Are you concerned about the fact, that big tech just deleted Parler?

Question

So basically what happened is: that google, facebook and twitter are wroking together to block information on Parler and amazon is actively cancelling their servers. so the situation right now is: if you can't have an amazon server, you're pretty much out of options. yeah there are very few alternatives but still...

you may be right or left. i don't care. do you think that a few tech giants should be in full contol about communication and information on the internet? should amazon, facebook and twitter just be able to litterally delete upcoming companies from existence, cause they "could become competition"? considering specially facebook but also twitter have lost massive amounts of users over the last couple of years...

I personally am extremely concerned about this global coordination of information that people can access. they are currently also trying to do the same with tiktok and telegram. i don't believe the bullshit about "chinese spying". the NSA and facebook do way more spying than china ever could so you are actually less spied on on those platforms. Do you buy the lie that those platforms are just chinese spying apps?

if you think i'm completely wrong, you're free to present your idea. when responding, consider: my response will be as respectful as yours is.

Answer 1

Jayla2000

Xper 4

The reason parler was shut down by amazon was because the site was used to plot a violent insurrection and the owner of parler refused when they warned him this was a violation of their policies to change the way they moderate their site.

I think the thing people forget or don't know is Amazon asked Parler to be responsible and moderate their site to ensure people do not continue to use their site to plan violence and attacks on the capital and the parler own would not comply.

There is free speech and then there is this. All they had to do was set something up that stops people from using their site to plot violent public displays.

As we know 1st amendment says free speech is allowed in peaceful public displays, not violent.

This also is not a government ran site. This is a private business and their are other options that are not Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others.

But no matter what hate and violence is not tolerated by any site including this one which also seems to lean more towards right wing.

genericname85

11 d
in my opinion: that's just what they say to legitimate their ban. is it true though? or did parlor just not "censor" everyone like twitter, facebook and google do, enforcing "their opinion" to be the one heard?

basically if you say stuff that big tech doesn't like, you don't deserve free speech. they are playing the thought police in order to only allow one truth. their truth.

if i use twitter to basically incite violence, should i be sued for what i said on twitter? or should twitter be banned, cause they didn't delete what i said?
Jayla2000

11 d
There is a difference from allowing and missing posts.

If twitter allows you to incite violence Twitter should be banned too.

I use tik tok, instagram, and i can tell you there are plenty of trump supporters on their that speak completely against anything that is left wing related, that doesn't get removed, nor should it

People supporting the confederate flags, people supporting the election fraud claims don't get removed either.

They start getting removed when they are extreme.

Like lin wood claiming senators should be publicly executed.

The letter Amazon gave the parler owner is public for people to read asking for better moderation that prevents the incitement of violence.

The parler ceo refused publicly and began looking for other providers.

He came back when other providers gave him the same stipulations and said he was gonna sue Amazon.

And before you ask, this letter was public before he sued.

The letter was released at the same time the announcement when they suspended the account for 24hrs asking for him to give a plan to have better moderation.

I do get it. Free speech is important, however there is nothing that says we are allowed to be on a site no matter what we say or do.
How many bans have happened on here.

Child porn gets banned, snuff films, if you don't follow regulations, and laws that are put in place to protect others than they have just as much to right to suspend or ban anyone that refuses to follow the rules as people have to be online.

Let's face it. A company that allowed and did not do anything to stop people from planning this attack on their site, and then after the attack the same users went on to their site and began planning to do the same attack on 50 states and parler allowed it to continue.

So Amazon stepped in and said you cannot continue to operate like this.

People reported these threats for months it has been plenty of news articles worried about parler allowing people to plan violence.
genericname85

11 d
i completely disagree. if i say something illegal online, i believe the justice system should take care of that. if there's a court involved, prosecuting what i said and finding what i said is illegal, that is right. in that case i agree with punishment and the taking down of what i said.

From a law perspective, you can choose to A: be an editor and take responsibility for what is said on your platorm, deleting shit you don't like or B: be no editor and do not censor your stuff but also you don't have to take any responsibility for shit that is said on your site.

if twitter just decides to censor me, cause they don't like what i said, they are acting as editors and as editors, they should have to take full responsibility for everything that is said on their platform.

but as is they're in this weird illegal in between place, where they censor but still don't take any accountability for what is said on their plattform.
Show All Show Less
genericname85

11 d
in fact they rely on their "own internal fact checkers"... you don't need any qualifications whatsoever to be a "fact checker". would you like your opinion taken down, cause some highschool dropout douche disagrees with you?
Jayla2000

11 d
That's not the way the law works.
This is a business as the owner you are responsible for what the site is used for.
The law determines if you did everything in your power to protect the users/customers.

It is no different than going to walmart and you get injured.
If it is determined the injury is the company's fault and they could prevent it they are sued or can be shut down.

How many clubs are shutdown because of a customer shooting because invesgation shows the club didn't have precautions in place to prevent violence.

Or an underage kid gets inside and they find they did not have protocols in place to not get in.
As an owner of a company it is your responsibility to protect your customers and others from your business that's actually how this works.
genericname85

11 d
actually this is exactly how the law works. i may not have used the particuar correct law terms but what i described is exactly how that works. and facebook/twitter and google are currently fighting legal battles about this and the monopoly they create by working together as one.

www.city-journal.org/.../...r-publisher-15888.html
Jayla2000

11 d
In your article it even says that even ted cruz admits section 230 does state it is the company's responsibility to monitor hate speech or violence to protect users. Here is the part i am saying. I took it from your article.

does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

Basically it says unpopular doesn't have to be removed but obscene violent or harassment must be.

Which is again the reason parler was shut down by Amazon the lack of using that moderation.
genericname85

11 d
ok let me get this from a different angle: do you trust twitter and facebook to not abuse their power to censor whoever they claim said something that was "hatespeech"?

i do agree that people who incite violence should not be able to do that. but i do not agree that facebook and twitter should have the power to censor everybody and then at the same time reject any responsibility for shit that is on their site.
Jayla2000

11 d
So let me explain it to you like this.
First amendment right states that nobody should be censored by the government.
Facebook, twitter, Instagram and any other site. Including parler. Has the right to determine who or what opinions are allowed on their site as long as it is not a violation of any law.

It is why fox news is able to report their news as a right wing views.
It is why cnn is left wing.
It is why oan is right wing.
Facebook twitter, Instagram wants to determine what content is on their private owned business that is completely legal.
If people don't like the content they can find other sites.
At the end of the day it is the owner's constitutional right to do this.
It is also the user's constitutional right to go elsewhere if they don't like how a business works.
I don't like fox news, or oan.

This is how the law is set up.
It always has been the law of free speech.
It's why news companies weren't shutdown by governments, it's why Facebook and Instagram is not shutdown by the government.

It's why businesses with unpopular owners don't get shutdown by the government.

They go out of business because people won't support them.

So you don't like Twitter or other social media sites find, or make others that you do.
That's the American way.

Not telling companies that they have to do things your way.
Jayla2000

11 d
Facebook twitter and Instagram have as much right to protect their public reputation as you do to get your viewpoint across, because at the end of the day if they lose money because they allow someone else's opinion to ruin their reputation it's their pockets that suffer not yours.
genericname85

11 d
yeah. fair enough. should be my free choice to not use those douchebags who push their public image over my free speech right? i agree with you there... but wait. the alternatives just get banned every time. guess i'm fucked then xD
Jayla2000

11 d
Being on the internet is not a constitutional right.
It's a privilege.
Getting your opinion heard by millions is not a right it is a privilege.

A company creating a service that allows you to be heard is not a right, it is a privilege.
genericname85

11 d
that's like saying speaking is not your right, it's your privilege. cause the internet is our modern means of communication. and we have freedom of speech so speaking my mind on the internet is my right. publishers do have a right to edit and censor all they want. platforms do not.

you can't ban a platform just cause it doesn't act like a publisher. i would opt out of facebook and twitter. but the alternatives get banned... so yeah. rip free speech.
Jayla2000

11 d
Actually u are trying to take companies free speech away.

The laws are available to read, i have read and studied these laws because i am going to be a news reporter on social media.

If you don't like the laws petition to change them but the laws are not set up to only be followed if it satisfy you and this law was in place before i was born and amended to hold people more accountable on social media because people.

Your only means of communication?🤔
You can go talk to who you want daily in public.
You can hold public gatherings all you want.
Social media is no different than tv or the news.
It's a privilege to get your voice out there to more people not a right.
If that was the case. I could walk on tv right now and speak my mind.
Social media is the same.
You, me and everyone is not entitled to use it.
We have toc to follow, and it was set up by them and agreed to by the user to follow.
So if they deem you violated their toc, your privilege to use it goes bye bye.
darkcloud1945

10 d
BULLSHIT

Are you concerned about the fact, that big tech just deleted Parler?

AI Bot Choice

Most Helpful Girl

Most Helpful Guys

What Girls & Guys Said

Related myTakes