Should companies be allowed to disassociate themselves from other companies like Parler?

You never actually provided the content that you assert violated AWSs TOS. And since when does AWS give a hoot about what services they provide platforms for? When AWS starts turning down twitter, we might start to believe that AWS is actually serious about abuse on their cloud. But for now, the twitter sphere is still actively engaging in the behavior that AWS attacked PARLER for. They are selective in their outrage, and seem to be vastly more interested in controlling the narrative and removing competition than not here. And that is discriminatory.

 

And if they are broken up and all the parts still won't bow to your wishes ... what then? Like a number of the MAGA dudes, you're always
looking to blame outside sources for the problems you face ...

 

However monopolies should not be tolerated or you have no free market... And collusion by multiple entities against another in pursuit of monopoly powers damn well ought to be illegal. Especially when the product in question is people's ability to communicate freely.

 

Who said anything about bowing to my wishes? I have no wish for them. Except that they be treated like other businesses, and not exist in a bubble created by legislative protectionism any more. If they can survive that, they won't be the same, and folks will understand the differences. Why does that seem to scare you?

Frankly, I don't face any problems here. That you would assume them is simply transference from your own stack of concerns. Tell us again why government should actively protect the folks who are so demonstrably raping the people of their liberties and their privacy again.....

 

Monopoly? Monopoly of what?

Saying that technology companies have a "monopoly" on technology is like saying that car companies have a monopoly on car manufacturing.

Tech companies have, not only a right, but an obligation to not allow their services be used to promote illegal activities.

 

Are those who claim that AWS or Google are a monopoly the same that supported the Trump administration's efforts to oppose net neutrality?

Parler can go to Best Buy, get a server (or many servers) and have their website up and running within a day. Or go to one of the many smaller webhosting providers. It won't be as fast or scalable or dependable as when hosted by AWS... In no small part because Trump has rolled back net neutrality regulations that Obama put in place which prohibited ISPs from giving preference to services using AWS.

 

That is how our country works. If it is deemed a monopoly then a company can be broken up by government. The laws are clear. The collusion simply creates a cabal subject to the same laws. The problem here is that the new administration likes the fact that Parler is gone and may stay gone. It isn't likely that the new justice department will do anything about it. Hello oligarchy.

My recomendation is that people who value capitalism and the free market stop patronizing these companies. I don't patronize them and my life is pretty normal. They aren't necessary to a good life so they may not be monopolies at all. The question is how many people really support capitalism and the free market. I just don't know.

 

Deutsche Bank reportedly will not do any future business with Trump

Deutsche Bank will not do business in the future with U.S. President Donald Trump or his companies in the wake of his supporters’ assault on the U.S. Capitol, The New York Times reported.

Deutsche Bank is Trump’s biggest lender, with about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the president’s umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to Trump’s disclosures with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics dated July 31 last year, plus banking sources.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/12/deu...ll-not-do-any-future-business-with-trump.html

How sweet it would be to see the Trump Org. go bankrupt. I wonder how many people canceled reservations to stay at a Trump hotel after Wed.?

 

Collusion does not require monopolies to complete the cause of action. What was done to Parler was the biggest legal mistake I've seen in many years, and the first heads that roll will likely be some of the lawyers who allowed it.

 

I am not AWS or any part of AWS. I get the same info as you. What is released.

If AWS is the party who broke the contract, the law suit will award Parler.

Companies can choose who to do business with. That is what the RW side of politics has said forever. Until recently. Hypocrites.

 

Relationship advice... Don't be the party that financially violates your contracts...

 

Duh!!!!
BTW - What is the discrimination you claim was made. You didn't answer the question to your claim.

 

Even corporations enjoy equal protection under the law. You should have been able to figure that out by yourself...

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...iven-out-of-business-for-ignoring-its-own-TOS

 

There is a famous Supreme Court decision about "not crying fire falsely in a crowded theater." It's been modified over time to add a requirement to link such speech to some harm (e.g. if no one is hurt it may be ok; but if the prosecution can tie the deaths of people tramled in their attempt to get out of the theater then the abuse of free speech may hold the abuser culpable. My guess is that companies related to freedom of speech issues are taking steps to protect themselves from such possible liability.

 

Lots of what aboutiqm from folks like you. So, when it was ms Harris telling us all to endure the insurrection last summer... well... and that got a lot of retweets, hun... lots of hypocrisy on the left these days.

 

Of course, you know very well she said to endure the protesting. Didn't your momma teach you not to lie?

 

Nope, still can't. I guess there really isn't any. Baseless claim. So, do you have a discrimination in mind? 3rd time asking. 3 strikes and...

But no more so than regular people.
No Shirt, No shoes, No Service. Can happen to anyone without discrimination.

You should be able to figure that out all by yourself.

 

Should companies be allowed to have rights? Yes.

 

When protesting includes assaulting federal buildings, capital buildings in the states, police etc... that is actually more equivalent to insurrection than what happened when the BLM ANTFA folks got out of hand in DC. And twitter does seem to be entirely willing to continue to host those tweets, posts... videos.. collaborations, etc. Seems that twitter runs just fine on AWS still. And that clearly is a choice from the leadership of AWS. Time for them to get right here.

 

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the Court appeared to grant a corporation the same rights as an individual under the 14th Amendment. Whoopsie... Your baseless argument just fractured..... Seems basic research is beyond you.

 

LOL. I just told you corps have the same but no more rights than people. LOL

My response to you about corp rights:

Now I asked you what discrimination AWS did 3X, because you claim they discriminated. Your lack of an answer tells all anyone needs to know. You're just making stuff up.

And so, you got busted and now resort to ad hom attacks.
Concession accepted.

 

Can you show me tweets calling for civil war and for the deaths of traitor and conservatives?

 

An amendment to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would be a start. It just wouldn't apply to Amazon. Government pressure could be applied by removing any government legal support, such as Section 230. This wouldn't even be considered to be regulation.

 

Adjusting Section 230 can work one of both ways, on one hand Section 230 gives companies more power in establishing their own rules on what is and is not acceptable content for their website, meaning no legal ground is required for them to remove content from their website, it can simply be because they don't like what was posted.. but on the other hand Section 230 holds the users legally responsible for what they post online rather than the website itself.

One significant part section 230 is websites like twitter (or this one) are not treated as publishers of the content that is posted by their user base. Meaning if a user were to post something that could cause legal trouble, there are some levels of immunity protecting the company of the website from getting sued or being charged. If you remove section 230 that whole situation changes, suddenly companies like twitter have to worry about things like defamation lawsuits based on inaccurate information posted by their user base, thus an incentive is created for stricter rules on what their userbase can post.