Massive Turning Point For Big Tech?

[LC]

[Spekulatius]

There is a Trump tweet for everything.

To me this escalation with dehosting and pulling licensees for software tools in particular goes too far. If Parler etc are indeed platforms that foster criminal activities, then there should be a judgment that states so.

Then on the other hand, the conservatives who think it is OK to not sell a wedding cake to a Gay couple if the owner doesn’t like gays should be OK with all this.

[cubsfan]

Then on the other hand, the conservatives who think it is OK to not sell a wedding cake to a Gay couple if the owner doesn’t like gays should be OK with all this.

So, so wrong - this is a textbook case of monopoly power and corporate market rigging. Anti-Trust lawyers could have a field day here.

The Gay couple can easily walk across the street and buy another cake, all the while boycotting the conservative bakery.

[Read the Footnotes]

Then on the other hand, the conservatives who think it is OK to not sell a wedding cake to a Gay couple if the owner doesn’t like gays should be OK with all this.

I think some of the Trumpies aren't going to appreciate you essentially calling them a gay wedding cake.

[SharperDingaan]

There is such a company.  They were even referencing it in this thread.  Parler is similar to a twitter clone and Trump shifted to it recently.  Various big tech companies are de-hosting it.

Very simple thing to block an IP address, sourced anywhere in the world. Simple thing too to systemically block if from network hosts with scale, and 'disappear' the leadership. No connectivity, no network effect, no squeaky wheel getting the grease. You can disagree all you like, but if nobody can hear you .....

SD
 

[rukawa]

There is a Trump tweet for everything.

To me this escalation with dehosting and pulling licensees for software tools in particular goes too far. If Parler etc are indeed platforms that foster criminal activities, then there should be a judgment that states so.

Then on the other hand, the conservatives who think it is OK to not sell a wedding cake to a Gay couple if the owner doesn’t like gays should be OK with all this.

Why? The conservative view is that conservatives should have the freedom to dissent from the rest of society on various issues. Both the wedding cake and the banning issues are the same in that respect. The liberal position appears to be that we are going to find you no matter where you hide and force you to do whatever we want or crush you because we have the power.

The examples would be comparable if there was one single company for wedding cakes across the whole US and it had a monopoly. And then a gay man attempted to buy a wedding cake and he was prevented from doing so...he then attempted to go to a competitor and the competitor's payment services and supplies were cut off as soon as this was found out. Then you would be right but the wedding cakes example and Google are not remotely comparable because the vast differences in power between wedding cake makers and Google.

That said I think there should be no anti-trust against Google. You don't like it...create your own service. You can't get payment processors to fund you ... create your own. I'm quit ok and think its completely healthy for conservatives to respond to this by creating their own infrastructure or suffering miserably until that happens.

Tonnes of comp nerds HATED windows and felt oppressed by it. Open source, Google and the rest are the result of that hatred. Fox was the first conservative attempt to bypass MSM. Now conservatives will have to bypass nearly everything. The best and most beautiful example of this....is the founding of America itself.

[LC]

Why? The conservative view is that conservatives should have the freedom to dissent from the rest of society on various issues. Both the wedding cake and the banning issues are the same in that respect. The liberal position appears to be that we are going to find you no matter where you hide and force you to do whatever we want or crush you because we have the power.

Supports the rights of bakery owners to deny service to a customer
Does not support the rights of social media owners to deny service to a customer

Do you not see the contradiction?

The liberal argument is you cannot deny service based on protected classes.

[Gregmal]

Why? The conservative view is that conservatives should have the freedom to dissent from the rest of society on various issues. Both the wedding cake and the banning issues are the same in that respect. The liberal position appears to be that we are going to find you no matter where you hide and force you to do whatever we want or crush you because we have the power.

Supports the rights of bakery owners to deny service to a customer
Does not support the rights of social media owners to deny service to a customer

Do you not see the contradiction?

The liberal argument is you cannot deny service based on protected classes.

The issue is simply can you or cant you? Todays examples are that you cant discriminate in a bakery but you can on a social media platform. Consistency please....

[LC]

In the instance of Twitter banning Trump, which protected class was the basis of Trump's ban?

Twitter claims it was due to violating its policies on glorification/incitement of violence:
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

In the case of AWS et al banning Parler, my understanding is corporations etc. are not subject to protected classes and therefore it is irrelevant.

[Read the Footnotes]

In the instance of Twitter banning Trump, which protected class was the basis of Trump's ban?

Twitter claims it was due to violating its policies on glorification/incitement of violence:
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

In the case of AWS et al banning Parler, my understanding is corporations etc. are not subject to protected classes and therefore it is irrelevant.

This is part of the legal issue at hand, but legal liability for lies and incitement of violence is the real issue. Trust me these companies want to make money, but in this case they have made the decision that the loss in income is more than offset by the reduction in legal risk and to a much lesser extent reputational risk.

A better analogy than a gay wedding cake is to ask if you think a business should have the right to refuse a request to bake 100 million gay wedding cakes that also have calls on them to "kill all Republican homophobes," and to "overthrow the US Government" with dates and instructions on the insurrection, and then request that the baking company put their name on each cake with a note like "made possible by Legal Suicide Baking Co, Inc."

Censorship is a good talking point for some politicians and it has clearly convinced some people that censorship of conservatives is what is going on here, but the truth is that these private businesses realize that at some point lies and hate in large enough quantities are bad for business.