Nazis are not a protected class.

Also, what is an example of a left-wing post that you think is equivalent to what Trump has done that has gone unmoderated on Twitter? Because I can assure you, left wing posts get censored all the time.

Not once have you seen me advocate for government intervention when it comes to big tech, outside of antitrust issues.

If that's the terms of service laid out by Amazon, then, it kinda seems like they have an obligation (whether ethical or otherwise). If they don't like those terms of service, they're free to find another internet host.

This is how conservatives have demanded the free market work since the dawn of internet arguments, until the moment a Nazi got muzzled, then everything changes for some reason. HMMMMMM

lol, here's this again. I guess right wingers have absolutely never interacted with left wing twitter, because the notion that Twitter doesn't already censor the left to a far greater degree than it does the right is absurd.

Then how do you propose you get Amazon to host Parler? You previously said like "the electric company," which is most definitely a government intervention.

The analogy was a service provider, not a utility. But does the utlity company spy on it's customer to make sure they aren't doing extreme ****?

They don't have that control and can't have it due to how the internet is built and what it allows. The surface web is dominant merely because it is convenient.

The only party that could have that kind of control are the ones that allow for the actual signal or cable to reach your house, and conservatives pretty much gave that control away while cheering about "freedom", so now ISPs in the US can regulate it as they see fit.

Which ties into the historical fact that conservatism has never been a champion of free speech, and nor is it today. That isn't to say that the out reaches of the left are such champions either, they are not. In this boat, those two parties have pretty much rowed an oar each.

Oh, silly me. When you say,

You don't actually mean more like the electric company.

So, how is it that "service provider[s]" are more obligated to do business with Nazis if not governments?

I'm not defending some monolith you've decided to argue against.

Is an electric company a service provider to businesses to which a business needs, and aren't there a great many of these service providers?

I've clarified this many times now, and you still want to use your own usage of electric company (i.e. government entity/utility) and pretend that's what I mean (service provider, like any other service provider that businesses rely on).

It's kinda funny how when all the logical flaws of HIV's absurd positions start getting pointed out, he starts tapdancing around all the previous claims he made to the point where he doesn't even appear to have a position anymore, just endless complaining with no proposed solutions

The electric company is not a government entity. It's a highly regulated company.

But no, I don't know what you mean by a "service provider," because I can't trust when you say "more like the electric company" to actually mean more like the electric company. Is the company my company hires to cater lunches a service provider? The company that delivers office supplies? They do provide services my company relies on. I'm pretty sure both of those "service providers" could tell my company to **** off if my company started doing Nazi stuff.

I mean just look at the fact that "so you want Amazon to do business with Parler, great, how do you propose to make that happen if Amazon doesn't want to?" becomes a total ****ing gotcha question to this guy. Look at these responses, after Wookie asked:

None of these are even close to answering a very basic question, lmao

I think we know the answer.

I am extremely critical of big data, and this has always been my position on this forum.

But the solution for a free internet is not to demand that some business be a public square, public service or utility. All of these things are extremely regulated.

If you want a free internet, oppose legislation that allows ISPs to decide where your traffic can go or come from. As long as that control is not given to anyone, the way the internet is built allows for communication for those that require it. It is technically unproblematic to be outside the realms of big data, the only party you can't avoid is ISPs.

My understanding is that there used to be an understanding that free speech needed to be preserved across forums and so business owners didn't have absolute power to kick people off, call the police, whatever, but with the libertarian revolution the First Amendment was reduced to being merely about government censorship.

I don't think this is accurate. I got caught up in the AWS side of things, but I think Apple and Google and their respective app distribution services is pretty much a duopoly and the implications for app developers and competitiveness is pretty bad, nevermind the speech issues.


The moment government gets involved, it's going to get worse. Politicians are going to leverage this for what helps their political party the most.

So you can choose not to do business with someone based on their ethnicity?

It's too bad conservatives don't have any companies. No power. They're on the way out now-- liberals have taken over the companies.

This is one of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals right now. When we are talking about an issue like whether a private company should be forced to amplify a certain message, conservatives don't even bother trying to defend the message. I wouldn't be quaking in my boots if Farrakhan got deplatformed because his message is often terrible.

I don't think these folks are liberal, they are opportunist who are playing the progressives to get more and more power.

See, you MrWookie, and Goofy have made an assumption that I support some government intervention on the grounds of speech. (I do support for antitrust reasons) Saying (AWS) should not do something does not mean I think the government should stop you (them). Go argue with the conservatives who are advocating for government intervention, I'm not one of them.

It's accurate enough. What you don't get is some right to be amplified, but that is not a right that humans have ever possessed. It has always belonged to those who get to use the bullhorn and have an audience. It would probably be quite deafening if everyone was equally heard, so from a practical viewpoint there is probably not a way around that.

As long as you can steer your own traffic, you can decrypt, encrypt and go under the surface web if you need to do so. This is done today in many of the world's most oppressive regimes, it is only through control of access that you can theoretically block that. China has gotten quite good at it.

Communicating with other people over the internet, twitter, or facebook is not an amplification, no more than using a telephone, or three way calling. Your voice does not get louder simply by posting on twitter, facebook, etc. In most cases, it barely even propagates (which is the word you really should be using) to anyone you are not talking with directly. Amplifying is someone on one of these platforms who have a large following, retweeting, or liking something someone says, or paying one of these platforms to advertise. That still falls into propagation, though.

I'm also not arguing it's a "right" per se. Free exchange of ideas is a principal that should have few restrictions. Again, you can talk about the extreme examples, but not everyone on Parler was a Nazi, not everyone was an extremist, and not everyone was a Trump supporter, but they no longer have access to their choice of communication device/service for internet communication which prevents the free exchange of ideas, and it was at the whim of a few corporations. That's a bad thing.

Ron Paul says he’s been locked out of Facebook for violating community standards.