4 ms·

What sitting Congress members, big tech (Amazon, Apple, and Google), and others did to collude and blackhole Parler was disgusting. There is no room in an open

What sitting Congress members, big tech (Amazon, Apple, and Google), and others did to collude and blackhole Parler was disgusting. There is no room in an open society with classically liberal values for such censorship and abuse of power. As a reminder, AOC called for tech companies to block Parler and they all complied (https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...). These are companies that have every incentive to obey, to avoid antitrust action due to their monopolistic practices. Tech companies also then muzzled a sitting President and continue to use the same playbook today against anyone who doesn’t share their ideology (recent example: https://thepostmillennial.com/youtube-removes-joe-rogan-interview-with-dr-robert-malone-from-youtube https://thepostmillennial.com/youtube-removes-joe-rogan-inte...). Meanwhile Facebook and Twitter, which played more of a role in the Capitol riot and in the numerous much more violent and damaging riots throughout 2020, faced no such pressure or consequence from politicians or technology companies. I have never posted on Parler. But the few times I glanced at it, the content seemed fine. Most importantly it was legally protected speech. I don’t agree with all my fellow citizens but I want them to be able to talk, and I want to hear their ideas. Parler raising funds is great news and I wish them luck. Even if I disagree with their audience.

gpu_explorer 5y ago
Companies do not have to allow people to use their platforms to engage in antisocial behavior. I'm sorry, but you can't go say whatever you want in the middle of a restaurant and assume that freedom of expression protects you from what happens when others don't want to hear what you have to say. Unless of course you're a toddler.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Good thing we aren’t talking about restaurants. Social media companies are common carriers, just another set of telecom utilities that must be regulated so they cannot deny users access once they’re above a certain size. AWS is also just basic infrastructure the public is dependent on in our modern society and should be regulated similarly. All these companies face limited competition due to network effects and market capitalization, and should be regulated for antitrust reasons as well. And in all cases they must be forced to accept customers of all different persuasions. Political viewpoints should also be made a protected class formally. Also your claims of judging and disallowing speech on a subjective determination of being “antisocial” is exactly the kind of authoritarian kafka-esque censorship that makes the policies of these huge tech platforms incompatible with a free society.
  - lazyeye 5y ago
    Exactly. I'm sure the foot-soldiers of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had the exact same purity of thought, the exact same infallible self-belief and the exact same certainty they were on the right side of history.
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      So did a lot of the foot-soldiers of Eisenhower. Or like Euclid and Fermi. This is just not informative.
      - lazyeye 5y ago
        Not really. Just making the point that believing you're advocating for social good does not mean you are doing social good. I'm guessing Eisenhower, Euclid and Fermi would have had no problem with people disagreeing with them.
        ethanbond 5y ago
        Actually what you’re trying to do by picking those examples is affiliate self-assuredness with evil.
        lazyeye 5y ago
        Absolutely not. I'm saying believing you are doing good does not necessarily imply you are doing good. And I picked some extreme examples from the same side of the political spectrum to illustrate that.
    - gpu_explorer 5y ago
      It's interesting that you raise totalitarians like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in this discussion. What are you trying to imply? Implication isn't a sound argument.
      - lazyeye 5y ago
tcmart14 5y ago
I don't agree with shutting parler off, and I despise Amazon, but I will defend amazon here. If you believe in property right, Parler ran on AWS's servers and I am pretty sure the ToS probably states they have the right to terminate the service. I am also extremely far left. The best solution would be to run your own infrastructure. If your gonna piggy back off someone else's infrastructure, you have to play by their rules rather or not you like it. Amazon even produce documents over months prior to them shutting off the services of concern and willingness to work with them to resolve them. Parler chose not to respond.

gpu_explorer 5y ago

Companies do not have to allow people to use their platforms to engage in antisocial behavior. I'm sorry, but you can't go say whatever you want in the middle of a restaurant and assume that freedom of expression protects you from what happens when others don't want to hear what you have to say. Unless of course you're a toddler.

throwawaysea 5y ago
Good thing we aren’t talking about restaurants. Social media companies are common carriers, just another set of telecom utilities that must be regulated so they cannot deny users access once they’re above a certain size. AWS is also just basic infrastructure the public is dependent on in our modern society and should be regulated similarly. All these companies face limited competition due to network effects and market capitalization, and should be regulated for antitrust reasons as well. And in all cases they must be forced to accept customers of all different persuasions. Political viewpoints should also be made a protected class formally. Also your claims of judging and disallowing speech on a subjective determination of being “antisocial” is exactly the kind of authoritarian kafka-esque censorship that makes the policies of these huge tech platforms incompatible with a free society.
- lazyeye 5y ago
  Exactly. I'm sure the foot-soldiers of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had the exact same purity of thought, the exact same infallible self-belief and the exact same certainty they were on the right side of history.
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    So did a lot of the foot-soldiers of Eisenhower. Or like Euclid and Fermi. This is just not informative.
    - lazyeye 5y ago
      Not really. Just making the point that believing you're advocating for social good does not mean you are doing social good. I'm guessing Eisenhower, Euclid and Fermi would have had no problem with people disagreeing with them.
      - ethanbond 5y ago
        Actually what you’re trying to do by picking those examples is affiliate self-assuredness with evil.
        lazyeye 5y ago
        Absolutely not. I'm saying believing you are doing good does not necessarily imply you are doing good. And I picked some extreme examples from the same side of the political spectrum to illustrate that.
  - gpu_explorer 5y ago
    It's interesting that you raise totalitarians like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot in this discussion. What are you trying to imply? Implication isn't a sound argument.
    - lazyeye 5y ago

tcmart14 5y ago

I don't agree with shutting parler off, and I despise Amazon, but I will defend amazon here. If you believe in property right, Parler ran on AWS's servers and I am pretty sure the ToS probably states they have the right to terminate the service. I am also extremely far left. The best solution would be to run your own infrastructure. If your gonna piggy back off someone else's infrastructure, you have to play by their rules rather or not you like it. Amazon even produce documents over months prior to them shutting off the services of concern and willingness to work with them to resolve them. Parler chose not to respond.