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 ...
When you run the servers..
You can do anything you want.
Amazon could have made the posts themselves
Create a world where everyone can spout every thought that enters their heads to the entire world 24/7/365, observe the consequences for several years, and then you get to create the Thought Police. The plan is working quite well.
My advice to Paler is by a couple of servers and local IT support as well as a dedicated conservative aws site.
Good for you, Beeez(ulbug)zose, you’ve just made the case for abolition of the section 230.
Hell, guaranteed Amazon’s AWS is being used for human trafficking and terrorism right now.
Amazon sells all manner of deadly weapons. Every day.
Amazon web service is i think a private company and can dictate what it allows in it’s doors. The whole plessy ferguson issue was that private companies did not allow blacks to sit with whites. Should Amazon be forced to have the stupid white guy sit at the lunch counter and recite his stupid stuff. The answer is yes because we all know that it is just a stupid white guy reciting stupid stuff. The discussion which will determine our future is this: Can we as a nation let the stupid white guy spew whatever he wants and sit and get served at the lunch table with everyone else. We get to choose. It is Grace that destroys all of our weaknesses. There is not one of us here on this website or any where on this planet that has not met it. People all over this country are praying for a revival of Gods Grace to heal us as a nation. Unfortunately there is no longer corporate grace. The United States of American can’t really get God to shed his Grace on thee.
You can find the same violent content in any bookstore, hollywood production company, library, or major city newspaper.
The guy makes a good point
So? Twitter, Facebook and others have been notorious for a long time for hosting such threats against conservatives.
Well here’s an opportunity to take out some liberal companies. Not sure if twitter or facebook use amazon but I bet we can find examples of others with the same social media issues.
Twitter uses Amazon!!
I have seen on reddit where obvious liberals would post something violent to get forums banned or ‘quarantined’.
It worked. THEY are the ones who need to be held accountable. They are exactly like antifa and others who show up wearing Trump gear and commit violence.
Now do Twitter and Facebook.
Grace is in short supply, indeed.
Kind of like the Redcoats did to the colonies, or the Union troops did to Southerners during the War of Northern Aggression?
They took it step further by actually engaging in rather than “inciting”.
YouTube, FB, Twitter etc ALL have users posting someone else's intellectual property without authorization. That is a LEGAL violation, yet, these entities do jack squat.
But when it comes to bannng Constitutionally-guaranteed speech..well, YouTube, FB, Twitter et al are ALL OVER THAT.
I totally get, that private enterprises aren't bound by the Constitution like government is bound. Thus Business CAN kick content they find "offensive" off their platform. I am not denying them that right.
But please....we see the duplicitous behavior in social media banning legal content but looking away when it comes to illegal content.
Banning the President opining on this or that is "good" but the halting of someone ripping off Buddy Guy by posting one of his tunes without payment, is "bad."
When the Invisible Hand renders these collections of software, wire, and servers obsolete, I won't cry.
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.