Parler was removed by Amazon, Apple, and Google ,effectively knocking them out of the market . Conservatives were flocking to Parler after Twitter started to shut down conservative speech . A wave of conservatives left Twitter and Facebook after they permanently banned Trump.

“AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching its contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.”

Fighting Back: Parler, Rumble File Suits Against Amazon and Google Respectively | MMG NEWS

Whatever anyone thinks of Trump, or how much anyone would like him to go away , the notion that Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos should be allowed to silence him and any potential competitor like Parler that might allow him a platform is completely antithetical to democracy or a free market of ideas. The power of these Big Tech companies to control public discourse is a clear and present danger....not just to those they disagree with , but to everyone who values basic free speech ideals.

“A lot of people are going to be super unhappy with West Coast high tech as the de facto arbiter of free speech.” Elon Musk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

“AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching its contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.”

---

Tom, you need to find a new right-wing law site. This one isn't helping you since it's consistently wrong. They and you need to read the fine print on the contract.

Quote:

---

Whatever anyone thinks of Trump .............................. the notion that Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Bezos should be allowed to silence him ....................................... is completely antithetical to democracy or a free market of ideas.

---

Tom, I thought you supported free enterprise. Zuckerberg, et al, are not silencing anyone. They are exercising their free market right to dispose of their property as they wish. You used to be in favor of that.

Quote:

---

The power of these Big Tech companies to control public discourse is a clear and present danger....not just to those they disagree with , but to everyone who values basic free speech ideals.

---

No, no, Tom. They are hardly "controlling public discourse". They are managing their own websites - huge difference. Free speech ideals are still valued, but apparently not by you as you try to silence those you disagree with.

Try being a little less hysterical.

You mean the free markets don't work as good as advertised Tom? They need regulations? The rich guys don't know what they're doing anymore?

Perish the thought Tal capitalism must be allowed full reign and the moguls of industry obeyed

Free markets must be allowed to exist . Monopolies being created by rent seeking enterprise limit competition . They are anti-free market . Antitrust laws prohibit price fixing, the operation of cartels, unfair collusive practices, and the abuse of monopoly power that undermine healthy competition. And it is doubly destructive when monopolies dominate the public square and stifle the free exchange of ideas ,especially when the companies that dominate the market have a clear bias and actively are used to stifle debate.
It is one thing to dominate the market . It is another thing to have so much power as to prevent access to the market . It is called the 'essential facilities 'doctrine and in our laws ,a company that dominates an essential facility must provide access to it at a reasonable price .

amazon, google are prime examples of companies that have grown too big and they are monopolistic in their behaviour. The market must be regulated if we are not to be at the mercy of large corporations

Do businesses have the right, duty, obligation to secure their services and brand against actors that could damage their business? Sure they do.

Ask Ben how that works.

Quote:

---

amazon, google are prime examples of companies that have grown too big and they are monopolistic in their behaviour.

---

Absolutely true, and you can throw in Facebook and Twitter while you are at it.

Quote:

---

Do businesses have the right, duty, obligation to secure their services and brand against actors that could damage their business? Sure they do.

Ask Ben how that works.

---

To my knowledge Ben has never censored political thought . It is one of the main reasons I keep coming back here .

And Ben does not have a monopoly Nor is AMHD a part of like minded tech companies in a quasi -cartel preventing competition in discussion forums from existing .

This should be a no brainer for you .
Progressives are ;or were ,on board with breaking up hi tech monopolies .

https://www.newyorker.com/business/c...ak-up-big-tech

https://www.theverge.com/interface/2...ders-buttigieg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

To my knowledge Ben has never censored political thought . It is one of the main reasons I keep coming back here .

And Ben does not have a monopoly Nor is AMHD a part of like minded tech companies in a quasi -cartel preventing competition in discussion forums from existing .

---

That wasn't my point Tom, the right to protect a site/product/business from corrupt abuses from outside players was the point, and let's face it, the dufus and his behavior could certainly be considered TOXIC, as well as violent looney fringe groups. Let's also face the fact these huge companies didn't get big in a vacuum, and smaller companies you call "competition" depend on the hugeness of those companies to fuel their own business.

Instead of suing for access, maybe invest in some cyber security to address why they were dropped in the first place would be a more prudent course of action.

Don't worry your fringers can still plot and plan on other dark web vehicles like the rest of the conspiracy theorists and crazies, and dufus demented doodoo heads.

What goes around comes around . When your ox gets gored maybe you will sing a different tune .

I am frankly shocked how liberals can accept thought and speech suppression . As much as I have been critical of many things the left proposed ,I have never advocated the suppression of expressing those ideas . As I mentioned previously . There was a time when what you call "hate speech " was defended by liberals . It wasn't that long ago when civil libertarians defended the speech of domestic terrorists .
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/...ht-free-speech

1978 they defended the right of neo-nazis in Skoki Illinois .They defended the demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia,who were protesting the taking down of Confederate statues .

Hey the Chicoms disappeared Jack Ma and Amazon and Google disappeared a company they don't like . No difference ;right ? I suppose it is just as good that powerful oligarchs in the high tech cartel can control the free exchange of ideas just as the Chicoms can .But you should be just as worried as I about the future of free expression and especially about mega monopoly cartel's ability to dictate the terms .

Quote:

---

As much as I have been critical of many things the left proposed ,I have never advocated the suppression of expressing those ideas .

---

I think they are all in favor of suppressing speech which raises questions for which they have no real answers.

Ahh the good old days Tom when common sense and civility were norms despite ideological differences. Before words were weaponized and became tools to radicalize. Vanilla ISSIS domestic groups changed things.

The downside of technology in the wrong hands.

Quote:

---

The downside of technology in the wrong hands.

---

yep well I'm hoping someone in the Apple/Google /Amazon ]Twitter ]Facebook sphere is thinking long term. They think they have bought out the Dems (which was the easy part because Quid is for sale) . In reality they were doing the Dem's bidding .

But now that the Dems have the power ,just wait until the Dems turn on them . As I already mentioned ;their take down is just a matter of time . The progressives in the Dem ranks hate big tech even more than conservatives . Compare it to the night of the long knives since you guys like Nazi comparisons so much .

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LhwD7-QGjRs/hqdefault.jpg

While I agree that some of the Tech companies are acting in a monopolists fashion and need breaking down and regulating.
They have made far more revenue during this pandemic with the captive audience.

Gotta love the American Dream.....

Quote:

---

While I agree that some of the Tech companies are acting in a monopolists fashion and need breaking down and regulating.
They have made far more revenue during this pandemic with the captive audience.

---

Isn't that what typically happens with a monopoly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Isn't that what typically happens with a monopoly?

---

Capitalism at it most prevalent.

Quote:

---

Capitalism at it most prevalent.

---

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production. It has nothing directly to do with monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curlyben

Capitalism at it most prevalent.

---

A better adjective -- capitalism at its worst.

Quote:

---

capitalism at its worst.

---

Is capitalism the problem, or is govt. protection of big tech the problem?

Both.
American capitalism is based on the pursuit of wealth, the government failed to limit how these companies could go about this pursuit and now we have few large firms controlling many aspects of our existence.
This isn't aimed at one Government in particular, but the whole system.
Can't cry foul when those companies are doing exactly what they have been directed to do over the years.

The fringers cry foul against big tech because they dumped the dufus.

Quote:

---

the government failed to limit how these companies could go about this pursuit and now we have few large firms controlling many aspects of our existence.

---

rent seeking .... engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
That is not free market capitalism .I would argue the economic system that has evolved is more like mercantilism where large businesses buy monopoly privileges from the leviathan government .
An easy example on the local level is taxi driving . In a free market anyone could be able to put a taxi sign on their car and start driving for a business. But government makes arrangements where someone has to buy in for the "privilege" to have a taxi license or "medallion". So now instead of owning my own taxi business and achieving the American dream f having my own growing business ..(maybe in a couple years I buy another car and hire my brother to drive it etc ) ;instead I.end up being the employee of someone who may never have driven a car in their lives That system prevents competition. The essence of capitalism is competition . So how could that system be capitalist

Take it to the level I am talking about where hi tech companies can create a cartel and decide which of their competitors can play in the sandbox . This is called horizontal monopoly ;and the anti-trust laws were create to prevent that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Take it to the level I am talking about where hi tech companies can create a cartel and decide which of their competitors can play in the sandbox . This is called horizontal monopoly ;and the anti-trust laws were create to prevent that .

---

Not just limited to tech firms, but all over American and international business and banking.
Face it the system is broken, but what can really be done to fix it ?

This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .

You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.

Quote:

---

American capitalism is based on the pursuit of wealth

---

I'm always amazed when I read this statement. Who on this board does not want to make a good living and accumulate wealth? Any economic system not based on the pursuit of profit is doomed. You can't survive without profit.

spoken like a true capitalist, there are other systems

Quote:

---

spoken like a true capitalist, there are other systems

---

Tell us about the one where people don't care about profits. You guys are dreaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

This happened before and I believe a populist nationalist waded into the swamp and created the Sherman Anti-Trust act making such monopolistic practices illegal. Parler has filed an anti-trust complaint against Amazon. Depending on the outcome we will see how broken the system is . Also Sec 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be repealed or amended . It makes exception for providers who block so called offensive material .The reason it needs amending is because it give broad discretion to the providers to decide what is offensive .

---

You don't think promoting violence and inciting a riot is an impeachable......I mean....a good reason to be banned?

Tal I have read the transcript of Trump's speech there is nothing that would incite a riot but I have no doubt that the rioters acted out of boredom they unleashed their fury that they had listened so long to Trump as he bored them into tears and fury

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tal I have read the transcript of Trump's speech there is nothing that would incite a riot but I have no doubt that the rioters acted out of boredom they unleashed their fury that they had listened so long to Trump as he bored them into tears and fury

---

Reading what Trump said is not nearly descriptive of the actual event. He has to be seen to understand how he incited the mob.

There is not a doubt in the world that he did so. Over here, it's on TV 24/7, with every day more video becoming available to solidify that Trump sent the mob to the Capitol to intimidate - or far worse - the Congress to object to the count.

Otherwise, there's be no reason to impeach him. The text alone is nowhere near the video.

In this case, the pictures are worth 10,000 words!

Quote:

---

There is not a doubt in the world that he did so.

---

Only if you think Athos is the only person "in the world". Otherwise, there is a lot of doubt about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Only if you think Athos is the only person "in the world". Otherwise, there is a lot of doubt about that.

---

Well, true - the doubters wear swastika jackets, tee shirts with "Auschwitz", scream "hang Mike Pence", beat a policeman to death at the Capitol entrance, swear to kill Nancy Pelosi, and so forth and so forth. Then there are the doubting white evangelists who display a flag with Jesus' name on it. If Jesus came again, they'd be the first to crucify him.

"In the world" means rational people with IQs over that of a plant. I didn't think I needed to mention that - I guess I did.

Quote:

---

Well, true - the doubters wear swastika jackets, tee shirts with "Auschwitz", scream "hang Mike Pence", beat a policeman to death at the Capitol entrance, swear to kill Nancy Pelosi, and so forth and so forth.

---

Oh good grief. In your narrow little world, all the rational people agree with you since, after all, your opinion reigns supreme. In the real world, that is hardly true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Oh good grief. In your narrow little world, all the rational people agree with you since, after all, your opinion reigns supreme. In the real world, that is hardly true.

---

Where is that real world JL, surely you don't think it is in DC? I don't think it was the speech that inflamed the mob they were already primed by weeks of Trump speeches. The fact that they were there was enough for violence to ignite

I was speaking of the real world outside the little world Athos lives in, and I don't mean that in any insulting fashion. We all live in little worlds to one degree or another. I don't think it was Trump's speeches so much as the realization that the election had problems and the perception, true or otherwise, that those problems contributed to the result. And there is still seething anger about that. There will be but little unity until that issue is settled.

Quote:

---

You do realise that removing section 230 will lead to vastly increased censorship on the social streams....
Here included.

---

fair enough . I worded it incorrectly . Sec 230 needs reform. the words "or otherwise objectionable " is too broad given the intent of the section .It gives sites protection for removing anything they want .Being able to remove anti-terrorism ,child sex abuse and cyber stalking is not the same as suppression of political speech. The goal should be that the net remain free and fair; especially in our current environment when a group of companies can collude to control political thought content .

The intent of 230 was to “to encourage telecommunications and information service providers to deploy new technologies and policies” for filtering or blocking offensive materials online ....not to filter out political thought the site owners do not agree with.
S. Rept. 104-23 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPETITION AND DEREGULATION ACT OF 1995 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The importance of the net has grown since the section was adopted . It has evolved into the main public square . 1996 few people spent much time on the net . Today net surfing occupies hours of people's time .It has replaced the news paper as the primary source of information, If you look at it in that content then what the big tech companies did was controlling content by making sure their smaller competition could not get paper and printing ink to publish .

And it has gone even further than that. Political campaigns are conducted on the net. What big tech did this cycle was to be the defacto arbiters of the political debate on the net . Political ideas were filtered through self appointed "fact checkers " ,and at a minimum were labelled as missing content ;at worse they were removed from the sites . The sites became much more than conduits of content .They became the editors of content .

I would not even have much objection to that . As some here have argued ,they are private companies . What they did however by blocking a competitors site from the public forum was to become the FINAL editors of political debate on the net ....and that is wholly unacceptable. If sec 230 protects this type of activity then it must be reformed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I was speaking of the real world outside the little world Athos lives in, and I don't mean that in any insulting fashion.

---

Jl, you have the funniest way of expressing things that always shoots you in the foot.