Posted on 01/13/2021 9:15:16 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Amazon filed its response Tuesday to an antitrust suit brought against it by Parler, arguing that the social media upstart's refusal to remove violent content from its platform violated its contract, and that Parler had failed to prove any antitrust claims.
Parler sued Amazon on Monday after the tech giant booted the platform from its web-hosting service, Amazon Web Services, amid public outcry over Parler's role in enabling far-right insurrectionists to organize and plan last week's attacks on the US Capitol.
"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade," Amazon claimed in the court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove... content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
Parler did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Amazon cited more than a dozen examples of content posted to Parler that it said violated Amazon's policies.
"We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets," one post said, according to the document, while another read: "White people need to ignite their racial identity and rain down suffering and death like a hurricane."
Others included death threats against prominent Democrats such as former President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google parent company Alphabet.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Lying pieces of 💩
“ such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.”
Standard fair on Twitter.
Gab has a bunch of wacko posts as well. I suspect some of them are paid operatives of the Swamp. Given the intense efforts of the left to wipe them out I’d be surprised if they were not any such agents.
Parler has been around for years.
This response is weak on Amazon’s part, although it makes good Ministry of Truth sensationalist propaganda.
Every site has violent content. Every single one.
You can’t catch everything.
People make stupid comments never intending to follow through.
How do you determine which ones are important to spot?
Amazon should look at the other social network sites.
Twitter, Instagram, Facebook... they all have violent
content.
I guess Amazon thinks they should all be shut down.
Fine by me.
Yes, they’re a platform - they provide a forum for people to express views. Did these people act on the things they said? If so then they committed crimes but just saying things on an open platform is what the protection is for.
Is this a first for Amazon?
All kinds of evil crimes have been coordinated with phone calls. Does this justify shutting down the phone company?
Simpletons. I guarantee they host apps that have a wide range of violent BLM and antifa content, degrading porn, etc.
I imagine there’s a ton of threats against Trump supporters on Twitter that are allowed to stand without deplatforming by Amazon Web Services (AWS).
I’m informed Twitter also uses AWS.
Parler NEEDS to fight back with what the hell has been posted on FB, and Twitter by BLM and Antifa sites that were NOT taken down!!! Parler NEEDS to gather the evidence before it is scrubbed!!
Yeah, dump these turds. See tagline.
All they have to do is show all the death threats, and threats of violence that are on the other social media sites, but those sites haven’t been taken down. Double standard.
Every site has violent content. Every single one.
—
Twitter had blue check mark posts from the CCP bragging about the mass sterilization of Uygur women.
Amazon = Violins
The host, Mark Goodman, commented that it is absolutely the artist's right to protect their property rights. The listener then basically said "but can't YouTube police it's own site and take down unauthorized content? They seem to be able to do that pretty quickly on all sorts of content that they think is offensive..."
The hosts pause, laughed nervously, made a comment like "well...there are discussions like that going on at the highest levels of government right now..." and moved to the next caller.
The truth, of course, is YouTube does not WANT to pull that content down because that's a key driver of traffic to the site. They LIKE that content even if it is illegal. In contrast, content that is legal but which they don't like, gets yanked.
Madonna and others are still on their platform, no?
Amazon = Violins
At a minimum, economic violence.
Threat against BLM is self defense
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.