My understanding was that planning was happening on multiple social media sites, notably Facebook.

I believe the distinction between the two (though note: I am very willing to change this belief based on learning details I don't currently know) is that Facebook tries to remove such content (though it may not perfectly succeed) whereas Parler actively refused to do so when AWS made them aware and asked them to remove it.

And the US government should bring a case against them. I don't think you'll find me inconsistent in that thought, I also argued an ISP yesterday that blocked FB is fully within its rights to do so.

Personally I think we need anti-trust action against a lot of larger tech companies and second that they have now opened the door on further regulation regarding content moderation. I think getting rid of Section 230 entirely would be a mistake but I won't be surprised to see it amended in some form.

Never mind plain old lobbying, any legislator who supports a crackdown on Facebook could be de-platformed. These tech leviathans have captured the regulators in a way that has never been seen before, and now they are flaunting grotesque anti-competitive bullying in all of our faces. Depending on the government to fix this mess is not going to go well.

This is one reason why amazon pulled the plug and the violent posts were "rapidly growing". This kind of customer is probably a huge headache to deal with, and complaints were being sent/forwarded from amazon and "some" were acted on.

From Ars article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/amazon-cuts-off-...

Amazon said: "It's clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t "feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform." This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts."

I guess it’s theoretically possible to set up an arm of law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all social media, along with a judicial division that could stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment takedowns. Maybe.

>>I guess it’s theoretically possible to set up an arm of law enforcement whose sole job would be to monitor all social media, along with a judicial division that could stand at the ready to issue court orders for comment takedowns

not theoretic (not pumping my post but amusing you would comment simultaneously with my noticing this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25749923