Federal Judge Blocks Parler's Bid To Be Restored on Amazon Web Services (cnn.com) 214
A federal judge has denied Parler's request for a court order blocking Amazon from kicking the social media app off its platform, marking yet another setback in Parler's efforts to get back online. From a report: Judge Barbara Rothstein issued a ruling on Thursday saying that Parler had not met the legal requirements for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. That decision does not end the litigation, but it does mean that the court will not force Amazon Web Services to allow Parler back onto its cloud hosting platform. Amazon's move effectively kicked Parler off the public internet. Parler, the alternative social media platform favored by the far-right, had sued AWS earlier this month after AWS claimed Parler did not do enough to remove instances of incitement from its website.
Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let Steve Bannon run it so that he can loot most of the money again, he should be out of jail soon with his new pardon
Re: (Score:2)
That's hilarious.
Re:Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, Parler was originally created with the idea it would be a home for born-again Christians, and because of the overlap of the two groups had also become the home of Qanon, so I thought that the gullibility of their user base was fairly obvious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On the face of it, Parler purports to be a platform enabling the free expression of opinion
And in practice, you'd get banned for expressing left-of-center viewpoints. And the users really, really, liked that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead. That would be legal, unlike the NFA and GCA.
Re:Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would not be surprised if they made a kind of "Built the wall" campaign to finance Parler's alt-right hosting services.
A pardon for one crime doesn't protect you if you commit the crime again. It isn't a get out of jail free card for any future criminal activity.
And in any case, Steve Bannon is probably the most likely individual to still spend significant time in prison for the same crime he was pardoned for. His criminal activity is not only a federal crime but also a crime in all 50 states. Considering the scope of his crimes he could potentially be charged in all 50 of them. Some officials, such as those in Florida, have already announced their investigations were still open and have suggested they may choose to file charges soon. New York also fixed a 'double jeopardy loophole' in 2019 which frees them to prosecute crimes which have been pardoned at the federal level. The future still doesn't look bright for Steve Bannon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well he could do it legitimately.
Could he, though? Is he physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of that?
With Mercer backing, Parler doesn't need funds, it needs competent software developers and system administrators. The lack of both is why it's in this situation in the first place.
Maybe it needs both, to weather the inevitable landslide of legal challenges that will result from multiple groups?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
New York also fixed a 'double jeopardy loophole' in 2019 which frees them to prosecute crimes which have been pardoned at the federal level.
Because NOTHING makes good law like the idea that "we HAVE to get these guys!" amirite?
Fruit of the poison tree? Fuck that, we have parallel construction.
Driving while black? Fuck that, he was swerving and I detected the odor of marijuana.
Won't talk during interrogation? Fuck that, you have to speak up in order to preserve your right to remain silent, or we'll use your silence to infer your guilt.
Jury didn't convict or federal pardon? Fuck that, let's prosecute again for the same crime in a different venu
Re:Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. You are wrong. That isn't what the 2019 move was. Your projection is showing.
Trump was using the presidential pardon to protect people breaking the law for his own benefit. That is clearly not what the pardon was intended to do.
Now, if a pardon is truly justified, states can choose not to pursue the case. Before, they simply could not. This is a move by state to limit presidential power, and the last month of month of news has shown it was a necessary one.
Re: (Score:3)
''That is clearly not what the pardon was intended to do''
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".
The only limitation is that of cases of impeachment. Insofar as the intent of the law, this should probably explain it best.
https://www.scotusblog.com/202... [scotusblog.com]
We still are a country of law, right. Isn't interpretation and application left with ou
Re: (Score:3)
Because NOTHING makes good law like the idea that "we HAVE to get these guys!" amirite?
You realise that federal and state crimes are two different things and that just because you got lucky with your cronies in one system shouldn't prevent you from having a fair trial in another.
But great false equivalency you got there comparing it to actual misuses of the legal system.
Jury didn't convict or federal pardon? Fuck that, let's prosecute again for the same crime in a different venue.
And thanks for showing the world you have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Jury didn't convict or federal pardon? Fuck that, let's prosecute again for the same crime in a different venue.
People found not guilty at the state level are occasionally tried and convicted in Federal Court; just ask the cops involved in the Rodney King incident. Sounds like New York is playing turnabout.
Re:Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:5, Informative)
I would not be surprised if they made a kind of "Built the wall" campaign to finance Parler's alt-right hosting services.
They can't. At all. Not now. Not ever. Unless it is 1Bn in cash or more which nobody will give for that.
Parler is an example of what happens if you have terminal AWS addiction. It was built for AWS cloud and it will not function on any other platform unless it provides most of AWS services.
This is a lesson to anyone doing any application - you must not build your application to a single cloud and you should if possible use a private-public combo so that at least some of it is in-house and public cloud is used for scale-up/peak demand only.
Parler never learned that lesson. It is too late to learn it now.
Re: (Score:2)
AWS is so standardized, there are quite a few clone clouds. Including open source.
Actually wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I would not be surprised if they made a kind of "Built the wall" campaign to finance Parler's alt-right hosting services.
The wall that went from "Mexico will pay for it" to "Taxpayers will pay for it" to "Send Steve Bannon for money for it" to "Steve Bannon took your money" [bbc.com]?
Re: Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:2, Troll)
Uum, hate to tell ya, but "patriotism" is the whole problem here.
Oh, your blind ideology and taking pride in things you didn't contribute to, to elevate your little self is better than their blind ideology and taking pride in things they didn't contribute to, to elevate their little self?
Why don't you try realism for a change?
And fairness.
Re: Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's actually pretty hard to be "unAmerican" but supporting coordination of storming the capital and continuing to do so after knowing it happened and where it is... pretty much puts it up there.
Re: Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:3, Informative)
Tell you what. You find an example of BLM calling for looting, rioting, or arson; and I'll find you 5 examples of Parler users calling for rioting, terrorism, sedition, or murder.
Re: Now that Steve Bannon has been pardoned... (Score:5, Informative)
un-American, unpatriotic terrorists.
I see the narrative is strong with you.. good, my child.. give in to the narrative and embrace the full power of the dark side.
Remember patriot, as foretold in Q's narr^H^H^Hwords, last-minute pardons by Trump for citizens participating in the January 6th "Stop the Steal" protest can only be available for those who provide legal proof of their involvement. Questions regarding eligibility should be directed towards your nearest FBI field office or by calling the FBI national hotline.
Naturally (Score:5, Insightful)
They did nothing to remove "instances of incitement", but they do everything to remove accounts of people critical of Parler and/or conservatives and their views [marketrealist.com]. So we know they have the ability to police content, but instead they've used it to reduce free speech, on their platform where they fraudulently claim they preserve free speech. (It's textbook fraud because they require PII when you sign up, and that data is valuable.)
Even if they hadn't been removing accounts for the "crimes" of liberalism and critical thinking, Amazon would still have been justified in kicking them off of AWS for clear and blatant violations of their terms of service. But their clear ability to moderate coupled with the fact that they spent more effort moderating things which didn't result in deaths than things which did is what's really going to keep them screwed in court. It puts the lie to any claims of a good faith effort to moderate.
Re:Naturally (Score:5, Informative)
Have you read their complaint? https://beta.documentcloud.org... [documentcloud.org]
It's obsessed with Twitter. Their defence is basically "but Twitter gets away with it and AWS hosts Twitter!" so Amazon must be being mean to them.
For a start AWS doesn't host Twitter, it is only used to administer the "fleets" function.
The real issue though is that failure to evenly enforce their ToS does not make Amazon a monopoly or guilty of Sherman Act antitrust violations (lol). So even if Amazon had treated Parler "unfairly" for political reasons, it wouldn't actually win them the case.
An actual lawyer with more analysis here, but basically the whole thing is flawed and apparently written by someone who doesn't have the faintest idea how lawsuits work: https://youtu.be/FL7r-Nt5j50 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm beginning to wonder if this is a deliberate strategy on the nutcases' part. File a intentionally badly flawed case and then when it immediately gets bounced for being badly flawed, they point to how fast it was dismissed and scream about how they couldn't get a fair hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their strategy is manufacturing outrage to whip their idiot supporters into a froth with end results like the Capitol riot, so yes.
This derives entirely from the fact that said supporters are massive narcissists incapable of admitting they're wrong. If someone proves them wrong, they get mad either because they're too dumb to understand, or because they channel cognitive dissonance into impotent rage. If someone proves them right, of course, that's how the world works. You can't win against that level of st
Re: (Score:2)
It's obsessed with Twitter. Their defence is basically "but Twitter gets away with it and AWS hosts Twitter!" so Amazon must be being mean to them.
It's hilarious when internet arguments meet real life. I think a lot of people are convinced they're winning internet arguments by shouting and crapflooding, not realizing that the eventual lack of replies is due to the opposition getting fed up rather than being unable to "rebut".
Turns out this doesn't work on judges. And it's funny to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the part of a lawsuit they were interested in was the part where they could play to their base and claim the "liberal activist judges" were letting Amazon off the hook.
That would require a lot of contorting because at its heart this ruling is a judge saying one private company has the right not to engage in commerce with another private company, and the government would not get involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what does Twitter and Facebook have to do with Amazon and Parler.
Yes, what indeed? Yet Parler's defense is centered around "but other social networks do it, why can't we" ... but other social networks behave differently from Parler, so that's a bad argument.
Don't tell me. Tell Parler.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, do that analysis for Twitter and Facebook, which were used to actually plan riots all summer long.
We know they have taken down at least some of the groups used for that purpose, so they have done more than Parler.
I'd like to see them do more to curb that kind of use before it gets going, but that's difficult so I'm inclined to give them some leeway so long as they engage in ongoing efforts.
We know that social media services tolerate white supremacists in quite some volume, until they start promoting violence, so we don't have a reason to believe people are being deplatformed simply for their political v
Re: (Score:2)
"Now, do that analysis for Twitter and Facebook, which were used to actually plan riots all summer long.
Amazon obviously has no problem whatsoever with "clear and blatant violations of their terms of service", as long as they agree with the violence."
Were people planning on storming liquor stores and Target's on Facebook last summer? Or, were they planning on gathering to protest the police? And, were people planning on taking the capital on Parler? Or, were they planning on gathering to protest the electio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Who? Where? (Score:4, Insightful)
It remains unclear who may actually wind up providing the servers on which Parler's social network will run.
I suppose they could try the Kremlin.
Re:Who? Where? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is essentially what they are doing.
Parler Finds a Reprieve in Russia—but Not a Solution [wired.com]
What Is DDos-Guard? Parler Website Back Thanks to Russian Tech Company [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That is essentially what they are doing.
Parler Finds a Reprieve in Russia—but Not a Solution [wired.com]
What Is DDos-Guard? Parler Website Back Thanks to Russian Tech Company [newsweek.com]
Haha ... that is just too funny ...
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they did: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Unfortunately DDoS-Guard had been clipped of certain IP Address blocks of which Parler was currently being hosted on.
Re: (Score:3)
DDoS-Guard has been advised that the addresses will be revoked on 24 Feb. 2021 unless they establish a business presence before then.
DDoS-Guard To Forfeit Internet Space Occupied by Parler [krebsonsecurity.com]
"But earlier this week, LACNIC published a notice on its website that it intends to revoke 8,192 IPv4 addresses from DDoS-Guard — including the Internet address currently assigned to Parler[.]com. ... The notice on its site says the Internet addresses are set to be revoked on Feb. 24."
"DDoS-Guard CEO Evgeniy Marche
Why AWS? (Score:3, Informative)
Why waste good money on lawyers and courts? Just to fight some altruistic battle? Maybe it would set a good legal precedent, but the lawyers should have known they didn't have a strong enough case.
Put the $ into building your own servers. Or find someone else to host, but don't waste $ on lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Making your own hosting service would be extremely expensive, often far much more on these legal suites.
For a site, that is now a social pariah media. You are going to try to find a community willing to take a risk on building your data center, having to find a land owner willing to sell or rent to you. Heck I would be willing to say I have a religious objection to selling to Parlor if I were selling land.
If you were to find a spot, I really doubt that governments will be bending over to give you a big tax
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why waste good money on lawyers and courts? Just to fight some altruistic battle? Maybe it would set a good legal precedent, but the lawyers should have known they didn't have a strong enough case.
Put the $ into building your own servers. Or find someone else to host, but don't waste $ on lawyers.
Once you start serving loads of BS it's hard not to eat at your own trough.
The owners may have genuinely believed they had a good case, and once you're determined to go to trial you'll probably find a lawyer to accommodate you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon warned them as far back as November. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
So yeah they had more than 30 days.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like that Parler made a strategic decision to not filter or moderate anything during the run up to and just after the election because they thought it would benefit Trump and Trump candidates to have maximum hype.
If Amazon was warning them in November and they did nothing it was almost certainly intentional for partisan advantage.
I actually almost wonder if Parler should be looked at as some kind of political action committee with a public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they had an actual written contract that said they were to get 30 days notice before being removed?
And they were notified in November [npr.org] of violations of ToS and taken down in January. By my count, much more than 30 days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Conservative Republican company loses bid to convince government body to force private industry into an agreement it doesn't want to be part of."
It's not just forcing an agreement, but forcing that agreement before that government body has seen the reasons why it would or should not force that agreement.
It's just the request for TRO or PI that has been turned down so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, "conservatives", I'll trade ya (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Okay, "conservatives", I'll trade ya (Score:2)
Yeah, just like the hostage taker totally isn't going to kill you if you do what he says. lol
Avoid vendor lock-in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah not really. AWS is not exactly a hard system to migrate away from. There are many AWS compatible providers. There's even AWS compatible private clouds if you want to migrate off AWS and just copy and paste it to your own metal boxes.
Seriously, like ther aren't other hosting platform (Score:2)
* Rent a load of servers under a one-person shell company, contract it out to Parler.
* Rent some servers in Russia, China, you name it. So many nations giddy to show a finger to the US, and I' sure you can make up a Trumpette-logic reason how this represents your glorious winning over them.
* Just use any other damn "cloud" provider. I'm sure one of them is desperate enough, doesn't care, or is just like you.
Hell, why not just have the shell company rent Amazon's crap directly, and use that, without telling
I've heard this song before (Score:2)
The N*zis shut down the Berliner Tageblatt on January 31, 1939. Bezos and his ilk really need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
*And it looks like Slashdot's management needs to do the same.
doesn't matter (Score:2)
My takeaway from all this... (Score:2)
The "far" right (Score:2)
Re:Time to build an underground internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of what your political convictions are, censorship is wrong.
My political and moral convictions make me fine with limiting free expression in cases of libel, slander, sedition, incitement, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, the right to privacy, and perjury. That isn't even the full list of limitations on free speech, but I'll admit to not being a fan of every law limiting freedom of expression.
So I disagree with your central statement.
Do any of those actually require *censorship*? (Score:5, Insightful)
> My political and moral convictions make me fine with limiting free expression in cases of libel, slander, sedition, incitement, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, the right to privacy, and perjury. That isn't even the full list of limitations on free speech, but I'll admit to not being a fan of every law limiting freedom of expression.
Agreed.
I may be nit-picking at this point, but I think censorship and free speech are important enough topics that it's worth being precise, saying exactly what we mean. Specifically, censorship is dangerous enough that for me I think it's worth being clear on what censorship is. Lest we accidentally profess our support for something we don't actually support, because we failed to be careful about what the word censorship means.
I support libel and slander laws more or less as we currently have them in the United States. Which is - if I defame somebody, they can sue me for damages.
That's a very different system than censorship. Censorship is when you have censors, people who read the message before I'm allowed to post it. My post doesn't go live on this site unless the censor approves it.
Censorship (also called prior restraint) is one system for dealing with things, liability for what you choose to say is a different system. I support the liability system - nobody prevents a whistle blower from saying what they have to say. You are responsible for what you choose to say. If somebody says something illegal, they can get in trouble for it.
I support the liability the system, not the censor system, generally.
It's conceptually the same as choosing between these two:
A) People who commit robberies go to jail
B) Everyone is handcuffed so they can't commit robberies
Censorship is the system where speech is blocked ahead of time. Only what the censors approve of ever gets heard. Liability is your voice is heard, there are no censors, and if you use your voice to commit slander you can held accountable for what you did.
Re: (Score:3)
I support the liability the system, not the censor system, generally.
It's conceptually the same as choosing between these two:
A) People who commit robberies go to jail
B) Everyone is handcuffed so they can't commit robberies
You make plenty of good points about the difference between censorship and liability. Although considering no one gets banned or censored until after they have committed an infraction, the recent actions of tech companies lies solidly under choice A.
Censorship is the system where speech is blocked ahead of time.
I don't know of any censorship programs like this. No one gets banned until after they have committed infractions, and no one has their posts flagged or removed until they have been deemed an infraction. There may be mistakes or exceptions I'm not aware of, but
Re:Do any of those actually require *censorship*? (Score:4, Interesting)
Censorship is the system where speech is blocked ahead of time.
I don't know of any censorship programs like this.
That's the definition of censorship, so if you say you don't know of any censorship like that, you're saying you don't know of any censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Merriam-Webster censor [merriam-webster.com] is:
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't know of any censorship programs like this. No one gets banned until after they have committed infraction
Then you probably live in a liberal democracy like the United States, which uses the liability system rather than the censorship system.
In the US, the number one employer of censors is TV networks.
Jimmy Kimmel is censored on his show. If the censor vleepa something out, it never makes it in air.
We are not censorsed on Slashdot. Our comments can be down-voted AFTER they are published. You co
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The TV networks hire people whose actual job title is "censor".
When the censor bleeps Jimmy Kimmel, that's censorship.
In the US we generally don't have government censorship.
At the public / legal level, we use the liability system rather than the censor system.
require *censorship*? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a big stretch but for arguments sake Amazon could silence their critics or those they disagree
If those critics use Amazon's services to express those sentiments, Amazon can indeed ban them for it.
Private property is private, yo.
Re:Do any of those actually require *censorship*? (Score:4, Informative)
It's only censorship if it is done by the government.
Nonsense. Live television broadcasts employ a time delay to enable censorship in real time, and that includes cable-only channels like ESPN that aren't subject to FCC decency rules. And the movie industry had its Motion Picture Production Code [wikipedia.org] for many years. Even the movie rating system in place today is a form of censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is when you have censors, people who read the message before I'm allowed to post it. My post doesn't go live on this site unless the censor approves it.
I'm not sure if this is your intent but if you take out the "on this site" section you would be talking about every newspaper, publisher, television show, etc. On the Internet, it is actually much easier to get around the type of "censoring" that you are talking about than it is in most other mediums.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the number one employer of censors is TV networks.
Jimmy Kimmel is censored on his show.
We are not censorsed on Slashdot.
Re: Time to build an underground internet (Score:4, Interesting)
You are both wrong, actually. And both well intentioned. In a quite selfish way . . .
I can reduce it to one single sentence:
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
So your freedom to harm me is obviously limited by my freedom to not be harmed.
It's just that stopping somebody from doing what I consider harm *does* limit his freedom, and he can hence just as rightfully say that you are what he considers harming him, and demand to stop that. :-/ Prepare for downmods... :-/)
(Aaaand this is where most people switch their brain off or it flies over their heads because their emotions keep their thinking restrained to an box...
In the end, harm is it's relative. I'm sorry it is. (If you disagree, you need to meet more people outside your community.)
Every attempt at an absolute rule will result in harm. The only winning move is not to play.
So in the end, the only actually fair choice, aka where everybody can be treated the same, is to disallow interaction between disagreeing parties.
Which, in practice means you *both* get your wish.
E.g. somebody can call your actions and personality horrible all day, because to him, *that is the case* based on his experiences.
And you can block him out for being a horrible person with horrible actions all day, because to you, *that is the case* based on your experiences.
It's just that others have to decide who they side with... if any.
Nobody gets to say that, but them.
And that, unlike both of your proposals, is exactly what makes it not a dictatorship nor censorship.
Re: Denial of commerce (Score:2)
I am sorry but you are mixing up stuff on both sides of the fence. We, globally, do this on a daily basis for centuries. How do you think tariffs, sanctions, taxes, and social programs work?
We put people that we know nothing about into groups that we set policy against. If Amazon was selling stuff to Al Qaeda do you really think we won't blacklist them? Do you think we shouldn't?
And the above is all governments which actually have severe restrictions on their powers because without which they have force vi
Re: Denial of commerce (Score:3, Interesting)
To add to the argument: The problem is not even with taking down Parler.
It is with doing it based on, basically, closed-eyed screaming... circumventing our legal system that we set up for that very reason.
I think Parler is a cesspool, but if we do not apply our basic rights to the worst of our citizens too, then they are no rights and worth nothing. Them applying to *everyone* is what makes them rights in the first place.
Basically, if Hitler came back from the dead, to rape everybody's firstborn to death be
Re: (Score:3)
Your problem isn't with the limitations, it's with the determination that the limitations apply. Would you allow that anyone can point to a service, shout "sedition!" and cause the service to be taken offline? Without proof or showing evidence? With unequal enforcement based on the size of the service? And with no legal recourse?
There's no legal basis for any of the claims against Parler, it simply is a baseless accusation(*). Where have we heard that term - baseless accusation - before?
There may or may not be any " legal basis for any of the claims against Parler" but there is "legal recourse". One of the main points of the summary is that Parler is still able to go ahead with their lawsuit against Amazon. The only affect that the judge's ruling has is that while the case is being heard Amazon won't be forced to host Parler.
Re: Time to build an underground internet (Score:2)
Oh BS! If a restaurant shows "Vote Biden", I shouldn't have the choice to not go there to eat? If it's just me, that's fine, but I shouldn't be able to convince all my friends if it ends up hurting the business?
Re: Time to build an underground internet (Score:3)
Everything is subjective. Objectivity purely hypothetical. Scientific philosophy 101.
You mean relative. Then your point is valid.
Re:Time to build an underground internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Time to build an underground internet (Score:2)
Anyone remember that Neuromancer sequel with the feudalist corporations?
Yeah . . .
Re: (Score:3)
It's going to be equally as hilarious watching the snowflakes melt when the shoe is on the other foot.
No, that post was already talking about conservatives.
Re: Time to build an underground internet (Score:2)
We have a first amendment right not to associate with terrorists. This has nothing to do with censorship. No one is forcing Parler off the Internet but their own technical incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been in a time in the history of the United States of America when sedition was protected as a matter of free speech. The First Amendment does not protect seditionists, insurrectionists and traitors.
That would defeat the purpose (Score:2)
Sure, the extremists can make their own Internet with blackjack and hookers, but they already did, it's called 8chan. And it's such a horrible cesspool that regular people recoil in horror at the sight of it. That's fine, but it means you can't recruit new users, because they don't see these mo
Re: (Score:2)
Both bring Money and Regulations.
It is just in the polarized environment we are willing to ignore a case where the GOP puts in strict regulations and enforcement. Also we can ignore the Democrats putting a lot of money behind their efforts as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as if any judge, liberal or conservative, would set aside federal law as laid out in Section 230 of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Section 230 is irrelevant. Parler is not being sued for the content on their platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler is not being sued for anything. They are suing, or more accurately seeking an injunction against, Amazon for throwing them off AWS.
Re: narrative as usual (Score:2)
Who exactly is "the right" and "the left"?
Have you ever met those two people in person?
Do you even think about how completely unrelated to real people those caricatures are?
Might aswell redesign N@zi "The Jew" posters with "The Right" or "The Left" on them.
I'm planning to be nice to you. I expect you to treat me the same.
Re: (Score:2)