These FIVE men control your freedom

[Catulle]

Personally I'd be perfectly fine with laws requiring social media companies to adhere to first amendment guidelines of face fines, etc.

No doubt, though the rest of the world will no doubt have issues with so rolling out US hegemony. Not like there's any quid pro quo after all

[Shasarak]

Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?

Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

If we use this analogy they had an agreement that if Amazon found Parler running dog fights on the property then they would have 30 days to move out.

So welcome to sue-ville Amazon.  Should have stuck to your rental agreement sucker.

That all depends on what the terms of service were. Supposedly Amazon gave them notice some time ago (I don't recall how long ago) and Parler took insufficient action to address it in the eyes of Amazon. Generally speaking, terms of service are massively favorable to the ones writing them, but I don't have the details on this particular agreement.

Could be a good idea to find out what you are comparing to dog fighting.

[SHARK]

The internet should be *free*. People are free or should be free--to say whatever they want on the internet. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. These companies engaging in censorship should be fucking banned themselves and shut down. It would be a great example if they were raided, all of their assets seized, and their owners and executives prosecuted and sent to prison, or just thrown to the alligators.

SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Greetings!

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

As for seizing these companies, their accounts and assets--that is simply a good way to fuck them for their tyranny. They're Leftist scum, and should be punished without mercy. For their smugness, for their elitism, for their censorship, hypocrisy, and tyranny, they need to be absolutely ruined and thrown into the gutter, where they can wallow in the sewer.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Shasarak]

Jack Dorsey plans for censorship revealed:

[HappyDaze]

Was it a government agency that kicked parler off of Amazon? Was it Amazon itself? Is amazon a regulatory agency?

Effectively, Amazon was the landlord that evicted Parler from rental property (servers). Since they said it was because of terms of service violations, it would be like they evicted the tenant that was running dog fights on the property.

If we use this analogy they had an agreement that if Amazon found Parler running dog fights on the property then they would have 30 days to move out.

So welcome to sue-ville Amazon.  Should have stuck to your rental agreement sucker.

That all depends on what the terms of service were. Supposedly Amazon gave them notice some time ago (I don't recall how long ago) and Parler took insufficient action to address it in the eyes of Amazon. Generally speaking, terms of service are massively favorable to the ones writing them, but I don't have the details on this particular agreement.

Could be a good idea to find out what you are comparing to dog fighting.

That would mean actually giving a shit about Twitter. I don't use it. The only tweets I've ever read have been ones that others copy/paste into things I'm reading. When it's in a forum post, I don't care. When news articles do it and consider it news, I often just stop reading the article.

[EOTB]

I don’t really care anyway, checkmate

Admittedly, it always surprises me how many people post voluminously about what they admit later they never really cared about.  A hallmark of our culture

[jhkim]

SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.

What you're claiming is that Facebook's servers should be *FREE* -- a public service rather than a private one. You're arguing that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to control what gets put on their own servers.

It's like going to a house party, and the host kicks you out because he doesn't like you. The host owns the property - they aren't required to let you into their party.

[ArrozConLeche]

LOL @ the Veritas(tm) video!  They even added the ominous heartbeat. I wonder how it'd sound with a canned laughter track...ROFL!

[HappyDaze]

I don’t really care anyway, checkmate

Admittedly, it always surprises me how many people post voluminously about what they admit later they never really cared about.  A hallmark of our culture

I care about a business having control over its own assets even if I don't use Twitter (or buy wedding cakes).

[EOTB]

The original intent of 230 was that Facebook would platform empty space for people to throw the party they desired, within that space.

And Facebook wouldn’t be liable if the party was later found to break the law in some way that aggrieved the neighborhood

Facebook throwing a party would make it a publisher, since it chose the theme, determined the invite list, and prevented a subset of legal partying it didn’t want popularized

[CRKrueger]

That’s the problem with 230 protections.  Social media companies are exercising all the editorial power of publishers while having all the legal protections of platforms.

[HappyDaze]

SHARK - after being so ardently vocal about how horrible Marxists are, now you're crying that private resources have to be given away for free, and taken over by the government if they aren't given away free.

What you're talking about here is exactly Marxism -- nationalizing private resources in the name of the people.

The Internet is *not* free. The Internet costs *money*. Facebook and Twitter pay tons of money to buy Internet servers and develop the technology for their service. In a capitalist system, this means that they control what they paid for. They don't have to let you use their servers.

Jhkim, perhaps you misunderstand what I meant by *FREE*--or maybe I was not specific enough. I'm not talking about people or corporations capacity to sell, make lawful profits, and such. I'm talking about ideology, behavior, speech. People should be free to write and speak and not be censored, supervised, fucking "fact checked" by nanny-state, Marxist jackasses like all of the blue check-marked employees and "monitors" at Twitter, Facebook, and so on.

But Internet servers are private property, not public. If I try to put something onto *my* server, I can say whatever I like - just like how I can put a sign on my own lawn. However, if I put something onto a *Facebook* server, though, then they don't have to obey me. They can decide they don't want to host my signs.

What you're claiming is that Facebook's servers should be *FREE* -- a public service rather than a private one. You're arguing that Facebook shouldn't be allowed to control what gets put on their own servers.

It's like going to a house party, and the host kicks you out because he doesn't like you. The host owns the property - they aren't required to let you into their party.

Exactly. Even if they have the best parties and all the cool folks show, it's still the hosts decision. However, it gets complicated if the use of those parties is primarily for business connections.

[Ratman_tf]

IMHO the problem isn't the Amazon TOS. They can kick anybody off at any time they please for no reason at all. TOS is just a very thin smokescreen of legitimacy for their partisan politics.
My issue is the lack of competition. Talking about Free Markets is all well and fine, until SuperMonopolyCorp owns every single major media outlet and woe to anyone who dares disagree. A monopoly can be just as powerful as a tyrannical government. In some ways, moreso.

[Shasarak]

Admittedly, it always surprises me how many people post voluminously about what they admit later they never really cared about.  A hallmark of our culture

Lol, thats true except for the surprise part.

[Shasarak]

LOL @ the Veritas(tm) video!  They even added the ominous heartbeat. I wonder how it'd sound with a canned laughter track...ROFL!

One of the only legitimate press left and the Beaner comment is that they added a sound track.

Bean on, good Beaner.