>By this logic why was @blcklivesmatter not kicked off Twitter etc long ago?

Do you mean why wasn't twitter kicked off AWS for users making calls for violence? If so: because Twitter has a moderation strategy in place that clearly isn't perfect but has proven to AWS that they're taking it seriously.

If you actually meant why wasn't @blcklivesmatter kicked off twitter I guess I'm not sure what relevance that has to Parler being kicked off AWS. But my first guess would be: because they deleted the offending tweets and stopped making repeated posts calling for violence?

I don't use twitter, do you have some examples of recent @blcklivesmatter tweets that are actively calling for violence against elected officials that haven't been moderated or removed?

Why is a moderation strategy required at all? If I wanted to create a platform which followed US law and nothing else, I would be instantly deplatformed. Really, all I need is a legal department.

>Why is a moderation strategy required at all? If I wanted to create a platform which followed US law and nothing else, I would be instantly deplatformed. Really, all I need is a legal department.

I know you created a throwaway to troll, but I'll humor you anyway. I could come up with endless reasons why a company would want to require moderation, but at the end of the day: because they say so. Amazon created the platform, Amazon creates the rules.

I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.

I did not create a throwaway to troll, but for safety. People have tried to harass me out of my job for being a conservative (not Trumper) before.

> I find it mind numbing that the same people that want to live on Parler because "freedom" simultaneously think a private company shouldn't have the freedom to choose who they do or don't want as a customer. Meanwhile gay people can't buy a wedding cake and that's A-OK because freedom.

There's plenty of hypocrisy here, I agree -- but the real issue is scale. Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.

I'm not saying we should overturn their property rights, but that I disagree with them from a moral standpoint.

>Just a handful of companies in SV control the free flow of information, globally, and they're using that to suppress a group of people.

They absolutely, 100% do not. Nobody is forcing you to go to google or twitter for news, I don't and would encourage you not to either. Nobody is stopping you from going to and subscribing directly to news sources. I do and would encourage you to as well.

This idea that you need social media to get news is exactly what's wrong with the world today. Quite frankly the fact so many people are willing to tune into glorified talk show hosts pretending to be a source of news (Hannity, Carlson, Maddow) does a disservice to ACTUAL journalism.

Because they aren’t doing those things?

They vandalized the whole country during a god damn pandemic (how many thousand lives lost?) and their leadership has strong ties to anti semitism. So yes they very much did, in addition to this autonomous zone bs by lunatic anarchists running under the flag. Pretty sure the body count was larger than 5 too.

What things? Burning down small businesses, attacking people and creating 'autonomous zones'?

Also hateful propaganda against Jews. For some strange reason, the official BLM platform denounces Jews and the indigenous peoples of Judea and Samaria.

See https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-did... for a balanced opinion on this.

While I'm sympathetic to some of the problems that BLM addresses--like the militarization of our Police Forces--I can't stick my neck out for them because of their hatred of Jews.

That article is pretty old. Also you are misrepresenting it, as the platform point was about Israel and Palestine, not jews.

I have been unable to find a current platform, so it is unclear if that is actually still in there.

I disapprove of what the Marxist BLM say, but I will defend (probably not to my death admittedly) their right to say it. This is what a liberal democracy is.

They certainly do have a right to their beliefs. I would like them better if they had a narrow focus of U.S. Police overstepping their bounds, and the mistreatment of black people in the U.S. I agree completely that that's a problem.

But they've expanded their agenda beyond that, and muddled their goals.

I think the challenge is many people have campaigned for improved civil rights and police reforms under the 'BLM' banner without knowing who the core organization actually is.

In the UK you will be banned from football stadiums for performing a 'white power' clenched fist in the crowd, but the BLM Marxist black power clenched fist is performed before each match by kneeling professional players in memory of the death of George Floyd several thousand miles away and many months ago last year.

This confusion about racism and efforts to signal support are IMO very clumsy, comingling Marxist politics with laudable efforts to support unfair and heavy handed policing of some black people.

Similarly the comingling of a minority of 'far right' wingnuts amongst moderate conservatives, greatly amplified and distorted by the corporate media, has gravely misrepresented mainstream common sense concerns.

The various sensationalist media companies have a lot to answer for, they are fanning the flames of division, encouraging bigots and ignoring the mainstream masses