First Amendment issue????

[steelslaver]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the double standard that have occurred over the recent behaviors of the dissatisfied. I am not much for the "well they did, so. we should too" either.

I just believe a business should be able to refuse service to whoever, for what ever reason they see fit. If that don't some one they should be free to start their own business.

 

[JS Esq.]

IMO, Parler seems to have a stronger argument than ar15.com. With Parler it looks like Twitter and Amazon colluded to use their monopoly power to crush a potential Twitter competitor.

As a matter of basic logic, let alone law, this argument makes absolutely no sense. If Parler is an AWS customer, how does it benefit AWS to crush Parler? Obviously, it doesn't.

Parler's problem was that it clearly violated AWS's terms of service and refused to do anything to remedy the violations. Considering that acts of violence were actively being planned on the platform, AWS was well within their rights to cut off the site. One might even argue they had a duty to do so. Note that Parler's request for an injunction was denied today by a federal judge.

If AR15 thinks GoDaddy breached the hosting contract, they are free to file a lawsuit. That they didn't immediately file for a TRO to restore service would seem to support the arguments that AR15's problem was that some of its members were actively advocating violence and sedition on the platform.

Overall, I'll just say that reading this thread is really depressing. So much ignorance, so much paranoia, so much misunderstanding of basic principles of American jurisprudence.

 

[pharmer]

You make a very good point, Joe, about the hypocrisy inherent in how these events were addressed. It ticks me off too...I can't abide double-standards.......

OK, check out fat### film director's (PM me if'n ya want his true identity) tweet this morning. Was "highly inflammatory but it wasn't censored either. Joe

 

[Geronimo Jim]

These monopolies should have never been allowed to get this
big and powerful. Remember railroads and oil companies?

 

[Ziggy2525]

As a matter of basic logic, let alone law, this argument makes absolutely no sense. If Parler is an AWS customer, how does it benefit AWS to crush Parler? Obviously, it doesn't.

Seriously? If Twitter is one of AWS’s largest customers and Parler was one of their smaller ones, it’s totally logical that Twitter would try to leverage their relationship with AWS to crush Parler if they saw Parler as an up and coming threat. It’s classic monopolistic collusion. AFAIK, AWS hasn’t published the violating messages you mentioned. Have you seen them?.

If AR15 thinks GoDaddy breached the hosting contract, they are free to file a lawsuit.

You lost me. I said the ar15.com/godaddy deal was a contractual dispute. If some of the parties to a contract think there’s been a breach and think the breach is a big enough deal, a lawsuit is how it gets resolved. What’s your point?

Overall, I'll just say that reading this thread is really depressing.

That’s fair. You’re expressing how you’re feeling. Personally I don’t get depressed by things I read on internet forums. If you’re feeling depressed by reading internet forum posts, have you considered taking a break?

So much ignorance, so much paranoia, ...

Now you crossed over into name calling. Isn’t that a violation of TOS’s in it’s own right?

 

[JS Esq.]

Seriously? If Twitter is one of AWS’s largest customers and Parler was one of their smaller ones, it’s totally logical that Twitter would try to leverage their relationship with AWS to crush Parler if they saw Parler as an up and coming threat. It’s classic monopolistic collusion. AFAIK, AWS hasn’t published the violating messages you mentioned. Have you seen them?.

Twitter could try, but AWS would tell them to pound sand because the bigger Parler gets, the more AWS makes from them. No one is doubting Twitter would have an incentive to quash their competition; the issue is that AWS only hurts themselves by going along. AWS's incentives do not align with Twitter's, which is why this theory is fatally flawed at the outset.

For the record, I have seen at a minimum hundreds of messages from Parler that clearly violate AWS's terms of service. I don't even think Parler was contending that there weren't such messages. The real issue was that Parler's anti-moderation stance made it effectively impossible for them to comply with AWS terms once their users started planning further violent actions on the platform (which, fortunate, to this point have not actually materialized). AWS gave them the opportunity to change their moderation policies. They didn't, so AWS pulled the plug.

Now you crossed over into name calling. Isn’t that a violation of TOS’s in it’s own right?

That comment was not aimed at you specifically and I apologize if you took it that way. I was not intending to single you or anyone else out. I was making a general comment about many of the dozens of posts in this topic/thread.

 

[LVSteve]

If AR15 thinks GoDaddy breached the hosting contract, they are free to file a lawsuit. That they didn't immediately file for a TRO to restore service would seem to support the arguments that AR15's problem was that some of its members were actively advocating violence and sedition on the platform.

Ah yes, but the freedom to go to law is often stymied by its cost. Consider the financial might of GoDaddy vs that of any web forum. I doubt that filing a TRO is a low-cost event, and full on lawsuit definitely isn't. While we all have the right to go to law, how many of us can really afford it?

 

[BC38]

I can probably prove that you don’t really believe that with a single question . . .

I wanna hear this question...

Saying they violated the TOS and giving no examples of said violations sure sounds like breech of contract to me. Hopefully AR15.com sues the snot out of them and wins.

 

[delcrossv]

Twitter could try, but AWS would tell them to pound sand because the bigger Parler gets, the more AWS makes from them. No one is doubting Twitter would have an incentive to quash their competition; the issue is that AWS only hurts themselves by going along. AWS's incentives do not align with Twitter's, which is why this theory is fatally flawed at the outset.

AWS's financial incentives may not, but I think there's more than that going on here. Ideologically, their CEO's are in lockstep.

Alleged TOS violations aside, AWS was fine with Parler until they gained traction- and we can't have any of that, can we. Dropping their app from Google Play and the Apple store pretty much ties that up. At best it's an exercise of market power.

 

[Beemerguy53]

So...we're at 74 responses now, everybody's been respectful and stayed within The Rules, we've all gotten our points across, and the thread hasn't yet been shut down.

I love The Forum!

 

[BC38]

AWS's financial incentives may not, but I think there's more than that going on here. Ideologically, their CEO's are in lockstep.

Alleged TOS violations aside, AWS was fine with Parler until they gained traction- and we can't have any of that, can we. Dropping their app from Google Play and the Apple store pretty much ties that up. At best it's an exercise of market power.

Seems more like an exercise of MONOPOLY power, to me...

So...we're at 74 responses now, everybody's been respectful and stayed within The Rules, we've all gotten our points across, and the thread hasn't yet been shut down.

I love The Forum!

Agreed. However, we mere mortals have no idea how many responses have been edited, or deleted, or warnings issued.

 

[delcrossv]

Seems more like an exercise of MONOPOLY power, to me...

Quite. Need to prove up "market power" to succeed in an antitrust action. I think we're there. Monopoly is the result.

 

[Muss Muggins]

So to recap . . .

"If you deny to anyone else the right to say what you think is wrong, it will not be long before you will lose the right to say what you think is right. Defense of the freedom of others is self-defense."Collier’s magazine, November 4, 1922.

I can probably prove that you don’t really believe that with a single question . . .

I wanna hear this question . . .

I agree with the others that this has been a great discussion, and I'm not going to toss it off the rails.

I actually have two different questions, and either would prove my point. They've been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, so I already know everyone's position, including yours, and I'm correct. I wasted ten minutes and typed a long reply explaining them, without delving into a banned topic, but ultimately decided that my reply might still be construed as going there.

If you try to guess, I won't answer . . .

 

[dockmurgw]

Amazing how fast things can go off the rails here. I thought this was about GoDaddy and an AR forum?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYe8cGy9TeI[/ame]

 

[Absalom]

The fairness issue can be used to argue both sides.

The government, corporate media, internet service providers, platform hosts, or whoever your favorite bogeyman is, can either equally suppress all speech, or none, or any degree in-between. You’re still no further in respect to deciding how to agree on that level.

You don’t like government control. But you don’t like corporate “monopolies” either. And I’d wager that you’d probably really dislike socialist “collectives“.

That presents a conundrum. Social media platforms are only successful if lots of people join them. Then they can be profitable and private businesses will have incentives to finance the cyber-infrastructure to run them. But that gives them the power to police them.

That‘s the problem with becoming addicted to “cyber-speech”. You need somebody else to provide you with the means to spread your drivel. No more standing at a street corner shouting, or passing out leaflets (I actually remember that!) Ah, the good old times

 

[Tom S.]

So...we're at 74 responses now, everybody's been respectful and stayed within The Rules, we've all gotten our points across, and the thread hasn't yet been shut down.

I love The Forum!

Thanks for the jinx. After nearly an hour's work, several posts have been deleted and infractions issued, based upon post content and member's record. If your post was deleted but you didn't receive an infraction, color yourself lucky.

There have been two previous warnings posted, one by the lead moderator and one by the forum administrator, yet some of you let your passions over rule your brain. This is one of the most friendly forums you will find on the net of any kind, and that is due primarily because of the "Forbidden Topics" rule.

The issue of Ar15 being dropped by Godaddy is huge, and discussion should take place, but this thread is VERY close to being closed.

 

[PatriotX]

One things that should be considered was the ongoing discussion of repealing Section 230 protections.


Could the specter of the “sword and shield” evaporating have made AWS and GoDaddy a bit more fearful of real, legal exposure?

Perhaps they thought the juice/squeeze ratio wasn’t favorable, and never expected the outcry from moderate conservatives -expecting us to eat our own- as we have so often in the past.

 

[ddixie884]

I realize that the coupla hundred idiots that broke windows and entered the capitol broke the law. I realize it scared the cramp out of the government. 25,000 troops in DC proves that. I agree that the actual law breakers should be made to pay. Meanwhile, the few hundred other people that climbed the scaffolding and climbed over barriers and bike racks also could be brought to task. meanwhile I think the tens of thousands of other folks who were carrying flags and signs to make a point about their displeasure broke no laws. I am from a free southern state but wasn't even there. I am guilty by association because I am not a left wing liberal. That is what bothers me.............

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Let's just go back to our CB rados . Breaker Breaker good buddy...........

 

[ditrina]

Thank you all..... It's been an interesting thread.