It was done back in August last year, so not in response to recent events.
The findings were, essentially, it doesn't reduce the individuals toxicity; it does reduce its spread.
Here's just a search I did now: https://twitter.com/hashtag/assassinatetrump
Seriously, that was Twitter's argument for why they banned him...
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
the deplatforming policy is impossible to define and will be enforced arbitrarily. it's going to satisfy no one.
And she was suspended for that.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1323893513226...
Until you have an incident you actually, rather than hypothetically, object to, why do you assume Amazon is going to aggressively deplatform software platforms? They have a pretty clear financial incentive not to.
There's a difference between protected speech and yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. But with the way things are moving, more and more speech is being classified as "hate speech." The line between offensive speech and violent words is getting more murky. I think there needs to be clear standards and clear enforcement.
So do you think Amazon is falling on the wrong side of it here? Because even if it's more murky, if they're waiting until it's -very clearly violent-, egregiously so, with real physical criminal acts occurring because of it, I'm pretty sure no matter how murky the line is, they're well on the side of "violent words", not "offensive speech".
Your concern only applies if they're trying to draw the line in an area that is murky. I'd contend this is not.
are you saying that platforms cannot choose what to moderate because of a right to free speech? that's nonsense. you want free speech, go outside with a bullhorn, no one will arrest you - that's all that means.
I just think it's a slippery slope, and we desperately need to cement our feet in the ground and draw a line somewhere.
Also, when an overwhelming majority of public discourse takes place online (thanks 2020), the people choosing who does and does not get access to the centralized systems have a CRAZY amount of power. Yelling in a public square isn't how ideas spread anymore.
This is deplatforming -a platform-, not those people. Every individual on Parler can go create accounts and post on Twitter and Facebook and etc...unless, of course, their toxicity causes them to be banned there.
Nothing legally, or fairly, forces one platform to host another platform.
AWS is a private business, they don't have to host anything they don't want to. Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with.
I think a way more interest question is this - what about modern US conservatism makes violence so attractive to it? You cannot have a conservative forum that will not rapidly devolve into violent threats. Even /r/conservative, the more mainstream and mature conservative subreddit is absolutely full of people threatening revolution, backs against the wall, etc.
The reality is that we as a society are getting numb to this and are actually being far too tolerant.
For instance "Forcing them to host parler would be an egregious violation of their right to choose who they associate with." Is true, but we force companies not to discriminate based on Age, Sex, Religion, etc. So your right of who you can associate with isn't iron clad.
We could just as easily add "Freedom of Expression" to the list of things you can not discriminate against, and suddenly the argument holds no water.
I'm not an American, however I sometimes enjoy the irony of America where one side of the political spectrum will be angry that a bakery is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, but think it's against the customers rights for AWS to not host content they don't agree with.
Whilst the other thinks the baker should be forced to bake a cake against their will, and AWS is free to drop any business they feel like.
none of these qualities pose a threat to others in our civilized society. however, spoken words have a direct influence on anyone who hears them. so there is in fact a difference which is not simply arbitrary.
>“Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates,” Benjamin Franklin declared. By sharing knowledge and sparking debate, a free press invigorates and educates the nation’s citizens. Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed, Thomas Jefferson once said. To quote John Adams: “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.”
However you want to define these apps, they're basically falling under the first Amendment. Obviously there are limits which are carved out in law. However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?
In an ideal world, the market would separate the wheat from the chaff, and these platforms would dry up and die on their own.
> However how would you feel if newspaper printers elected to no longer print specific news papers backing one candidate or another?
like they have been doing since they have existed?
i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
>i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.
No I was saying if the provider of printing to say your local news paper was friends with the Mayor and there was a corruption story, and they opted to decline the business of the local newspaper and refuse to print it.
Not every newspaper owns their own printing.
I hear what you're saying, I'm just saying the laws need to catch up, we can't depend on each company being socially pressured to do this or that. If we regulate the internet like a utility then we need to move to that world.
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...
Edit: to be clear, in context, I am saying that these nutjob posters on Parler are not representative. I understand that mainstream conservatives may also have a presence there.
-Noam Chomsky
it's difficult to map pre-internet ideals to 2021.
Death threats and similar do not fit in any shape or form into "free speech".
It was the most wholesome right wing space I’ve ever seen on the internet. People sharing their experiences being alienated by either how they saw media manipulate a story they knew about or by how divisive partisanship and cancel culture personally affected them. Welcoming each other in the comments regardless of their sexual orientation or race. It would have been a useful place to learn from but now it’s gone.
I haven't heard of more than 5 firearms. No mention of where those were. Videos I have seen just show flags, signs, cameras, and mobile phones. What were these "many" armed with?
It'll be simplest to watch the AG charge people, since they only file those charges if they're confident in a successful prosecution. Charges will probably be trickling in for months as they identify the insurrectionists.
And that's just what was captured obviously. Presumably for everything found there were several more things concealed.
In either case, that's whataboutism. If the same thing happened in CHOP, yes, it would also be bad. Are you seriously suggesting this is acceptable behavior?
E.g. If your ISP decides that something you posted on Twitter violates some standard of their own devise, should they be allowed to disconnect you?
But the ability to run a workload on AWS? They're a business. I'm totally okay with them deciding to stop doing business with me. That also has a GOP precedent, what with that whole "You don't have to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple" thing.
That's why. Access to a company's compute resources is not a need. Further, there are options, many different cloud vendors with different T&Cs, different allowed things, different jurisdictions, cultural expectations, etc. If I manage to break the T&Cs to all of them, that's kind of on me, and doesn't preclude me from having access to compute resources (I just have to buy them).
The internet? I've got one ISP option. And without it, I'm cut off from a large part of what it means to function in this day and age.
AWS isn't fundamentally transporting goods but providing a service (the transmission of data happens via a common carrier between you and it). It's not clear that AWS access is a public necessity. And it's never attempted to claim it does so without discrimination.
Your logic defies me.
Keep on voting for pelosi so she could continue becoming rich off the backs of hardworking americans and eating 10k dollar ice cream
I mean...that image alone. "Violence works. Make them afraid", accompanied with text then saying "How about make them hang?", and showing lawmakers hiding in the Capital.
The fact it's a third party forum that these terrorist threats and planning are taking place doesn't really change the fact it's still facilitating terrorism.