SASS on Parler?

[bgavin]

It is my understanding that Big Tech has killed Parler.
Amazon has banned Parler from their servers.

I closed my personal and business accounts on Facebook.

Censorship, bans, suppression, smear campaigns, internment, "re-education" camps and intimidation are the hallmarks of Communists (ANTIFA) and National Socialists (Nazis).   They ban, censor, suppress, sue or kill those who do not agree with them.

This behavior is despicable.

I absolutely refuse to support any business that behaves like a Communist or a Nazi.
In the business world, the most difficult customer to get, is the one you just lost.

 

 

[Marshal Hangtree]

I see that there is a Cowboy Action Shooting group on MeWe.  When getting permission to join the group, they ask for your alias.  So there should be easy contact between members here who are familiar with other pards' aliases.

[DeaconKC]

51 minutes ago, Marshal Hangtree said:

I see that there is a Cowboy Action Shooting group on MeWe.  When getting permission to join the group, they ask for your alias.  So there should be easy contact between members here who are familiar with other pards' aliases.

Yup, I was glad to see you there!

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

I don't do any of the social media crap so I am certainly no expert.  But I have been reading news reports the past couple of hours and it seems Parler has been killed off by the people that control access to the Internet.

[Raylan]

CEO of Parler says they will be back up in a week after moving all their software and programing to another server as they did not rely on Amazon for anything other than server space. But they are definately badly hurt - losing access to people through the app stores for Google and Apple means they will lose a lot of potential new users as a lot of people want access through a one click app on their phone vs. using a browser. And being down for a week at least will probably lead to some people leaving as will rumors on the internet that "Parler is done."

 

So they aren't killed off, but they are badly damaged and their potential future growth has taken a severe hit. And I think that was the point to damage them now right when so many people were giving them a serious look and to damage their future growth by taking them off Google and Apple app stores. This was definately a coordinated hit job by big tech.

[bgavin]

Censoring, banning and suppressing are the hallmarks of the Communist and the Nazi.
Too bad they don't teach history any more, or this would be remembered.

[Rye Miles #13621]

2 minutes ago, bgavin said:

Censoring, banning and suppressing are the hallmarks of the Communist and the Nazi.
Too bad they don't teach history any more, or this would be remembered.

Only if it's done by the Government. All these social media sites are private companies NOT controlled by the Government. Thye can pretty much do whatever they want.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

So a capitalist is a communist if he doesn't let you use his platform?

[Marshal Hangtree]

1 hour ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Only if it's done by the Government. All these social media sites are private companies NOT controlled by the Government. Thye can pretty much do whatever they want.

 

They may not be controlled by the Government, but they damn sure do the Government's bidding for them, doing the things the Gov'ment is Constitutionally not allowed to do.

[Rye Miles #13621]

8 minutes ago, Marshal Hangtree said:

 

They may not be controlled by the Government, but they damn sure do the Government's bidding for them, doing the things the Gov'ment is Constitutionally not allowed to do.

Not exactly  the Government’s bidding, more like the ultra left wing liberals bidding!! 

[Raylan]

Looking more and more like a coordinated hit on Parler, not only does Amazon drop them at a time they were seeing record growth, and not only does both Google and Apple drop them from their app stores when people were downloading their app in record numbers (is it capitalistic to shut down a product that is seeing unprecedented demand by your users), but now it turns out that many of their venders and even email providers are dropping them all at the same time. Sounds like some phone calls were made and threats veiled or not so veiled were made to close off even more access, money, and support. 

 

There is a name for such practices - it isn't capitalism, or fair competition, now what was it......oh yeah monopolistic and racketeering. Gee, I think those are illegal.

 

Edit to add, now it seems that the CEO of Parler says they may be done, as the loss of other venders and alternatives that they were counting on for support may be more than they can overcome. 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

One problem is that the internet can be viewed as more or less a public utility, but with capitalists corporations controlling access in and out of that utility. So, is it a utility or capitalism? The hardware through which I access the internet is via utilities (phone, cable companies). With access, and filtering of answers to queries, and more or less dominated by the likes Google and Apple, businesses using these companies’ data centers and servers to act as a gateway to operate on the internet is done in good faith that so long as no illegalities take place the “internet utility” won’t be shut off . They rent space and pay for a service, so to speak but do not access the hardware much in the same way I pay for electricity but don’t have access to the substation or hydro power plant.

 

Just an aside, the actions Google, Amazon are taking is laughable.  In all the “wokeness” on social issues,  the garbage they allow up that promotes traits they claim to deride (violence, sexism,equality) is troubling.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

22 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

It sounds as if it may be wise for users of Parler not to advocate violence. This is the stated reason by Apple and Google. As to that, I don't know, because I never look at social media anyway.

In my opinion, that is a smart move, Red. 

[Buckshot Bob]

"Yep, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon are private [i.e., non-governmental] companies. 

So are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Could they monitor calls and texts for 'dangerous' speech, and ban customers who violate their 'community standards'? They are also private companies; shouldn't they be able to refuse service to anyone they wish, for any reason?"

 

just something to think about 

[Rye Miles #13621]

18 minutes ago, Buckshot Bob said:

"Yep, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon are private [i.e., non-governmental] companies. 

So are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Could they monitor calls and texts for 'dangerous' speech, and ban customers who violate their 'community standards'? They are also private companies; shouldn't they be able to refuse service to anyone they wish, for any reason?"

 

just something to think about 

That’s a scary thought, but you’re right they could! 

[Buckshot Bob]

27 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

That’s a scary thought, but you’re right they could! 

And what about email? The also are private companies. How many times has email been used for nefarious things 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

The 'internet' may be a public utility, but FB and Twitter and the like certainly aren't. They don't provide a necessary service, like the phone companies; like electricity, sewer, and water supply.

 

One test is: are they necessary? Clearly they are not. I need a phone connection, electricity, and running water. I know I don't need social media sites, because I've been living without them ever since they were created.

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

13 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Not exactly  the Government’s bidding, more like the ultra left wing liberals bidding!! 

Same thing, now.

[Buckshot Bob]

8 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

The 'internet' may be a public utility, but FB and Twitter and the like certainly aren't. They don't provide a necessary service, like the phone companies; like electricity, sewer, and water supply.

 

One test is: are they necessary? Clearly they are not. I need a phone connection, electricity, and running water. I know I don't need social media sites, because I've been living without them ever since they were created.

There are plenty of people in the world that don’t have any of these and go to a well or river with a container to get their water. 
Some people’s income is based on Twitter,FB or YouTube so it’s all relatively to who you are .

amazon , google and apple are doing their best to make sure no one working for Parler has a job 

[Rye Miles #13621]

Just went to parler and they're down!!

[Johnny Dollar]

22 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Just went to parler and they're down!!

that’s what folks have been saying.  Amazon bumped them off as of midnight last night.   That was Amazons decision as it’s their servers.  They will likely move to another provider.    Amazon isn’t the only game in town.  

[Snakebite]

With all the hate talk and the non stop barrage of conspiracy theories that spring up I think it is just a matter of time before most online chat forums are put under a much heavier control. Some folks like the constant turmoil and buy into every conspiracy theory that comes around. Few of them do much research to see if any of it is true before propagating it further. No doubt some groups are more suited to that sort of thing than others are. It's not always easy to differentiate Hate Talk from Truth and to know what to do about it when you finally make the determination.  

 

Snakebite

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

10 hours ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

The 'internet' may be a public utility, but FB and Twitter and the like certainly aren't. They don't provide a necessary service, like the phone companies; like electricity, sewer, and water supply.

 

One test is: are they necessary? Clearly they are not. I need a phone connection, electricity, and running water. I know I don't need social media sites, because I've been living without them ever since they were created.

SASS Wire is a social media site, so you can’t say you’ve been living without them.

 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

2 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

There are plenty of people in the world that don’t have any of these and go to a well or river with a container to get their water. 
Some people’s income is based on Twitter,FB or YouTube so it’s all relatively to who you are .

amazon , google and apple are doing their best to make sure no one working for Parler has a job 

And e-commerce sites run through Google/Amazon servers. All they have to do is say they are shutting down you down because they don’t like what you’re peddling conflicts with whatever terms of service than conjure up. Credit card companies and banks have been notorious for shutting down folks accounts over politics, their policing of customers online expression, and caving in to the demands of left wing activists 

[Johnny Dollar]

I’m going to give my two cents on part of what I’ve been seeing.  I’m sure I’m in the minority though.  
 

I don’t see what Amazon did as a freedom of speech thing.  They released a statement saying Parlor violated their rules by letting some of their users promote violence.  If Parlor owned their own servers they could do whatever they wanted..... once you rent space on someone else’s servers you sign an agreement saying what you will and won’t do.   It’s that way with any provider.  Mainly because of liability issues.  
im not saying it’s the same... but if someone were to rent space on an Amazon server and start up a porn site, Amazon would kick them off too.  
so is it a freedom of speech issue? Nope... not at all.  It’s a violation of their rules.  No one is saying Parlor can’t exists....  they are free to find another provider that will rent space on a server.... or better yet buy their own servers and do it all in house.  More expensive and more then likely they would start showing ads but they would be totally free.  

[Snakebite]

JD, That is exactly right. We have run into that exact problem on our new web site. First thing you know they shut our online signups down because they are gun related and the new site doesn't allow that.  We were on a private server before and never had any problems.  We should have stayed there!

 

Snakebite

[Johnny Dollar]

3 minutes ago, Snakebite said:

JD, That is exactly right. We have run into that exact problem on our new web site. First thing you know they shut our online signups down because they are gun related and the new site doesn't allow that.  We were on a private server before and never had any problems.  We should have stayed there!

 

Snakebite

Yeah....  I’m retired now but I was an IT director for a large law firm.  We had all our servers local but decided to move them to a data center to make it more secure.   We had to sign all sorts of things to make sure we didn’t do something they didn’t like.  It was all up front... no surprise.
Now being a law firm and these were data servers we weren’t running web services but we still had to stay within their rules.  .  
All I’m saying is in these times when people’s feelings are all on edge, we don’t need more to upset folks.  This type of thing should have been a no brainer and they should have seen it coming.  
 

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

42 minutes ago, Johnny Dollar said:

Not many arguments here Johnny. Just a discussion and I do agree businesses need leeway to determine their own course. You are mistaken on the porn thing and how AWS would respond to what most folks view as decency. Amazon has about 2-2.5million customers. .porn is one extension available through AWS and they are apparently hosting a significant number of porn sites. Amazon and Google and Apple carefully craft these decency and free speech rules and cherry pick their enforcement due to the political wind or, as in the case of YouTube (owned by Google) Twitter, FB, remove posts cause it “conflicts with science” or has been debunked by some unknown entity. 
BTW, AWS is the leading cloud service provider and controls roughly 32% of that market.2-2.5 million websites.

The social media thing is one thing. And I disagree with their conduct in those regards, for the are controlling public debate and administering their own rules of decency to in effect control what news and information gets out there. But WTH.

My biggest problem is they control so much of the market share, so much of our economies stock market is comprised of these companies, they already unfairly and unjustly leverage their economic strength through brokered tax breaks and incentives whenever they decide to set up a new shop, advantages unavailable to individuals. These companies now play a massive role in determining the economic fortunes and failures of America. Apple alone is 10% of the Dow. When Big Tech tumbled, the Dow and your 401k tumbles. These massive corporations are of themselves America’s own oligarchs. Of course that’s largely an abdication of responsibility from lawmakers, giving corporations preferred status and better treatment than its own citizens. But now they are assuming the roles of policing free speech with no arbitration. Which on their platform is their right. But they are manipulating the course of economic engagement to pick winners and losers and disable competition not necessarily based on competition but political whims.
Let’s shift a moment. If 1A and the BOfR doesn’t apply to private corporations, then why are are they extended these tax breaks and advantages, and concede to them an ever more dominate role in both determining the winners and losers in ethics, free speech, science, what makes the news, business and politics?

 

Add in MasterCard Visa Chase Bank PayPal Patreon GoFundMe to the mix determining who can and can’t raise funds or process payments. The finance sector has been up to this for years and it is now a broader collaborative economic and political effort.

 

 

 

 

 

[Raylan]

Parler wasn't taken down for any violations of terms of service anymore than the many firearm businesses that have had banks close down their accounts and refuse financial transations. Amazon had no legal exposure that they were "worried" about. 

 

Parler was suddenly a growing threat to Twitter and Facebook monopolies and allowed conservative voices and content so it was taken out. Google, Apple, and Amazon all acted in concert to take them down. Evidently per the CEO of Parler even their email providers, law firm, or vendors, and alternative business services have suddenly within 48 hrs all cut services and business with them. If you think that didn't involve coordination then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. 

 

If you don't see a pattern of abusive business practices then you really don't want to see it. If what has been happening to more and more businesses and individuals doesn't disturb you.....................

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

Given the pervasive power of the Internet and the various providers of access to it, limiting speech could (should?) be a free speech issue.  Technology has changed substantially since the 18th Century.  The Internet has become a public forum.  Back in 1980 the Supreme Court decided a case titled Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, a case involving free speech in a California Mall.  The court basically decided the public areas of malls could be subject to the 1st Amendment depending on what the State constitution said.  California's constituition allowed for the exercise of 1st Amendment rights in the public areas of malls.  The Supreme Court upheld that right.  In recent years Pruneyard has been raised as a basis for arguing against limitations on free speech on various platforms subject to "Section 230" i.e., the provision that immunizes Facebook, Twitter, etc., from litigation.  Unfortunately given the anti-free speech stance of many colleges and univerisites and the new administration's position on speech in general this arguement will not be advanced and will be opposed by the new administration.  The simple arugment of the left is that the 1st Amendment does not cover "hate" speech.  Any speech they do not like is "hate" speech and they have control over the media and the Internet providers to enforce their prohibitiion against "hate" speech.

[Johnny Dollar]

1 hour ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

Not many arguments here Johnny. Just a discussion and I do agree businesses need leeway to determine their own course. You are mistaken on the porn thing and how AWS would respond to what most folks view as decency. Amazon has about 2-2.5million customers. .porn is one extension available through AWS and they are apparently hosting a significant number of porn sites. Amazon........

1 hour ago, Raylan said:

Parler wasn't taken down for any violations of terms of service anymore than the many firearm businesses that have had banks close down their accounts and refuse financial transations. Amazon had no legal exposure that they were "worried" about. 

 

Parler was suddenly a growing threat to Twitter and Facebook............. 

...........

 

 

Dan I stand corrected with the porn site thing.  I thought I had read they didn’t allow it but in fact they do as long as it’s not child porn which would be obvious I would think.  
this is their TOS.      https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
 

Raylan I think we can agree to disagree.  Parlor was taken down because of a breach of their TOS.   Nothing more.  They aren’t a threat to Twitter or Facebook.  What your quoting is what the CEO of Parlor is saying but has no proof of it.  He’s just trying to get more people rilled up.  But like I said above they can set up shop anywhere else who will allow them.  So they aren’t being shut down.  

 

 

 

[Raylan]

Actually there are news reports verifying much of what the CEO of Parler said. As per no threat to Facebook or Twitter - a certain politician was rumored to have been going to open a Parler account - that politician has millions and millions of followers - a good portion of whom would have migrated to Parler, making Parler a viable alternative platform. And a viable alternative to Facebook and Twitter is a threat to them.

[Snakebite]

I don't know much about the law. But... it just seems that free speech would not prevail on any private location. If I drive a "Vote for Red" sign in my front yard, that doesn't give you the right to drive a "Vote for Blue" sign next to it. If you post ANYTHING on my FB page that I don't like for any reason, I will remove it. So I'm not for sure how things are suppose to go, but I do know that Yellow Journalism has been around for a very long time, and anyone that thinks they are going to change it in a free society is mistaken. Of course we never know how long we are going to be a free society. 

Snakebite 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

4 hours ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

SASS Wire is a social media site, so you can’t say you’ve been living without them.

 

 

There is certainly something to that, but I think generally that websites devoted to particular interests, like this one, are generally not thought of in the ordinary category of 'social media'. I go to this one and two others, and that's it in my case. I decided a long time ago to limit the use of these things, as much as anything because they can take up a lot of time.

 

These sorts of websites generally have a specific purpose, and most, like the SASS  Wire and Saloon, are strongly monitored, precisely to limit the freewheeling rants of 'social media'. Political discussions, where allowed, are still usually circumscribed. So it's a different thing.

 

Like a lot of other folks of my generation (and there are loads of them here), I had a full life before the internet ever came along. In my case, it was 1999, when the web hit the masses. At that time, I'd been married for 32 years, had been practicing law for 26 years, and had 7 grandchildren. So, life without the internet is possible! As we know....but it's here to stay.

 

I sometimes think we've collectively lost our minds. To think-- our entire national security apparatus, our utilities, everything-- it can be penetrated and subverted online.  Why, exactly, have we done that? 

[Parson Remington]

A few thoughts from a mostly retired lawyer who handled more than a few Constitutional and anti trust issues.

 

First, as noted by some, the Federal Constitution 1st Amendment does not apply in this case.  It applies only to government suppression of speech; however, that does not mean this is not a free speech case.  Many States have much broader protection of free speech in their Constitutions.  One example is California, and in the 1970's an analogous instance arose there that led to a US Supreme Court case, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).  It is quite possible for the reasoning in Pruneyard to apply to Parler and AWS.  If it does, then Parler has a strong challenge to the legality of the action taken by AWS in booting it from their servers.  For a "nonlegalese" treatment of Pruneyard, see, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

 

Second, if Apple, Google and Amazon operated with knowledge of the imminent plans of each other to impact Parler's business, that is a prima facie violation of Federal and most State antitrust laws and consumer protection laws.  To offer that there is no evidence of such collusion is tantalogical.  The coincidence of their actions is sufficient to initiate an investigation (which is what a private lawsuit often is in such cases.)  The motive - what they sought to gain - and their method will be crucial issues, but there is more than enough to initiate a suit that can withstand a Motion to Dismiss.  The wise course in any action is to refrain from a judgment until the facts are known.