amazon - then surely you are aware of the numerous businesses destroyed by BLM activists, the near daily illegal blockades of highways near you, and a literal attempt to declare a sovereign territory (CHAZ), assuming you work at their Seattle headquarters. > The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress. No it wasn’t. It was just people protesting, then getting carried away, trespassing, and committing property damage. There was no great conspiracy to “attack congress” and the FBI’s investigation found there was no coordinated conspiracy to do anything more. This is also why almost all the charges from Jan 6 are for simple trespassing. > nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election No one was attempting to overthrow America’s democracy. Show me your evidence. If your claiming that distrusting or challenging election results is wrong, then you need to find a justification for the Democrats formally doing so in 2000, 2004, and 2016. > Btw… much of that was organized on Parler. Since you’re still intent on spreading misinformation, I’ve gone ahead and pulled evidence to the contrary (https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/22/court-docs-show-facebook-played-much-bigger-part-in-capitol-riot-than-parler-yet-no-consequences/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/22/court-docs-show-faceboo...). If you seek out a diversity of information it is pretty easy to know Parler didn’t play a significant role in the Capitol riot. > I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot” An “all out attack” on Congress is the kind of hyperbole that enabled the politically motivated censorship of Parler by abusive companies like Amazon. If you think people protesting on a lawn is an “all out attack”, what phrasing do you reserve for an actual attack? And where was this fervor when Democratic politicians incited a riot at the Capitol during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing? > I won’t engage with any further You’ve literally shared no evidence for your false and hyperbolic claims and are now running away from the conversation. I can only guess it is because you know the facts aren’t on your side.

throwawaysea 5y ago

> This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part. How convenient that unequal application of censorship can be excused as just a “miss”. > By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken. I remember checking out Parler and not finding any violent content - if it was there it must have been exceedingly rare. I also have seen numerous articles mention there was a lot more problematic content pertaining to the Capitol riot on other social media platforms - and yet those apps are in the app stores and Amazon surely has no problems doing business with them, since they maintain a presence on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands. Glenn Greenwald wrote about all this at https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho... > But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too. Terrorism is the use of violence and other illegal acts to pursue political goals. Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity. And yes unequally applying censorship to one group and not the other is tantamount to supporting the other - you can’t hold the keys and also deny culpability.

ozzythecat 5y ago
> Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands. AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC. > Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity. I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests. The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress. I don’t think Amazon supports any violent protests, nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election. Btw… much of that was organized on Parler. You’re obviously super angry. Frankly I don’t think there’s anything I can or anyone else can say that would make this a productive discussion. I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot”, but on the other hand, you’re upset about the Taliban. These terrorist organizations also have goals to subvert America’s system in favor of their own, just like your “one day rioters”. One makes you very upset, and the other one you’re quick to dismiss. I won’t engage with any further. Good luck, and I suggest taking a break from the Internet.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC. What relevance does this have? I’m saying that Amazon and other tech companies responded to a request for censorship of conservative voices emerging from liberal politicians. Carrying out their request as they come into power following an election is not somehow better because AOC blocked Amazon’s bid for NYC as their second headquarters. > I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests. Then you’re either extremely unaware of current events, or lying. Obviously BLM organized events included a significant amount of rioting, death, and destruction. A simple google search will reveal billions in damage and at least double digit deaths. You mentioned you work for Amazon - then surely you are aware of the numerous businesses destroyed by BLM activists, the near daily illegal blockades of highways near you, and a literal attempt to declare a sovereign territory (CHAZ), assuming you work at their Seattle headquarters. > The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress. No it wasn’t. It was just people protesting, then getting carried away, trespassing, and committing property damage. There was no great conspiracy to “attack congress” and the FBI’s investigation found there was no coordinated conspiracy to do anything more. This is also why almost all the charges from Jan 6 are for simple trespassing. > nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election No one was attempting to overthrow America’s democracy. Show me your evidence. If your claiming that distrusting or challenging election results is wrong, then you need to find a justification for the Democrats formally doing so in 2000, 2004, and 2016. > Btw… much of that was organized on Parler. Since you’re still intent on spreading misinformation, I’ve gone ahead and pulled evidence to the contrary (https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/22/court-docs-show-facebook-played-much-bigger-part-in-capitol-riot-than-parler-yet-no-consequences/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/22/court-docs-show-faceboo...). If you seek out a diversity of information it is pretty easy to know Parler didn’t play a significant role in the Capitol riot. > I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot” An “all out attack” on Congress is the kind of hyperbole that enabled the politically motivated censorship of Parler by abusive companies like Amazon. If you think people protesting on a lawn is an “all out attack”, what phrasing do you reserve for an actual attack? And where was this fervor when Democratic politicians incited a riot at the Capitol during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing? > I won’t engage with any further You’ve literally shared no evidence for your false and hyperbolic claims and are now running away from the conversation. I can only guess it is because you know the facts aren’t on your side.