2020 US General Election

[Letters]

Orange Man Bad: Official!

[GP]

Parler was used by MAGA cultists to spread hate speech and incite violence. Parler did nothing to clamp down on that so Amazon have every right to do what they did.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-a...source=twitter

[Letters]

[Letters]

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-a...source=twitter

But...I don't understand. The bloke NQ loves said the case was watertight.
You know, the same bloke who said the SCOTUS case was sound

[GP]

But...I don't understand. The bloke NQ loves said the case was watertight.
You know, the same bloke who said the SCOTUS case was sound

If the people I believed in so much were constantly wrong about everything, I'd start asking myself some very serious questions.

[Letters]

If the people I believed in so much were constantly wrong about everything, I'd start asking myself some very serious questions.

This is the trouble with the conspiracy theory mindset. When they're wrong, it simply becomes part of the conspiracy.

[Letters]

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/11/pa...t-allegations/

Regarding the “political animus,” it is difficult to speak to Parler’s reasoning, since that argument is supported nowhere in the suit — it simply is never referred to again.

There is the suggestion that Amazon has shown more tolerance for offending content on Twitter than on Parler, but this isn’t well substantiated. For instance, the suit notes that “Hang Mike Pence” trended on Friday the 8th, without noting that much of this volume was, as any user of Twitter can see by searching, people decrying this phrase as having been chanted by the rioters in the Capitol two days prior.

By way of contrast, one Parler post cited by Amazon says that “we need to start systematicly [sic] assasinating [sic] #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters,” and so on. As TechCrunch has been monitoring Parler conversations, we can say that this is far from an isolated example of this rhetoric.

The antitrust argument suggests a conspiracy by Amazon to protect and advance the interests of Twitter. Specifically, the argument is that because Twitter is a major customer of AWS, and Parler is a threat to Twitter, Amazon wanted to take Parler out of the picture.

This argument is not convincing for several reasons, but the most obvious one is that Parler was at the time also an AWS customer. If people are going from one customer to another, why would Amazon care at all, let alone enough to interfere to the point of legal and ethical dubiety?

[GP]

Muh freeze peach!

[Letters]

Biden
Fauci



Trump

[Niall_Quinn]

Amazon is now immune in the courts. In an open and shut case of contract law, the judge ignored the law and followed a declaration issued by Amazon itself. We live in regressive times.