um clearly it did as Parler was surviving.
You know you said 'Parler has Free-er Speech' than said Twitter has Free-er Speech
One might point out that Parler has been deliberately welcoming people feeling unloved by - and often banned on - other platforms for years. I'm aware of their raise d'etre of "free speech", but it is astonishing to think that they cannot have been unaware of the sorts of people they were likely to have on their service and the sorts of things these people were likely to discuss. They evidently didn't give much of a damn, up until Amazon served it notice of problems. Sure, they weren't expecting a mob to use their service to co-ordinate an attack on the Capitol: but actually, maybe they should have. US political buildings had already been attacked, and plots to kidnap politicians already made, by the sorts of right-wing militia types flooding onto their platform.
Let's remember that Facebook, Twitter et al. once prided themselves as bastions of free speech and were hugely reluctant to moderate content. They ceased because mass membership drives public pressure for moderation, and failure to comply would have cost them more than they spend in content moderation.
yes Parler had free-er speech than Twitter.
I mean most of the discussions were still happening on Facebook etc but behind closed doors.
Exactly.
It's a weird issue from what I've seen that comes in two parts.
Maybe stop pretending that all other platforms have more free speech than Parler then. It's really self defeating.
No I said Parler had Free-er speech than Twitter.
And what discussions precisely were these? "Please join my direct action gun ownership group that supports Trump" is not actionable, is it? Nor is "Let's go to Washington to attend Trump's speech and protest about our stolen democracy", because many public protests are legal. It is absolutely true that Facebook, Twitter and so on could and will have been used as recruitment and organisational tools for people who stormed Congress. But nor can Facebook or Twitter reasonably ban them unless they breach a code or do something outside the platform that is illegal.
Yes, maybe Parler is a problem in ways FB or Twitter are not. The reality of social media is that people put unacceptable material up outside the control of the platform owners. The mark of responsibility we're holding here is to have functional processes to remove it and I guess some transparency over the processes.
Brand association can matter, but new brands can always be made. Many companies do have values that they can believe in institutionally, although these can be diluted over time. I can believe that Google, upon inception, did have an altruistic nature inbuilt by its founder and perhaps in some way it still does. But little survives when the dead-eyed investors and businessmen take over and make their presence felt, because chances are they don't give a monkey's about anything but the bottom line.
So then, you're saying that content on Twitter is acceptable to Amazon (as they use AWS for a significant part of their backend), right?
Just over 2 years, to be exact. Given it was founded in August 2018 according to Wikipedia.
More of that occurred on Facebook than on Parler, if only because of relative popularity of the two platforms. A majority (but not all, before you link the couple of exceptions) of those arrested related to the Capitol attack didn't even have active Parler accounts. It's being used as an excuse to kill an upcoming competing platform.
Exactly. I'd have less of an issue with alternative tech platforms being attacked the way they were if the same rules were applied to everyone. Instead certain platforms are held more tightly to the rules than others, in the same way that certain users on social media are held to platform rules more closely than others. It's basically just used selectively as an excuse to squash competition to the current big tech platforms.
I don't understand how you could
Why are we arguing whether or not AWS was justified in booting Parler? They're a private company, and can do what they want, right? Even if it was proven to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they weren't justified, you'll just fall back on the "private company" argument.
This is a great point that I don't think anyone from the pro-censorship side can answer. Nobody wants to crack down on any of their existing social media platforms for allowing, encouraging, and inciting violent riots that killed over a dozen. But when white conservatives get the idea that they can have their own social media, nope, gotta nip that in the bud.
So we've reached the point where you give up on making any actual arguments and begin just throwing feces around to see what sticks. Fun.
Off course they'll fall back on the "private company" argument. It has been used so often by the (far) right to defend racist or sexist business practices in the past that it just too satisfying not to throw it back at them now they're whining about their shitty tweets. But that doesn't usually represent their real opinion, which is why most (if not all) also add justifications to explain whether they actually agree or not with the decision and why.
You almost got the point, but not quite. Try to think about WHY they tried to suppress and demonize them.Imagine if that country who fought a war to suppress the birth of the US decided what the forefathers were doing was illegal!!!
Great Britain DID try to suppress the forefathers, it was just ineffective.
Oh wait, that's your coy "Ahah!" moment that you're setting up here, that rules aren't infallible
The batshit authoritarian lady, of course, has an absolute right to stay on the Enterprise-D and yell and scream in Ten Forward for however long she wants about the fabricated treason of
Because one set of rich dudes wanted taxes to cross the world and benefit them?
