Parler Suing Amazon

[Kathianne]

Breaking WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-sues-amazon-kicks-site-off-its-servers-11610363052?mod=mhp

[jimnyc]

Breaking WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-sues-amazon-kicks-site-off-its-servers-11610363052?mod=mhp

Good for them!! Not sure it will go anywhere, they always have an out via their TOS. :rolleyes:

For now, they should all concentrate on getting their own platforms up and running independently, while at the same time continuing to alert everyone as to all that is taking place.

[Kathianne]

Good for them!! Not sure it will go anywhere, they always have an out via their TOS. :rolleyes:

For now, they should all concentrate on getting their own platforms up and running independently, while at the same time continuing to alert everyone as to all that is taking place.

I'd go for anti-trust/monopoly along those lines. There's no doubt that there is collusion.

[gabosaurus]

I am rather confused by this case. I would think that sites like Parler would be covered by the first amendment right to free speech. On the other side, companies like Amazon, Twitter and Facebook should be allowed to run their companies the way they see fit. I know Stormfront and a few other fringe sites are hosted by foreign entities. Perhaps it is because Parler is large enough to draw attention. I found other other site, most notably thedonald.win (no www in front) to be far more radical.

[KarlMarx]

I am rather confused by this case. I would think that sites like Parler would be covered by the first amendment right to free speech. On the other side, companies like Amazon, Twitter and Facebook should be allowed to run their companies the way they see fit. I know Stormfront and a few other fringe sites are hosted by foreign entities. Perhaps it is because Parler is large enough to draw attention. I found other other site, most notably thedonald.win (no www in front) to be far more radical.

Actually, Section 230 of the Telecommunications act allows these companies to suppress constitutionally speech... text of the section is below... anything that the provider does not like (like conservative speech) can be deemed offensive

(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;


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jimnyc]

I'd go for anti-trust/monopoly along those lines. There's no doubt that there is collusion.

Absolutely no doubt of the collusion and I think an investigation would find that and more. I think they're all on one another's speed dials and work with one another for each companies own benefit. Makes a lot of sense at times financially speaking. But also allows for them to quickly respond and address major events.

And then with their ability to eat up competition and/or to so easily shut them down in various ways.

IMO, it's not just the matter of freedom of speech and a private business. That private business, Twitter, is valued at $38 billion dollars. And the other private business, Facebook, is valued at $732 billion dollars. That's a little bit of cheddar to play around with, or to utilize to beat the competition, purchase the competition or eliminate them some how.

When you are the largest social media option, with their abilities to eliminate or severely limit options for others.

[tailfins]

I am rather confused by this case. I would think that sites like Parler would be covered by the first amendment right to free speech. On the other side, companies like Amazon, Twitter and Facebook should be allowed to run their companies the way they see fit. I know Stormfront and a few other fringe sites are hosted by foreign entities. Perhaps it is because Parler is large enough to draw attention. I found other other site, most notably thedonald.win (no www in front) to be far more radical.

This may be an opportunity to make Sao Paulo a tech hub.

[Kathianne]

Some thoughts:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2021/01/11/prime-litigeo-parler-files-suit-amazon-shutdown/


Prime Litigeo: Parler Files Suit Against Amazon Over Shutdown
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 3:01 pm on January 11, 2021


One has to wonder whether Big Tech realizes that they are essentially validating every argument being made for anti-trust intervention. Too bad it’s taken this long to get to that point, but perhaps Parler’s lawsuit will provide the necessary catalyst (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/tech/parler-amazon-lawsuit/index.html?utm_content=2021-01-11T19%3A08%3A35&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN&utm_medium=social).

And it certainly looks like Parler has a pretty good case here:






Parler, the alternative social media platform favored by the far-right, sued Amazon on Monday in response to being deplatformed, alleging an antitrust violation, breach of contract and interference with the company’s business relationships with users.


The complaint asks a federal court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Amazon (AMZN) and calls Amazon Web Services’ decision a “death blow” to Parler.


“Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online,” the complaint said. “And a delay of granting this TRO by even one day could also sound Parler’s death knell as President Trump and others move on to other platforms.”


Parler’s lawsuit argues that Amazon has unlawfully sought to restrain competition by eliminating a player from the market.



Second look for conservatives at net neutrality? To answer that question, be sure to read Jazz’ post yesterday (https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2021/01/10/movement-kill-parler-begun/) on the gatekeepers’ assault on Parler. It now involves almost every Big Tech organization except Facebook, and that’s only because Facebook has no gatekeeper status for Parler. Both Google and Apple demanded content moderation on Parler to host its app in their stores, and that was before Amazon shut them down over the same issue.


In any other industry and any other context, that would look a lot like … monopolistic behavior and collusion. It should prompt government action in relation to the Sherman Act, either at the Federal Trade Commission or at the Department of Justice, to determine whether any such collusion took place. More importantly, it demonstrates the dangers of consolidation in any industry, but perhaps especially in the tech and communications industries.


ACLU attorney Ben Wizner warns that these decisions have consequences, even if they are popular in the moment. This goes beyond the Twitter purge involving Donald Trump and his supporters, which the ACLU had already criticized, as it cuts deeper to the issues of free speech and other civil liberties:



Note the reference to “neutrality principles” well. The Trump administration dispensed with net-neutrality regulations at the beginning of their term, which conservatives cheered. If those are recalculated to provide some sort of brake on this kind of deplatforming — or even sold as such by the Biden administration — conservatives might end up cheering their re-imposition.


The real problem here is the laissez-faire approach to consolidation over the last few decades, and the reluctance to grasp what that means in political power. I have argued for years about this blind spot on the Right and what it would eventually mean for access and influence. Parler is the canary in the coal mine — and a harbinger of what’s to come, unless we start getting assertive on consolidation and begin dismantling the mega-corporations.

[fj1200]

Some thoughts:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2021/01/11/prime-litigeo-parler-files-suit-amazon-shutdown/

Don't expect the 10-days-from-now DOJ to take any anti-trust action. The red states that sued over the election can do something correct this time and sue at the state level. I wonder if their contract with AWS has any teeth in it? We'll find out I guess.

[Kathianne]

Don't expect the 10-days-from-now DOJ to take any anti-trust action. The red states that sued over the election can do something correct this time and sue at the state level. I wonder if their contract with AWS has any teeth in it? We'll find out I guess.

I want a real investigation of voting irregularities, especially those related to covid induced emergency measures.

I also want a transparent investigation of what the President did via phone, social media, meetings in person or through intermediaries pertaining to pre and post elections. It seems there was much more than the one call to GA official that could be interpreted as pushing towards abuse of power and even suborning fraud.

[fj1200]

I want a real investigation of voting irregularities, especially those related to covid induced emergency measures.

I also want a transparent investigation of what the President did via phone, social media, meetings in person or through intermediaries pertaining to pre and post elections. It seems there was much more than the one call to GA official that could be interpreted as pushing towards abuse of power and even suborning fraud.

I was referring to state level antitrust lawsuits going forward and not their pointless election lawsuit in the past. But elections do need to be cleaned up at the state level especially if mail in voting is going to be more prevalent.

[Kathianne]

I was referring to state level antitrust lawsuits going forward and not their pointless election lawsuit in the past. But elections do need to be cleaned up at the state level especially if mail in voting is going to be more prevalent.

All the voting fraud has to be at the state level. With that said, if the DNC or leaders pushed for irregularities that encouraged irregularities, then like Trump, those should be gone over very carefully