Deplatform Parler good or bad?

[Zan15]

How dare companies periodically monitor clients they have contracts with to ensure a client is adhering to the contract! What will the police state do next?!

So does literally every company with a contract that covers ongoing work/behavior.

For content that violates the terms of Parler's contract with Amazon.

Why do you seem to hate contracts so much?

God 11-16 audits a year from our main customer. Can i claim they are violating my constitutional rights?

not to mention they have the ability to "swing by" and check up on us any morning they want. They even have the access codes to the building and have technically the right to come when we are not even there. They even look in our dumpster....yes....our dumpster.

we have been hit with many "breaches of contracts" and even notice of terminations that we pull back from the brink. We have had 2 contracts terminate instantly because of some really small shit, but the contract allowed them to do it even though the impact was just a few hundred dollars in a million+ contract.

Most of these actions are "negotiation" tactics and always happen in the last Quarter of the contract term


That is the shocking part that he and his ilk cannot understand, none of this is abnormal its all fucking standard contract agreements and language. Decades old. Tested all the way up to the SCOTUS already.

[Shalcker]

How dare companies periodically monitor clients they have contracts with to ensure a client is adhering to the contract! What will the police state do next?!

I just see it as silly for Machismo to deny that companies do consider it their job.

- - - Updated - - -

Because I have a basic grasp of the facts of the case, when apparently, you do not. Or you're lying about them, to push an agenda. One of the two.

From Amazon's letter to Parler, notifying them of their decision;
---skip---
This is basic shit we've known from the beginning. I find it hard to believe you've willfully avoided learned anything about the facts and yet still chose to present an opinion.

What this has to do with what i've written? :/

They don't describe process of how they arrived to this set of examples; you could just as well assume that they went through entire dataset and those 89 examples was all that was caught in the net.

[Edge-]

I just see it as silly for Machismo to deny that companies do consider it their job.

If you're a company with contracts, it is your job to enforce those contracts/ensure that clients/partners are abiding by them. If not, then why even have a contract?

Does Russia like, not have contract law or something? Why is this all so apparently mystifying and confusing?

[Shalcker]

If you're a company with contracts, it is your job to enforce those contracts/ensure that clients/partners are abiding by them. If not, then why even have a contract?

Therefore, it is company's job to monitor them.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Felya]

Therefore, it is company's job to monitor them.

Thanks for proving my point.

Uhm... having rules, in no way implies monitoring.

[Egomaniac]

Therefore, it is company's job to monitor them.

Thanks for proving my point.

You seem to be missing the "as some actual authority figure" part of Machismo's post.

I'm sure that was completely accidental though...

[Orange Joe]

You seem to be missing the "as some actual authority figure" part of Machismo's post.

I'm sure that was completely accidental though...

It's not the first time @Shalcker has tried to imply this. Nor will it be the last I'm sure.

[Edge-]

Therefore, it is company's job to monitor them.

Thanks for proving my point.

That implies that Amazon is constantly monitoring all clients. That's not how contracts are enforced, as that level of oversight is extremely expensive and time consuming. Even if it's largely automated. And we know for a fact that Amazon wasn't, as we know how their team looking out for this operates and what their actions were that led to Parler getting flagged and kicked off.

And to your point -

It has been demonstrated that Amazon sees it as their job to monitor what is being posted on sites hosted by their infrastructure "personally", without deferring to any "actual authority figures" - as seen by their pre-takedown correspondence with Parler.

No, because this literally isn't a "point". It's meaningless words.

Except, it's not the companies' job to monitor them as some actual authority figure. They just didn't want to do business with shitty Nazis.

"You should let Nazis into your house, so you can keep an eye on them."

Nah, fuck that.

Because this is what you're responding to initially, so you've successfully moved the goalposts to Siberia.

[tehdang]

Maybe you'd like to pick a different example than the current crackdown to point out how conservatives are unjustly moderated. Just because they suddenly have to suffer the consequences of their rulebreaking doesn't mean they're under attack.
"Victimhood trophy" projection is strong within the right-wing circles. The IRS mismanagement of the late 00's crossed party lines, but Republicans like to cry a whole lot more. American conservatism is propped up on a perpetual victimhood complex, their followers being constantly fearful of enemies that are in broad terms both incredibly threatening and pathetically weak at the same time.

If you want to claim that conservatives are suffering harsher punishment for their actions on social media, feel free to come at us with studies.
As things stand, it simply looks like conservative people have a harder time sticking to very simple ToS that state you shouldn't harass people based on their ethnicities or sexual orientation, or use racially discriminatory language. For some reason some fringe groups really struggle with this.

I suppose I might be wrong. I guess the reason why intellectual vacuums like Tim Pool and Ben "WAP" Shapiro currently dominate the Youtube political space, in terms of viewership, is because Google is simply so partisan and left-leaning.
Boo-hoo.

I've seen the exact opposite on social media. They pick the easy bans on right-wing extremism, but know the left-wingers are more of a PR nightmare and it gets into a cascade of justifications for violence against police or reprisals against a white person. Left winger harasses and publishes address of a white lady? It's still up. Serial advocator of violence Carlos Maza sometimes is forced to take down tweets, but it takes them weeks or months of hemming and hawing. If he was a right-winger, he'd have been fully banned for over two years now for past infractions.

Like you say about me, lefties have a blind spot on marginalization of voices and double standards when it occurs against groups they disfavor. They agree a priori that no such victimization exists, and therefore turn off their brains to examples and just assume it must be occurring equally on both sides. I'm pretty familiar with this form of mental parsimony. If it was against a racial groups like blacks, or a group identified by sexual preference, you'd have a little more vision.

The IRS scandal under Lois Lerner is getting a little off topic, but it was a classic case of ignoring actual disproportionate scrutiny (what is the content of your prayers questions when applying for 501c3/c4), and delays, while trying to bad-faith deflect to bulk refusal rates between ideological groups. Yeah yeah, we can all see the fallacy of assuming approval criteria has to be the same for percentages of groups refused to be the same. The same delays and unconstitutional questioning was never found for liberal groups, and they received quick judgement at the same time conservative action groups had been waiting for months for approval. She resigned in disgrace and took the fifth amendment, because she could not answer queries on disproportionate treatment and couldn't provide examples of the same thing directed against liberal groups (delays and improper questioning). But I see the choice here is to commit logical fallacies to sweep it away, so I leave you to your choice.

Youtube and Facebook for the more prominent conservative groups, such as Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, and (idk why you lump formerly-Vox Tim Pool as a conservative, though his audience probably is), are the big boys that would notice if they took adverse action. It's the small guys that suffer indefinite periods of suspension for attitudes like "Transgender women should not be permitted to compete in women's sports" or "abortion is murder." The result of the restrictive policies that Twitter uses, and prioritizes against right-leaning voices and attitudes, is that the big boys in the political commentary industry sweep up all the attention. The small ones, ones I follow on twitter and observe long suspensions and bans, have no such legal department and large public influence. And nobody's going to conduct a large study showing duration until ban and categorizing ideological bans on social media, or it'll be small and sweep up liberal dissenters to progressive ideology as somehow alt-right, as I've seen humorously done in two papers in the last few years.

As it stands, the blindness of unequal treatment people around here exhibit is all well and fine; you can choose your own bubbles and defend your right to dismiss conflicting narratives. The real unequal treatment is just leading to an exodus from platforms like Twitter. That's no real loss for people operating in a bubble and tempted to explain away the phenomenon as snowflakes or whatever. I see Twitter still being prominent for journalism linking and stories, but losing much political discussion and social topics to a different host. Maybe that host is Parler if they can raise money and implement content policing.

- - - Updated - - -

It has been demonstrated that Amazon sees it as their job to monitor what is being posted on sites hosted by their infrastructure "personally", without deferring to any "actual authority figures" - as seen by their pre-takedown correspondence with Parler.

They don't have "personal" power of arrest, but the do have ability and consider it their job to do monitoring.

"it's not the companies' job to monitor them" seems to be categorically false - they do see it as their job.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do you see their process described as "spot checks"?

They have entire automated pipeline for such tasks.

What authoritarian has to do with it?

Amazon just lost a lawsuit where they claimed they weren't responsible for defective products sold through their platform. Link

They see it as their job with hosting, and they tried their darndest not to see it in their job as internet retailer.

[Machismo]

I've seen the exact opposite on social media. They pick the easy bans on right-wing extremism, but know the left-wingers are more of a PR nightmare and it gets into a cascade of justifications for violence against police or reprisals against a white person. Left winger harasses and publishes address of a white lady? It's still up. Serial advocator of violence Carlos Maza sometimes is forced to take down tweets, but it takes them weeks or months of hemming and hawing. If he was a right-winger, he'd have been fully banned for over two years now for past infractions.

Like you say about me, lefties have a blind spot on marginalization of voices and double standards when it occurs against groups they disfavor. They agree a priori that no such victimization exists, and therefore turn off their brains to examples and just assume it must be occurring equally on both sides. I'm pretty familiar with this form of mental parsimony. If it was against a racial groups like blacks, or a group identified by sexual preference, you'd have a little more vision.

The IRS scandal under Lois Lerner is getting a little off topic, but it was a classic case of ignoring actual disproportionate scrutiny (what is the content of your prayers questions when applying for 501c3/c4), and delays, while trying to bad-faith deflect to bulk refusal rates between ideological groups. Yeah yeah, we can all see the fallacy of assuming approval criteria has to be the same for percentages of groups refused to be the same. The same delays and unconstitutional questioning was never found for liberal groups, and they received quick judgement at the same time conservative action groups had been waiting for months for approval. She resigned in disgrace and took the fifth amendment, because she could not answer queries on disproportionate treatment and couldn't provide examples of the same thing directed against liberal groups (delays and improper questioning). But I see the choice here is to commit logical fallacies to sweep it away, so I leave you to your choice.

Youtube and Facebook for the more prominent conservative groups, such as Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, and (idk why you lump formerly-Vox Tim Pool as a conservative, though his audience probably is), are the big boys that would notice if they took adverse action. It's the small guys that suffer indefinite periods of suspension for attitudes like "Transgender women should not be permitted to compete in women's sports" or "abortion is murder." The result of the restrictive policies that Twitter uses, and prioritizes against right-leaning voices and attitudes, is that the big boys in the political commentary industry sweep up all the attention. The small ones, ones I follow on twitter and observe long suspensions and bans, have no such legal department and large public influence. And nobody's going to conduct a large study showing duration until ban and categorizing ideological bans on social media, or it'll be small and sweep up liberal dissenters to progressive ideology as somehow alt-right, as I've seen humorously done in two papers in the last few years.

As it stands, the blindness of unequal treatment people around here exhibit is all well and fine; you can choose your own bubbles and defend your right to dismiss conflicting narratives. The real unequal treatment is just leading to an exodus from platforms like Twitter. That's no real loss for people operating in a bubble and tempted to explain away the phenomenon as snowflakes or whatever. I see Twitter still being prominent for journalism linking and stories, but losing much political discussion and social topics to a different host. Maybe that host is Parler if they can raise money and implement content policing.

- - - Updated - - -



Amazon just lost a lawsuit where they claimed they weren't responsible for defective products sold through their platform. Link

They see it as their job with hosting, and they tried their darndest not to see it in their job as internet retailer.

Should Amazon and Facebook be able to choose to not do business with Nazis?

It's that simple.

[Endus]

As it stands, the blindness of unequal treatment people around here exhibit is all well and fine; you can choose your own bubbles and defend your right to dismiss conflicting narratives. The real unequal treatment is just leading to an exodus from platforms like Twitter.

There is no "unequal treatment". It's a completely baseless conspiracy theory that's composed of nothing but an unwarranted victim complex and a constitutional inability of some right-wingers to take any personal responsibility for their own poor behaviour.

Nothing more.

[Shalcker]

That implies that Amazon is constantly monitoring all clients.

I never said "constantly" or "all clients" though. It is technically possible, but not highly likely.

That's not how contracts are enforced, as that level of oversight is extremely expensive and time consuming.

Given automation level and that all applicable content already resides on Amazon servers... both could be false.

You could make "automated content warning check" part of cloud server migration.

And we know for a fact that Amazon wasn't, as we know how their team looking out for this operates and what their actions were that led to Parler getting flagged and kicked off.

Could you give me a link to "how their team operates" that you use to make this claim?

No, because this literally isn't a "point". It's meaningless words.

My point is that they see it as their job; denying it is categorically false.

You yourself highlight that they need to do it to enforce terms of their own contract.

I haven't argued any other point that you seem to assume.

[tehdang]

There is no "unequal treatment". It's a completely baseless conspiracy theory that's composed of nothing but an unwarranted victim complex and a constitutional inability of some right-wingers to take any personal responsibility for their own poor behaviour.

Nothing more.

Should Amazon and Facebook be able to choose to not do business with Nazis?

It's that simple.

This is the same kind of reductive dismissiveness that doesn't go anywhere. Libs think it's conservatives complaining, Cons think they're being intentionally blind (partisan blinders). So be it.

[Breccia]

Twitter kicks off poster who threatened Trump.

We going to ask for his "rights" next, Trump supporters? It's both or neither.

Sorry. I don't make the rules. I just see to it they're enforced.

[Machismo]

This is the same kind of reductive dismissiveness that doesn't go anywhere. Libs think it's conservatives complaining, Cons think they're being intentionally blind (partisan blinders). So be it.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a small-government conservative, a libertarian.

I also noticed you didn't actually answer the question. It's a private company, and it's their property. So, unless you want to demand that I should be able to come to your house, yell racist shit at your family, and you not be able to kick me off... then you may want to ask yourself why you seem to be opposing the First Amendment.

[Egomaniac]

This is the same kind of reductive dismissiveness that doesn't go anywhere. Libs think it's conservatives complaining, Cons think they're being intentionally blind (partisan blinders). So be it.

You didn't answer the question

"Should Amazon and Facebook be able to choose to not to do business with Nazis?"

[tehdang]

I'm not a liberal, I'm a small-government conservative, a libertarian.

I also noticed you didn't actually answer the question. It's a private company, and it's their property. So, unless you want to demand that I should be able to come to your house, yell racist shit at your family, and you not be able to kick me off... then you may want to ask yourself why you seem to be opposing the First Amendment.

Reducto ad Nazism is trollbait. I treat it the same way people call leftists commies when it suits them. You saw my four paragraphs, maybe get some argumentative skin in the game to show good faith instead of TLDR WAABOUT NAZIS?

I'm not interested in following tangents (IE Deplatforming Parler and Nazism might be logically progressive in your mind, but I don't think Hitler and Goebbels mentioned Parler and internet social media companies in their writings). I'm doubly not interested in following tangents when they're one-liner questions sans explanation, and fail to read and respond to points I raised. Sorry, not biting. Cheers.

[Machismo]

Reducto ad Nazism is trollbait. I treat it the same way people call leftists commies when it suits them. You saw my four paragraphs, maybe get some argumentative skin in the game to show good faith instead of TLDR WAABOUT NAZIS?

I'm not interested in following tangents (IE Deplatforming Parler and Nazism might be logically progressive in your mind, but I don't think Hitler and Goebbels mentioned Parler and internet social media companies in their writings). I'm doubly not interested in following tangents when they're one-liner questions sans explanation, and fail to read and respond to points I raised. Sorry, not biting. Cheers.

It's their fucking property. They can kick off whomever the fuck they want.

There, was that simple enough for you?

I support the First Amendment rights of business owners and private entities. Do you? If so, then you should have no problem with them kicking them out, and refusing to do business with them.

[Felya]

I hope folks at least enjoy the irony of QAnon using the same arguments as NAMBLA... the moment where Cartman is saying... “Why do they keep taking all my friends?”... should put this under perspective... claiming liberals are protected, while NAMBLA isn’t... well... that’s just icing...

[Endus]

This is the same kind of reductive dismissiveness that doesn't go anywhere. Libs think it's conservatives complaining, Cons think they're being intentionally blind (partisan blinders). So be it.

It's dismissive because you don't have an argument. You're making up a bunch of cockamamie nonsense that has no basis in reality. You can't cite any quantifiable evidence, you have no data to back any of it up, it's just a baseless "feeling", and you won't accept the simple possibility that your gut is just . . . wrong.