Judge denies Parler an injunction to force AWS to host the antisocial network for internet outcasts A US federal district judge has turned down Parler's request for a preliminary injunction to force Amazon Web Services (AWS) to host the social network, which is dominated by hate-and-misinformation-spewing netizens cast out or shooed away from other platforms. "The Court rejects any suggestion that the public interest favors …
I'm surprised they didn't claim AWS did it on the orders of the Lizard People.
Having skimmed through their complaint and Amazon's response, this looked like a foregone conclusion. They didn't have a leg to stand on.
As far as censorship, it's no more censorship than if a theater chain (if any survive the pandemic) refused to show X-Rated movies.
It looks they don't even know who is the AWS owner... for the matter they could have asked also to be able to write on the Washington Post...
As long as BillG is a communist too, I wonder why they don't go to the Oracle Cloud for example, Larry should be happy to host them, or even he has doubts? They could run along TikTok, maybe?
Since it seems like Amazon could boot contractually boot them off without giving notice, they don't have a legal leg to stand on. I wonder, however, how many businesses will sit up and pay attention to the small print on their own contracts. After all one of the most important things in business is to be able to maintain stability/continuity of service, I certainly would not be happy to sign a contrat with a provider that allows them to boot me out at a moment's notice.
Will we see a raft of businesses trying to renegotiate their AWS contracts, or move to other suppliers who don't have the same restrictive terms?
The cloud is just someone else's computer and they can turn that computer off at any time, contract or not.
The contract allows you to ask a court to force them to turn it back on but by then time has passed and lawyers have compiled bills. And good luck if the owner of the computer is in a different jurisdiction from you.
Is OK as long as we do not like the content being censored. It would of course be truly evil that they censored some other group that incited illegal acts that we liked. E.g. Extinction rebellion, BLM, Arab Spring, US Founding Fathers.
For all its faults, the law gives people a right to state their case and is fairly transparent. Not so with corporate decision making. Any censorship needs to be done by due process. And then only very rarely.
Amazon was not supporting Parlor in the sense of Facebook. They were merely providing server infrastructure. Content was none of their business. People that support Amazon would probably support cutting other infrastructure providers off the internet entirely if they did not agree with them. It is a bit like a city banning someone from talking in any public or private space within its walls and not calling that censorship.
Politically, this makes a martyr out of Parler. It will end up being hosted somewhere, perhaps in Russia. And this has been great publicity for them.
It's notable that Parler didn't try to make a First Amendment argument and went instead for the breach of contract angle. While I am not a lawyer, this fact suggests to me that Parler's lawyers determined that Parler didn't have a First Amendment argument to make, which suggests that the speech being supported by Parler was so egregious that it clearly fell into some non-protected category. Alternately, Parler's lawyers were so utterly incompetent that they couldn't litigate their way out of a wet paper bag, which would be . . . Parler for the coarse.
There was no First Amendment claim to make. The First Amendment liked the others protect you from government action. This is between Parler and AWS and as such, there is no First Amendment protection.
So it isn't really notable at all that they didn't try a First Amendment argument. They wouldn't even have a hearing with the judge if they did; Amazon would have been granted a dismissal if that were the case.
There is a 1st Amendment argument, in favour of Amazon, who have the right not to be forced to say things they don’t want to say.
First Amendment isn’t just about being banned from expressing certain opinions by the government, it is also about not being forced to express opinions you don’t agree with by the government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But then there's the current hysteria, and stories like this-
https://www.rt.com/usa/513321-big-tech-democrats-letter/
Democrats in the US Congress have urged major social media platforms to eliminate algorithms and recommendations that breed extremism and undermine the sense of “objective reality.”
Representatives Anna Eshoo and Tom Malinowski wrote letters demanding change to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. A similar letter was sent to the CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai, and Susan Wojcicki, the CEO of YouTube, which is owned by Google.
“For years, social media companies have allowed harmful disinformation to spread through their platforms, polluting the minds of the American people,” Eshoo tweeted.
By disinformation and pollution, not sure of Eshoo means all the Russiagate stuff. But would seem to go against the spirit of the First Amendment. But presumably if Big Tech voluntarily acts to block 'harmful disinformation' and subjective reality, it'll be fine. Which will also make it simpler because the Dems won't have to try to craft legislation that defines harmful disinformation, or objective reality. But it's not for the lack of trying, this kind of lobbying has been going on for years wrt global warming.
But there's also going to be the challenge of 'Net Neutrality. Previously the new FCC pick said this-
“I support net neutrality,” she said in October. “I believe the FCC got it wrong when three years ago it gave the green light to our nation’s broadband providers to block websites, throttle services, and censor online content.”
Yet now her party is demanding even greater powers to block websites, censor content..
Not really. A 1st Amendment argument would make them a publisher and remove their exemption under Section 230 of the CDA, which exempts service providers, not publishers. They will continue to use a Section 230 argument, even if it means they lose the case.
Not surprising at all. The First Amendment only prevents government (at any level) from censoring and doesn't effect private business.
This is going to be a very concerning case, nonetheless. It actually involves exemptions given to service providers by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This is the basis of Amazon's defense. The problem is, the exemption specifically applies to providers of "interactive computer services" and Congress defined the term in subsection (f) to mean "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."
So the question is, did AWS provide an interactive computer service to multiple users or did they provide an infrastructure service to a single user? If the former, then Section 230 effectively applies only to big tech cloud providers and a few like Facebook that operate their own server farms. Essentially, it strips Section 230 protections from, for example, El Reg-like sites that use cloud services and offer a comments section.
"Amazon was not supporting Parlor in the sense of Facebook. They were merely providing server infrastructure."
Rule one of free speech: If you don't own a printing press, you don't have free speech. You're borrowing somebody else's, and they just might cut you off.
s/barrel/tankerload/
See: Brexit
Relevance: Driven by media barons (who were chasing keeping their tax dodges)
Not exactly a new phenomenon: See Willam Randolph Hearst and Spanish-American war
(tl;dr: USA government didn't want a war, Hearst forced it anyway in order to sell more newspapers)
Secondary relevance: Yellow journalism and triumph of Propaganda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
"The Spanish–American War (April–August 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism."
Well it's getting to the stage that nobody has free speech unless their thinking aligns with that of the Silicon Valley elites. Just how would you propose to get your message out there if, firstly the social networks deplatform you then, when you try to develop your own alternative platform, the hosting services do likewise? The ace in the pack of course is payment services, also controlled by those with similar political tendencies.
You seemed to miss the point that this was not about free speech, but about Parler violating AWS's TOS. Corporations are not required to protect free speech, and whether or not Amazon pulled the plug for the common good or to avoid controversy and possible boycotts/lost revenue is irrelevant. Parler violated the terms of their contract and AWS is not required to stand up for the rights of idiots to post drivel and incite violence. Amazon, whatever you think of them, gave prior warnings and cited dozens of abuses of their TOS.
On the actual subject of free speech, I'm all for it, but there does have to be some accountability if you incite a riot or otherwise cause harm by spreading lies. It's not much of an extension of the simple rules that keep you from poking the animals at the zoo until they react.
I had not known anything of the Scottish connection to Parler's return:
DDoS-Guard was registered in 2017 under a limited partnership, a financial structure in Scotland that allows nonresidents to create companies with little scrutiny. Aleksei Likhachev and Evgeniy Marchenko, two Russian businessmen who registered it, remain owners of the company. The partnership under which DDoS-Guard is registered is called Cognitive Cloud and is listed at an address in Edinburgh’s Forth Street.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/19/parler-website-partially-returns-with-support-from-russian-owned-technology-firm
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SL032463
Private Eye magazine has been highlighting the dubious use of LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships) for years. They were a dodgy scheme from the start, set up at the behest of the big legal and auditing firms to shield the company from individual partners being found liable for mistakes.
I successfully lobbied to get Sputnik News aka Voice of Russia thrown out of Edinburgh's Chamber of Commerce. They must have bribed their way in, which is a stain on Edinburgh. I'm glad incorruptible London remains immune to Russian oligarchs filthy lucre.
Scottish LPs were, until recently, the last remaining way to have an anonymous bank account. This was a result of Westminster issued law, not laws from Stormont.
The laws on Limited Partnerships were actually the same in England and Scotland, but Scottish property law allows partnerships to own property in their own names, and this applies also in England, whereas English partnership law does not, and this also applies in Scotland.
LLPs are far more popular. They have property ownership rights on both sides of the River Tweed, but are not anonymous.
People only started using Scottish LPs once all the other avenues for anonymous bank accounts were closed off.
Ah, but the content absolutely was their business. Because the misbegotten Section 230 gives Amazon the power to censor, they have no way to resist public and/or political pressure to do so, when it becomes overwhelming.
Freedom of speech has always had limits like this. The first amendment protects the press from the govt, but not from angry mobs.
This post has been deleted by its author
I have a better idea than the lazy lawmakers who allowed themselves to be blagged into passing it.
It creates a whole new category of companies, which exists only online, which enjoy all the power of a publisher without the legal liability. And that's what has given us the present rotten state of misinformation.
I have no problem with people posting lies, porn, violent extremism or whatever. That's freedom. It's not always pretty, but it's necessary. The problem comes when an algorithm, owned and run by some company that hides behind a self-assigned designation like "platform", picks up the material and actively feeds it to people who weren't even aware of the originator, because moar clicks.
"It is a bit like a city banning someone from talking in any public or private space within its walls and not calling that censorship."
Isn't it more like me not allowing people to come to my house and shout loudly about things I find objectionable? I wouldn't try and stop them talking, they just can't do it in my house anymore.
"Isn't it more like me not allowing people to come to my house and shout loudly about things I find objectionable? I wouldn't try and stop them talking, they just can't do it in my house anymore."
No, it really isn't. Firstly in terms of scale and reach. The vast majority of political discourse between individuals across the planet takes place on a handful of social network platforms. Secondly, there are alternative houses to choose from in the real world. Not so online when first the platforms reject you, then even those controlling the hosting infrastructure do likewise when you attempt to seek an alternative forum.
"IIRC on a lot of the "Net Neutrality" posts here there are frequent comments along the lines of "If you don't like it start your own ISP". Surely Parler could host it themselves? A few physical servers and an internet connection would do the job."
Next you'll be saying, if you want an open forum for discussion, all you need to do is build your own Internet!
No everyone uses facebook or twitter. I sometimes actually talk to people (COVID allowing).
If I own a newspaper I can decide what i will print or not. Same for a readio station. If i own a hosting company then I can include clauses in the contracts that limit what i will allow people to do on that platform.
No, it really isn't. Firstly in terms of scale and reach. The vast majority of political discourse between individuals across the planet takes place on a handful of social network platforms.
Seriously? Since when did social networks suddendly become the only way for discourse (or discussion for that matter)? Yeah, I'm grumpy old git obviously, but I've stayed well away from the social networks as I never saw their appeal and their behaviour over years has only reaffirmed that I was right not to bother.
I don't feel that limits my freedom to express myself in any way. I can't understand that people really think the social networks and somehow the only effective way to communicate.
No, the government can't interfere, mostly (shouting fire in a theatre and all that).
But a private company is not the government and they do not have to work with people they don't like or who break the terms of their contract. That is not censorship, that is capitalism at work.
AWS not hosting their site isn't censorship, Parler can go and buy their own servers and plug them into the internet or their users can go out on the street or into public parks and shout their heads off.
If the government turned around and said, "we don't like Parler and we will stop them from being on the Internet and stop their users standing on the street and saying what they want," that would be censorship.
"But a private company is not the government and they do not have to work with people they don't like or who break the terms of their contract. That is not censorship, that is capitalism at work."
So who, may I ask, does control these private companies, with absolute global reach? What happens if and when said companies start to target and censor those that espouse views that align with your own?
That is a whole different matter. Are the companies getting too big and too powerful? Absolutely. It is also how capitalism works.
But that is a completely different issue and has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the US First Amendment and contract law.
I'm no supporter of Big Tech, but I also see the stupidity and futility of Parler's case here. They were allegedly warned in November and again in December that they weren't fulfilling their contractual obligations.
I don't think it's a "whole different matter" at all, to use your own words. It's just one facet of the issue, namely transglobal corporate accountability.
Today we learn of Iran's supreme leader making another clear incitement to violence on twitter, yet the post and account remain unrestricted (see more here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-55765516).
This is an obvious case of blatant hypocrisy that completely undermines the justifications used by the same tech companies for deplatforming those on the right.
From the linked article - updated 58 minutes ago. The account has been suspended.
"A Twitter account linked to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has posted what appears to be a call for an attack on Donald Trump in revenge for last year's killing of its top military commander, Gen Qasem Soleimani.
----------
The social media giant has now suspended the account - @khamenei_site.
Twitter said the account had violated its rules and it directed readers to a list of prohibited acts, including threatening violence."
"Parler can go and buy their own servers and plug them into the internet or their users can go out on the street or into public parks and shout their heads off."
And here is their user doing just that ...
https://www.syracuse.com/state/2021/01/just-1-trump-supporter-shows-up-at-nys-capitol-to-protest-biden-inauguration.html
"censored some other group that incited illegal acts that we liked. E.g. Extinction rebellion"
El Reg just allowed me to post an epic pro-beaver poem by an Extinction Rebellion Scotland makar.
I half expected it to be deleted due to length and political divisiveness of their ongoing slaughter, though someone else had mentioned Scottish beavers as innuendo. The obvious tech angle was nature's engineers - we consider ourselves engineers but how many dams have any of built? WIRED agree - Fantastically Wrong: Why People Used to Think Beavers Bit Off Their Own Testicles
Beaver slaughter is (genuinely) a contentious issue in the Scottish Parliament, so I'd fully understand if The Register chose to limit beaver related posts. That wouldn't be censorship, and if beavers are banned from Twitter then I'll set-up my own servers to host beaver chat.
[One future tech angle - a lot of mobile phone masts here are disguised as trees to fit in with the local environment. It's not yet known if beavers will differentiate between them and real trees, or if the beavers will start taking out the phone masts]
Ta Tim. It is one of the best poems I've read. The guy invited me out to his birthday party last Burns night, and I didn't go because I'm not sociable and only go out twice a year - I regret that now that I've been stuck in all year. Another poet, Attila the Stockbroker, wrote me this ode to another threatened species to read out -
WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH
The Earth is in a right old mess -
We’ve screwed it up indeed.
Pollution, global warming
And endless corporate greed.
So many species threatened
And some already gone -
Our planet groans in anguish
While the juggernaut rolls on.
We worry about the elephants
The bears and tigers too
And if they’re close to dying out
We breed them in a zoo.
It seems the only ones we save
Are big or have some hair
Cos 70 frog species have gone
And no one seems to care.
Now, since a kid, I’ve always loved
the world which crawls and squirms
I‘ve snakes and toads and newts at home
And even some pet worms….
And there’s a special little mite
The same size as a flea
I’ve always had a soft spot for -
(though no, not literally)
Now some blame the Brazilians
And some blame good old soap -
One long established guest of ours
Is quickly losing hope.
For centuries it munched its fill
Oblivious to class -
As fond of pauper’s privates
As a bit of Royal arse.
But in our hygiene-conscious age
It seems it’s had its day:
Even the Goths and Palace fans
Are scrubbing it away.
And if we carry on like this
The verdict is succinct -
Our one time nether nemesis
Will soon become extinct!
This is for conservationists
Who stand for animal rights
You need to make a bit of space
In underpants and tights…
It’s time to give it house room
And not just in your house
So heed the call of Nature now -
And save the pubic louse.
It's an interesting point to consider
Should governments be reliant on corporations to make decisions about what does, and does not constitute an acceptable use of their platforms?
Current thinking trends towards lax regulation in the name of free enterprise, and as such the same rules which allow corporations to trade without government interference, support that they are also free to choose to take down content that they deem damaging to their brand.
There's also an arguement that stock exchange listed corporations are legally required to protect their brand, as they must work to maximise shareholder value and return, so again the free market mandates that socially popular actions are taken.
Finally it highlights that Freedom of Action is never the same as Freedom from Consequence, Parler deliberately chose to embrace people active in the far-right and deliberately made policies designed to support and encourage hate speech against other groups. By chosing not to have an effective, scalable moderation policy and by not clamping down on known problem speakers in their early days, they sowed the seeds of their own destruction.
Perhaps it would be easier to use an analogy. Imagine that AWS is a bakery and Parler want them to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
There was a supreme court case on that very issue, as you may recall. I seem to recall the right wing supporters of the bakery being over the moon that the supreme court ruled 7-2 that the bakery was under no obligation to bake the cake.
Now, what was it you said again?
"Is OK as long as we do not like the content being censored."
Oh yes.
If you own or are the CEO/chairman of a private company you can choose not to do business with BLM or hell anyone who doesn't fully believe in the QAnon nonsense if you want. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences if some of your other customers decide to leave you over that decision.
If you don't like Amazon's decision, you are free to choose not to use their services and encourage others to make the same decision. They probably realized that Parler types might boycott them over this, but they made the decision anyway.
This private company argument simply doesn't cut it. The likes of the big social networks, google and Amazon occupy and control huge swathes of the public discussion space these days, especially so during a global pandemic when our ability to express our opinions in the "real" world have been significantly curtailed through lock downs.
Allowing these megacorps to deplatform the likes of Parler and even the President of the US is going to have profound implications for freedom of speech going forward. Just who are they answerable and accountable to? Of course, those on the left are happy while conservatives are in the cross-hairs, but this really should be a concern for us all.
Who are they accountable to? Their shareholders, their customers, and to a lesser degree their staff. That's exactly as it should be - if shareholders are revolted by their decision to host Parler, they'll shout for a change of governance. If customers are, they will go elsewhere(*). If the staff are, they'll go on strike. It's called capitalism. There are alternatives, but something tells me Parler wouldn't be too keen on making an argument for them.
(*) While I fervently dream of people abandoning Amazon for someone that pays their taxes or is less hell-bent on destroying our highstreets, it hasn't happened so far. However customer pressure has been very effective on some issues - UK supermarkets not stocking GMO crops is the first that come to mind.
They weren't as dumb as originally thought: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25499-neanderthals-may-have-been-our-intellectual-equals/
Yeah, that whole idea is just Cro-Magnon propaganda.
Neanderthals failed (to survive as a distinct group) because they were simply too big to live in large communities. Which meant that the better organised Cro-Magnon out-built and just expanded clean over them, in much the same way (only more so) as American settlers overran the native peoples who were in their way.
But they could interbreed, and many of them did. So they're not really gone. Just evolved.
It is disappointing that this site is usually just another liberal mouthpiece. For people who supposedly deal in facts there's an abundance of rabid anti-conservatism based on emotion alone. Apparently it's confusing to you that some people believe it's not the government's place to provide its population with goods and services.
You seem to be perfectly happy with censorship as long as it isn't a viewpoint you support. Those people shouldn't be allowed to say what they say because you have a differing opinion! Stifle them at once! Remove all platforms that dare give them an internet connection!
"First they came for the Communists..."
Anonymous because hey, you clearly support the whole "cancel culture!"
Now express your further displeasure by reaching for that fully-mechanical beige keyboard, worn from composing so many anti-Trump missives over the last 4 years, and downvote me soundly! That will teach me a lesson! At least you have the ability to do that because no one upstream of ElReg has decided it doesn't deserve to be on the internet. Yet.
"For people who supposedly deal in facts there's an abundance of rabid anti-conservatism based on emotion alone"
This story, and us here at the Reg, aren't anti-conservative. It's written with the normal level of emotion. Everything in the story is fact. You need to drop the victim complex. It's not healthy.
"You seem to be perfectly happy with censorship as long as it isn't a viewpoint you support"
Nah man, you need to check out the paradox of tolerance. If a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. If you force the likes of Amazon to enable the spread of hateful, violent messaging, you're not going to see a bright, happy future.
If someone draws the line and says, no, I'm not going to allow people to plan an armed insurrection in my country on my servers, then that's their choice -- and that's you no longer welcome. Just like if you mouthed off in a pub at everyone, you'd be thrown out. Speech has consequences. Go make your own platform or find someone to host you. Amazon doesn't owe you a thing.
"Amazon was not supporting Parlor in the sense of Facebook ... Content was none of their business."
Funny, a conservative telling a private enterprise what to do. I thought you were all about small government? Now you want to tell Amazon how to run its cloud and who it should do business with. Weird.
C.
You only need to read the title to understand in advance that the content would be non objective.
Almost everything that comes out of the San Francisco office now is full is bias and that's just not journalism. I would much rather see these heavily politicised opinions left out of the articles.
I, like the OP above am getting a little wary of what's happening to the El Reg, it has never been so impartial... And that means it is becoming an echo chamber, just like Twitter, Parler and FB....
It's sad to imagine that if El Reg starts on that slippery slope how it will ever be able to remain proud of its achievements. It will become just another propoganda outlet...
>I, like the OP above am getting a little wary of what's >happening to the El Reg, it has never been so impartial... >And that means it is becoming an echo chamber, just like >Twitter, Parler and FB....
You might want to check the meaning of impartial, before you make yourself look silly
@jonathan keith : I wish you luck with that attitude.. You'll need it.
You have just confirmed the new general attitude... El Reg is no longer a place for discussion, if you don't agree with "our" ideas then you are not welcome..
The complete opposite of what this site was once about. The world is indeed changing but it's heading down a very dark path... This is the kind of path that brings about extremism, from both sides... Left and Right..
"I'm hearing no valid arguments why Amazon should be forced to host parler"
There's no legal argument why Amazon should be forced to host parler (as long as they aren't breaching contract, which it seems they weren't). There's also no moral argument either, AWS are perfectly entitled to say "my servers my rules".
It is however, part of a worrying trend... Apple booting competitors out of it's App Store, Facebook trying to harvest all What'sApp data, FB again and Twitter closing accounts with no specific reason or recourse, Youtube demonetizing accounts without excuse or recourse...
We're now in a situation where anyone wanting to reach a large audience for their apps, their projects, their ideas etc is highly dependent on a handful of giant companies, each of whom can remove posts, apps, accounts etc at a whim, often without explanation and always without recourse. Anyone who wants to get mobile/online at all cannot really do so without somehow having to deal with one or all of Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon, and all their millions of tentacles wrapped around the internet
Anyone who wants to get mobile/online at all cannot really do so without somehow having to deal with one or all of Apple, Facebook, Google and Amazon, and all their millions of tentacles wrapped around the internet
Sure they can. It's how the 'net worked in those heady days pre-FANGS. Fire up some servers, strap on some transit, aim your DNS and voila, you're a host on the 'net. And still perfectly possible, give or take contracts. It may also be beneficial, ie telco-supplied capacity might be supplied under 'common carrier' principles, so slightly more protected than trying to build your business based on AWS's whims. It may be further protected depending on what the FCC does wrt 'net neutrality given the 'neutral' net doesn't allow providers to block or censor websites.
There'd almost certainly be clauses in the contracts stating that content must be lawful, but that's generally something that's decided by law enforcement issuing take-downs, not because your ISP's besties with the ruling government. Or lobbying them hard because your ISP doesn't want to be given the regulatory & anti-trust hairy eyeball.
But that would still leave the potential problem of getting any app-based system out there, which may or may not become an anti-trust issue given the co-ordinated way Apple & Google banned the Parler app. Strange how the two largest pro-neutrality lobbyists flipped to censorship and creating a barrier to entry.
You seem to have a really bad persecution complex. If I may...
"El Reg is no longer a place for discussion, if you don't agree with "our" ideas then you are not welcome."
I think you need to provide evidence of this. As far as I can tell the comment moderators have allowed your comment onto the public forums without any issues whatsoever. I think your problem is with the other commenters whom don't seem to agree with what you posted. Which is fair enough right, because everyone is allowed their opinion - including the ones that for some reason upvoted your post.
But then the best bit of all from your OP : "downvote me soundly!". So we do, and for some reason you can't take it. I just get the impression that you are either (A) incredibly badly thought through, or (B) just a bit too thin skinned to be allowed out on your own.
I'm sure there are other sites out there for you if El Reg is no longer your cup of tea; but yet here you are... still posting, and still whining.
"You think it's Trump posting?"
No:
1) There is a limited use of upper case.
2) The spelling is reasonable.
3) The word SAD is lacking.
Not Trump but someone with a belief that the only valid viewpoint is the one they hold and who cannot accept that there are people who do not agree with them.
Oh, one last thing. I do not think that Trump would ever post as an AC. He is too fond of seeing his name splashed all over the place.
There isn't really anything to discuss. The judge made a ruling, El Reg reported it. End of. El Reg were not in court, railing against Parler. They took no part at all.
Two things though: 1) Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment 2) The first amendment protects you against the government, not private enterprise.
If you are going to go around screaming death threats, racist slurs and spreading lies, be prepared for the consequences of that action.
3: The first amendment does not protect against CONSEQUENCES of that speech
In this instance, AWS (and others) decided they no longer wished to be associated with Parler
Had AWS continued hosting Parler, it could have been that a lot of others might decide to vote with their wallets and no longer associate with AWS
Boycotts are perfectly reasonable.
Just as the USA courts say I cannot force a baker to make a cake for a gay couple, they also cannot dictate that I must continue to do business with that baker instead of supporting a baker who will make the cake
Agree. There's a huge difference in 'tone' between the British and American Register writers. As soon as I opened this article I checked the author, saw it was a San Francisco writer, and thought "Oh, here we go."
I'd be more inclined to support their argument if they could make a convincing argument as to why Parler should be shut down, and Twitter allowed to remain online? If the argument is *truly* one about violent speech, then Twitter is every but as guilty as Parler. Thing is, it's got nothing to do with violent/hateful speech. It's all about Parler being primarily right-wing (bad) and Twitter left-wing (good).
It's as simple as that.
I would hardly call Twitter left wing. It really does become an echo chamber depending on who you follow.
The difference between Twitter and Parler is that Twitter will take down anything that is reported to them that crosses the line (unless it is from a protected account; e.g. a lot of Trumps previous tweets about alleged election fraud should have caused his account to have been taken down, but they were left there with a warning attached instead).
Parler didn't have a proper process for taking down anything - in fact they had a "community" to do it for them, and if the community thought the posts were okay, then far be it from them to disagree. The problem with that is the "echo chamber" effect means nothing will ever get taken down. It seems the only activity the community complained about was when anyone "left of centre" joined up - those posters seemed to be shitbombed off the site without fail.
AWS had actually taken issue with Parler for this previously. Parler said "It's not our fault we've had too many people sign up" which suggested that they really had no control whatsoever over the content they were publishing. And while 95% of it may have been harmless, it's the fact that there were a small minority using the site to publish e.g. plans to overthrow the Capitol and kidnap or even kill Democrat senators that forced the whole site offline. If you can't take down the small percentage of problem posts, in a timely manner, then they all come down.
Parler isn't a right-wing platform. It's just a platform that promoted itself as being more permissive, so when people were kicked off other platforms for hate speech, they ended up on parler. Not sure if this might have been encouraged by parler as a niche way of increasing user base which then backfired.
I'm assuming you think you mean 'biased' not 'impartial'.
If there's one thing about The Reg, it's that we've never, ever knowingly shied away calling something we think is dumb "dumb".
And running a platform like Parler, in which anyone can say anything, no matter how extreme, and think there will be no consequences? That's really fkin dumb.
C.
RWNJs and their ilk aren't at all opposed to Big Government. OIN fact they're all in favour of it when it does what they want
What they really HATE is Big Democracy
The events and timeline that's led to Parler and the events of January 6th date back to Deember 1940 and the start of a decades long campaign to detroy the New Deal:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030
It's also worth noting that the USA very nearly entered the European war of 1939 on the side of Germany, and that IBM directly facilitated the Holocaust, even smuggling their equipment into Nazi germany long after the USA was actually at war with the Nazis
American Fascism has never been hidden far below the surface. Prewar antifascists became postwatr anticommunists and carried on
No, it means that their ears are closed and that they no longer wish to discuss, they only want to push their own personal ideas on to you.. It's called propaganda.. It's the cancel culture...
Not listening to other peoples ideas is the classic example of narcissism.
This is all fine until their own personal ideas are no longer part of the main stream idea... and suddenly they find themselves so very much alone. With no where to turn to ...
urther we go, the further we become divided, when we are sufficiently then the real problems start...
And there it is, the projection.....The right in the USA have closed their ears for years, - even distorted a phrase 'main stream media' into implying that it only peddles lies, while listening to blatant propaganda from a few hucksters who are either trying to flog over-priced gold, inventing scary bogey men or massaging their personal egos. The majority of the world have looked on slightly bemusedly, slightly scared, watching the slow motion car crash.
By your definition the majority of Trump supporters are classic narcissists, locked in to Fox news and anything to it's right - which figures as they were led by an animated version of the Wikipedia page that defines narcissism.
It's called propaganda.. It's the cancel culture...
It's what these dudes have been peddling on Parler. Unless you can come up with a way to hang someone - like former Vice-President Mike Pence - on a gallows without cancelling them? No, didn't think you could.
As far as the expression cancel culture goes, that came about because of protests about police brutality in the US, iirc. I can't think of a more obvious example of cancel culture than the one the BLM protesters were protesting about. One where protests about police brutality are shoved aside, forgotten, ignored ....
Not listening to other peoples ideas is the classic example of narcissism.
Funny how this is supposed to make me want to support QAnon on Parler. Conspiracy theories like the QAnon one, are a classical example of narcissism. Conspiracy theories involve NOT listening to any explanation other than the ONE TRUE EXPLANATION; Conspiracy theories involve armouring oneself against all other possible explanations.
"As far as the expression cancel culture goes, that came about because..."
Bit of an aside here, but cancel culture has a strong history on the far left, where anyone who refuses to accept the premise that everything bad that happens in the world is a function of white male hegemony is cancelled. Anyone objecting to the far left's strict interpretation of gender and sexuality is cancelled. etc etc.
I'd say that cancel culture is actually born form social media that create echo chambers in distinct social groups where everyone is trying to conform, which leads to virtue signalling vicious circles where tolerance of non-conformity is gradually squeezed out. Happens on the far left, happens on the far right; Hell, I bet there are old ladies in crotcheting groups who have cancelled anyone who dared to extol the virtues of some type of stitch that the in-group didn't like.
Free speech is the freedom to say what you like within the means you have.
It also carries with it the freedom to bear the consequences of your actions.
While you can say what you like, you do not have the right to demand that other people listen, or repeat / publish what you want using any means at their disposal. To do so would be to limit their freedoms.
At this point, I confess I don't have any firm idea of what "cancel culture" is supposed to mean. I hear it thrown around as an accusation or excuse an awful lot, but never any substantive argument or description to go with it, to explain why something is "cancel culture" or why that's a bad thing.
> No, it means that their ears are closed and that they no longer wish to discuss, they only want to push their own personal ideas on to you.
At what point of deplatforming you are they pushing their ideas onto you exactly?
All they're saying is you can't use their property to push your ideas. Afaik, there Twitter (for example) ban notifications don't come with a "take our reeducation course to be reinstated" option.
> Not listening to other peoples ideas is the classic example of narcissism.
Quoted only to note the stunning lack of self-awareness this displays in the context of this comment thread.
> urther we go, the further we become divided, when we are sufficiently then the real problems start...
Weird, because right-wingers have had plenty of access to platforms - Twitter, and Parler. The outcome? An attempted insurrection on Capitol Hill.
But sure, it's removing those echo chambers that cause the division.
"Not listening to other peoples ideas is the classic example of narcissism"
Well, I have listened to, for example, the idea that the election was stolen. I evaluated it, balanced it against all the other things I know, including that I haven't seen a single bit of compelling evidence for even small-scale fraud (and that dozens of court challenges were thrown out).
It seems like many Trump supporters, simply will not believe the idea that they lost the election fair and square. On this issue it's Trump's supporters who aren't listening to other people, so much so that they tried imposing their own view by violence
Speaking of narcississts by the way, Trump clearly fits that particular psychological profile to a T
I evaluated it, balanced it against all the other things I know, including that I haven't seen a single bit of compelling evidence for even small-scale fraud
Here's one-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-woman-arrested-on-election-fraud-charges-based-on-project-veritas-video/ar-BB1cJ5tk
SAN ANTONIO — A former campaign worker was arrested Wednesday and charged with election tampering, the state attorney general’s office announced.
The allegations surfaced last fall after the conservative activist group Project Veritas posted an edited video of the woman, Raquel Rodriguez, in which she appears to be helping an elderly person fill out a mail-in ballot form and discussing unlawful tactics, including assisting people at the polls.
I posted the Project Veritas video a while back, and pointed out that if true, should lead to charges. A couple of replies disbelieved it because Project Veritast is right-wing. Then again, so is the Texas AG, and this is an arrest. Whether it'll result in a conviction, who knows?
So somewhat inconvenient because many people believe that there was no possibility of fraud. It's all fake news, or conspiracy theories. Or, it's an election, and election fraud happens. Or just some irregularities, like intefering with election observers. Or potential issues with signature verification, which could lead to fraud, or illegally counted votes.
So in a functional democracy, criticisms should be considered, processes improved, and the legal process followed. A bit like it did when Gore's challenge wrt the infamous hanging chads ran right up to the wire.
Instead, the 'MSM' declared there was absolutely no fraud, and this was the cleanest election evah since the vote for Crimean independence! Which would be an impossible claim to make given it'd take time & resources to properly investigate any fraud claim.. As the Rodriguez arrest on the 13th perhaps showed.
But such is politics. If you live in an echo chamber on the left or right, you won't necessarily see the full picture. If you supress dissenting opinions, you certainly won't. So Obama & CNN's Jen Psaki's back at the White House, officially denying there's any story at all behind Hunter Biden's laptop(s), potentially dubious dealings in Ukrain & China, and all that is just 'fake news'..
Thanks. So now I have seen evidence of micro-scale fraud. Still haven't seen any evidence of small-scale fraud that could flip a few hundreds or even thousands of votes, let alone to the scale alleged by Trump (who claims he got a popular vote win, which would require vote tampering to the tune of 7 million votes nationwide).
And the states with the smallest margins were especially well scrutinised. So, sure, I'm not saying there was no fraud at all. But systematic, and big enough to make a difference?? What do YOU think?
Jellied Eel>>>Instead, the 'MSM' declared there was absolutely no fraud,
Wrong. The fact being reported is there is no systemic, large scale conspiracy-level voter fraud on a state/national level.
The odd ballot abuse or mistakes are there. As in any vote. And people will be punished with a 5 year jail sentence. Google it. Trump himself was illegally registered to vote in more than 1 state. But there is not the made up vote fraud conspiracy peddled by the liars like Trump, Giuliani , Ron Watkins et el.
In that case, kick out all the Reps who were elected on the same "fraudulent" ballots.
And ignore all the judges decisions to throw out the cases. Forget the MSM, do you completely distrust the entire judiciary, State and Federal?
The entire "fraud" claim has been a grift, the grift that keeps on giving.
In that case, kick out all the Reps who were elected on the same "fraudulent" ballots.
Yup. That's how democracy is meant to work. Free & fair elections.
And ignore all the judges decisions to throw out the cases. Forget the MSM, do you completely distrust the entire judiciary, State and Federal?
That's an issue that unites left & right. So accusations of packing the Supreme Court with pro-Republican judges following Ginsberg's death. Or suspicion that Dems will increase the number of judges to pack it with 'their' people. Or suspicion that state-level judges threw out cases on procedural grounds, and in accordance with their party.
Which isn't great for democracy, if the judiciary is seen as political rather than independent & neutral. It's created a situation where some percentage of the Republican's 70m voters have less trust in the judiciary than they did before the election. And it's also politically embarassing for the US given situations like Venezuela-
On 31 March, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that sanctions did not apply to humanitarian aid during the COVID-19 pandemic in Venezuela and that the US would lift all sanctions if Maduro agreed to organize elections that did not include himself in a period of six to twelve months. Pompeo reiterated US support for Juan Guaidó
Which is obviously foreign interference in an election, and the US challenging their election & backing the loser. And there's also shades of Pelosi's impeachment demands, ie demanding Trump be banned from ever holding any public office again. Again embarassing for America, if it's democratic elections are being compared to the usual shenanigans in Latin America & elsewhere.
But such is politics. I'm fairly neutral, but having briefly been part of the UK's election process, interested in aspects of Americas. The UK has experienced mail-in vote fraud and ballot stuffing, the charges against Rodriguez show it's not just a UK phenomena.. But I also suspect any frauds like that would be small scale, and more likely to influence local rather than national results. So Biden almost certainly won the popular vote, and conjuring up say, 12m 'fraudulent' votes should be obvious..
If you look.
Which is agan political. Don't look, Biden won, get over it. Please don't riot, or terrify AOC, she's fragile enough already. But I don't know if there's the US equivalent of the UK's Electoral Commission that reviews election results. But some criticisms should be investigated, like the quality of US electoral rolls, voter authentication procedures, the ability for election observers to effectively observe etc. All of which is good for democracy, but takes time, and a desire to look and cure any issues that arise.
There you go: you mention communists, and here’s one volunteering an opinion (yes: opinion, because after writing I’m not going to make it follow facts or actions).
IMHO, the underlying problem is that Amazon, Twitter & co. should have not been allowed to grow to a size at which their moderation choices have consequences worth talking about in court. But that has happened, mostly because of regulatory choices made by —guess whom?— conservatives.
Once that has happened, it would have been good public health practice to have rules in place with clearly mandate what is allowed and what not, since “hang Mike Pence” is a disgusting opinion until you go where he works with all the gear to turn that comment into reality. I think that none of it should be allowed, but I hope we all agree that what looks like attempted murder shouldn’t be allowed at all.
Such rules, though, don’t exist for online forums, mostly under the initiative of conservatives.
This leaves everything to the EULA, and AWS clearly states that it can pull the plug if they don’t like what you do on their servers —and they can do that at their discretion. That happened, Parler goes bye-bye, in a gangster kind of way.
So cheers, don’t cry about a way of doing things that conservatives largely defined.
P.S.: the El Reg article mostly consists ofquotes out of the judge’s ruling, doesn’t even offer a value judgment on them. You probably were hoping for one, and didn’t find it. Bad luck.
> IMHO, the underlying problem is that Amazon, Twitter & co. should have not been allowed to grow to a size at which their moderation choices have consequences worth talking about in court. But that has happened, mostly because of regulatory choices made by —guess whom?— conservatives.
Nail on the fucking head my friend.
There *is* an issue with the fact that the FAANG's of the world can have such a dramatic impact on speech. They absolutely *should* be regulated (though how is a harder question).
But we've arrived here because there are a group of people who are traditionally against more regulation of businesses.
Elsewhere in the thread, OP used the old "they came for the communists, but" without realising that what's happening here is that the group who cried "no regulation" are now in the position that they were fine with it, until that lack of regulation impacted them.
"Let the market decide" only works until you don't like the fact that the market has decided, quite resolutely, against you.
No, you have a failure of understanding. I can say I do not agree you and your views. That is a fair and honest comment. I can say that I detest your views for a range of reasons. That is also a fair comment and should not raise any objection. However, if I suggest your views are so abhorrent that you should be strung from the nearest lamppost, or be put down, that is close to an incitement to criminal action. If I compound the matter by saying, 'I am too distant, someone please murder whoever', that is not an opinion, it is criminal. There is no political angle at all to a rejection of illegal activity.
Of course if it was a so-called socialist state e.g. Russia or China, etc. all views other than their Government's line are likely subject to a death treatment.
Where is this "anti-conservatism" you speak of?
Is it anti-conservative to quote the ruling of a judge, now? Is it anti-conservative to believe that your country's long established process for changing its government should be allowed to work? Or that a private company should be allowed to make its own business decisions?
Words are supposed to have meanings. But I guess once you've admitted "alternative facts", it probably becomes a bit hard to remember what "conservative" really is.
" For people who supposedly deal in facts there's an abundance of rabid anti-conservatism based on emotion alone."
Hey look, another dimbulb who confuses actual conservatism with QAnon-worshipping nazi-sympathising alt-right conspiracy twats.
Don't try to normalise your fucked-in-the-head bullshit by comparing it to conservatism, thanks.
It is, however, disturbing that the new blacklist and the new witch hunts seem exclusively focused on the right, when the numbers demonstrate that the victims of Marxism's adherents greatly outnumber the victims of the equally abhorrent extremists on the right. (cue various [redacted] claiming, yes but they weren't 'real' Marxists.)
Hello AC,
I'm glad you got that off your chest. And I'm also glad your post made it past moderators. I've had quite a number of posts rejected on these here forums, and usually for very good reason, though sometimes I have NFI why. But, hey, it's not my website :)
I often wonder at the levels of thought involved in posting stuff on the internet
Do people take a considered approach to their typing, or simply bash out the first thing that comes into the head.
there is NO freedom of speech if you are using someone else's printer/website/cloudy computers to publish your speech, you have to agree with the terms and conditions when you buy their service, and if the terms state "No hate/racist speech" and you put something racist up, they have a right to terminate your use of their services
As for the whole "other people have a different viewpoint" thats a bit rich coming from someone who seems to support the whole "stolen election" thing when more people of another viewpoint voted for a new president and you went "whaaaa not fair"
Anyways , as the US has a new president in charge, I guess its time to do 2 things, sit back and relax now an adult has the job, and look up stuff I can use to make fun of Biden
Have a nice life
"First they came for the Communists..."
No, first they came for the people who wanted a bakery to make them a gay wedding cake.
I don't recall the right wing crying bitter salty tears about censorship when the supreme court ruled that the bakery was under no obligation to bake the cake.
If a bakery doesn't have to bake a cake it finds objectional, AWS doesn't have to host the inane hateful rants of furious gammony incels.
I'm surprised the judge didn't just point out that AWS are not the only hosting outfit in the world. If you can't find anyone worldwide who will host your content then its clear world + dog probably agrees with AWS. If you aren't capable of hosting it elsewhere within a few hours then perhaps you need to learn the fist rule of any business, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
If the victims of such actions want to take their case to court, I for one will be happy to discuss the outcomes with you under those stories. But you don't get to just say that as if we all know what the outcome would be.
Twitter often acts, quickly, to take down material that crosses its lines. Parler made no discernable effort to do so,despite promising that it would. These things make all the difference between "viable business model" and "vanity wankfest".
Amazon and other hosting providers have their T&Cs for what they will allow on their servers. If this had been pronhub or some other adult website that Amazon decided to pull the plug on because they felt that hosting it was breaching their terms and conditions. It would not be making headlines.
In regarding to a lot of posts on Parler being 'free speech' Threats to kill would not be protected under the right to free speech in the US. Just like shouting FIRE in a crowded room when there was no fire wouldn't be protected either.
on a server connected to a 14.4k modem using a line shared with my auntie (who is well known for her 8 hour phone calls and "accidentally" leaving the phone off the hook for days at a time).
I'll even offer 5 9's uptime (I'm pretty sure it will be online for at lease 99.999 seconds per year.
I wonder why it doesn't buy a server, plug the Internet into it and host itself.
If nobody wants to host you, you can still do it on your own - for a bit of work and money, of course.
But, given the apparent content, I guess I'm not surprised that they go whining to be hosted back again. Whining is always easier than working.
> I wonder why it doesn't buy a server, plug the Internet into it and host itself.
From various tear-downs of Parler, it seems the technical acumen behind it isn't... great - down to obviously insane things like trying to build a large scale social network based on a relational database (and not understanding things like there being a relatively small maximum value for your int primary key).
If they bought some servers and connected them directly, there's a reasonable chance they'd be offline quite quickly.
Now Twitter has banned Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei simply for making a jokey threat against Trump. As a Leftist I am truly appalled by this infringement of Khamenei's freedom of speech. He never posed a credible threat to the US Capitol, he was just sharing a funny meme.
I'm very sorry that 'the Register' thinks Parler is an anti-social network peopled only by the far right.
I am in the U.K. and I signed up to Parler when a centre right [= moderate left wing in U.S] radio presenter was banned from many social media platforms and then a national radio station was banned from youtube [Please note in the U.K. all TV & Radio stations are regulated and therefore 'hate' of any kind would result in severer penalties] but youtube decided it did not agree with the output of 'Talkradio' so it just chucked it out.
Free speech as long as you say what they want you to is worthless. I listen to views from all angles then engage my brain.
Not "only." Just a lot. And a lot is too many. Paradox of tolerance and all that.
We've got to stop thinking in binary terms, of either total free speech or no speech. Life is shades of gray. Saying 'Jeff Bezos is a greedy scumbag' shouldn't get you kicked off AWS. That would be suboptimal. But we're not talking about that: we're talking about people using speech to plan the overthrowing of democratic rule. The glue of a civilization.
Speech has consequences.
C.
I'm sorry 'the Register' thinks Parler is an 'anti-social network' with only the far right using it. The right to say anything you like as long as it is on the approved list of ideas and thoughts is no freedom at all.
I am in the U.K. and I signed up to Parler when a centre right [= moderate left wing in U.S. terms] radio presenter was banned from many social media platforms and then a national radio station was banned from youtube [Please note in the U.K. all TV & Radio stations are regulated and therefore 'hate' of any kind would result in severer penalties] but youtube decided it did not agree with the output of 'Talkradio' so it just chucked it out.
I listen to views from all angles then engage my brain.
"Bile" though it may be, full of "hate and misinformation", that description also perfectly fits CNN and others for the last 4 years. I'm not defending Parler but only pointing out that different people like/will tolerate different things. I personally would not miss Twitter one bit if it were put out of business tomorrow, for example. I know many disagree. We have to be very careful cheering something being put out of business lest our "favorite pub" be next.
CNN does not put out hate and misinformation. Yes it does have an angle and the angle is obvious to anyone with a brain.
It's not just a tech company issue, it's a social issue. White Americans are waking up to the reality that other white Americans can engage in dangerous and deadly activities that threaten everyone. Which has always been happening, but was largely ignored because they were White so it was ok and it was usually "only" threatening and murdering non-whites (eg lynchings). Or the other favorite explanation for white terrorism- so-called "lone wolf" cases.
Violent White Americans have had too much freedom for too long, free from the consequences of their actions. Hopefully some real resources will be put into rounding up the crazies.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
