America is burning and you are at fault.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

Do you believe that shutting down websites that perpetrate child pornography laws being shutdown violates antitrust laws?

Any objectional content or content that breaks laws should always be shutdown. Inciting violence and insurrectionist rhetoric whether from Al Qaeda or from within the US that gets shutdown should always be lauded by every US citizen. The Right used to.... times have changed.

Well it seems you are talking about Twitter...lol So are you suggesting Parlor was allowing child pornography? And Inciting violence is OK as long as it is from the left, I get it... These platforms have not been consistent, and have only focused on conservatives and libertarians. Ron Paul as example...lol Ron F'in Paul...geez

They didn't even give Parlor one day to figure out what it was that didn't meet the rules...As per their contract they should have had 30 days but we both know it wasn't about child pornography was it....They wanted it shut down because conservatives were heading there in droves. Twitter doesn't want the competition while wanting to stifle anything that doesn't fit their liberal agenda...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus
Last I heard parler was moving over to the web host that provides the service for gab and 8kun. Can't be a monopoly if there are alternatives.

lol america is not burning. its just the downfall of the current system. this land is built on fake ideology and wickedness.i personally look forward to this difficult transition. its bringing out the hypocrisy of many and reveling true colors. chickens coming home to roost. stand on your square

a reply to: Xtrozero
You do understand that an ISP and a web host are not the same thing?

My provider isn't going anywhere.

I'm not rooting for either side and I don't care which way they swing the masses.

Been on this rock for 5 decades and not once have I asked "what have we done" because I'm not part of any group that has ever done anything on that scale.

a reply to: Helious

Interesting thread so thank you.

I have to say Parler is something i hadn't heard of before this all blew up and, to be totally honest, i only really know the little i have read since, even now.

I am fundamentally in favour of free speech, unless used to incite violence. Everything else should be fair game - "sticks and stones" and the myriad other maxims apply equally here.

From what i have read, Amazon pulled Parler because it failed to moderate calls for violence? If true, then at face value Amazon has done nothing wrong. As a company, they don't have a choice.

However, there is something deeply worrying about a corporation essentially deciding who does and who doesn't have a voice.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You've completely missed the point, which frankly does not surprise me.

originally posted by: daskakik

Been on this rock for 5 decades and not once have I asked "what have we done" because I'm not part of any group that has ever done anything on that scale.

Well there is always the first and we are seeing web hosting like GoDaddy and ISP providers like Amazon and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook etc all doing the same thing... So ya I know the difference.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

You've completely missed the point, which frankly does not surprise me.

No your point was we need to burn books now it is the best for the country, BTW we will tell you which books need to be burn...No I get your message very clearly.

These platforms are moderating well outside of

Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to still remove material illegal on a federal level such as copyright infringement. In 2018, Section 230 was amended by the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (FOSTA-SESTA) to require the removal of material violating federal and state sex trafficking laws.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Well there is always the first and we are seeing web hosting like GoDaddy and ISP providers like Amazon and social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook etc all doing the same thing... So ya I know the difference.

Those are not the only places to get those particular types of services, so the point is moot.

a reply to: Xtrozero

But they are operating well within:
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; ...

Bolding mine, of course.

originally posted by: daskakik

Those are not the only places to get those particular types of services, so the point is moot.

That is really the big question in how much influence and power do they have in totally shutting down possible competition.

originally posted by: daskakik

But they are operating well within:
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

You are correct and why many are saying 230 needs to be rewritten as it was created before all of what we have today existed with basically monopiles of very powerful companies. As we are seeing right now it seems anything that doesn't follow a progressive narrative is labeled hate speech or inciting violence, so how much are they hiding behind 230 to just push a political agenda and that is well outside of the purpose of what 230 was made to protect.

And we all know their objectives is not to just remove something from their platform or service because it happens to break their terms and agreements, they want to completely destroy and that is something completely different.

I personally hate the idea of isolated platforms that follow just one ideology. Just think if ATS split into two parts and all you saw was posts from just one group that followed your political leanings...kind of boring to say in the least and it will lead to a larger gap as the platforms that offer freedom of speech for all dry up.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: daskakik

But they are operating well within:
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

You are correct and why many are saying 230 needs to be rewritten as it was created before all of what we have day existed. As we are seeing right now it seems anything that doesn't follow a progressive narrative is labeled hate speech or inciting violence, so how much are they hiding behind 230 to just push a political agenda and that is well outside of the purpose of what 230 was made to protect.

And we all know their objectives is not to just remove something from their platform or service because it happens to break their terms and agreements, they want to completely destroy and that is something completely different.

I personally hate the idea of isolated platforms that follow just one ideology. Just think if ATS split into two parts and all you saw was posts from just one group that followed your political leanings...kind of boring to say in the least and it will lead to a larger gap as the platforms that offer freedom of speech for all dry up.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or you genuinely haven't been paying attention to politics on ATS for the past couple months. The biggest reason this website is still online is because we have very diligent moderating staff keeping things (mostly) civilized. This place could easily have been nuked like Parler was.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That is really the big question in how much influence and power do they have in totally shutting down possible competition.

Who are "they" and what do you mean by competition?

You are correct and why many are saying 230 needs to be rewritten as it was created before all of what we have today existed with basically monopiles of very powerful companies. As we are seeing right now it seems anything that doesn't follow a progressive narrative is labeled hate speech or inciting violence, so how much are they hiding behind 230 to just push a political agenda and that is well outside of the purpose of what 230 was made to protect.

What monopolies?

And we all know their objectives is not to just remove something from their platform or service because it happens to break their terms and agreements, they want to completely destroy and that is something completely different.

Can they?

I personally hate the idea of isolated platforms that follow just one ideology. Just think if ATS split into two parts and all you saw was posts from just one group that followed your political leanings...kind of boring to say in the least and it will lead to a larger gap as the platforms that offer freedom of speech for all dry up.

Places like that already exist yet here we are on a site that isn't like that.

Seems to me the market dictates directions and part of the market wants their bubbles and part of it doesn't and it is in the best interest of the businesses involved to cater to all.

a reply to: Helious

If there were a double star button, you'd have it.

originally posted by: Flavian
From what i have read, Amazon pulled Parler because it failed to moderate calls for violence? If true, then at face value Amazon has done nothing wrong. As a company, they don't have a choice.

How do you moderate calls unless listening in on them? I know nothing about Parler.

originally posted by: daskakik

Who are "they" and what do you mean by competition?

You know who "they" are...lol

Can they?

I believe so, at least "they" will try

Seems to me the market dictates directions and part of the market wants their bubbles and part of it doesn't and it is in the best interest of the businesses involved to cater to all.

That was my question, let see where "they" take us. Do you think deplatforming 70 million people is in your best intertest?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You know who "they" are...lol

If it is "them" then the answer is no.

I believe so, at least "they" will try

Them trying and you believing then can doesn't mean they can.

That was my question, let see where "they" take us. Do you think deplatforming 70 million people is in your best intertest?

My best interest? Makes no difference.

Their best interest? If "they" are setting up alternatives to accommodate those 70 million, then it could work out better for "them".

Could be they just want the market share for that particular bubble. Might be the more lucrative one.

a reply to: Helious

Great OP, I'll take some time to read thru the thread.

And a reminder to all - the precedents and laws one side sets when in power can always be used by "the" other / another ideology when they are in power.

I do think we need to re-think the amount of power over our society, economy and discourse we have handed over to a handful of corporations. Not just today's tech giants, but several of the big and critical industries which had come before.

a reply to: Helious

Due to travel restrictions, America has decided to invade itself this year.