Facebook has their own server farm and access point. They have a completely independent infrastructure.

Mid/late December, Amazon and Twitter signed a multi-year multimillion contract that would effectively shift nearly all of Twitter's infrastructure to AWS.

A month later, Twitter bans Trump, who announces he's going to Parler. Parler sees an influx of tens of millions of accounts, and Twitter usage immediately drops.

Reduction in Twitter usage directly impacts Twitter's bottom line AND reduces the payout Amazon receives from Twitter. Unsurprisingly, AWS ends their contract and suspends all services, including access to the code base, of and to Parler. Based on a flimsy excuse that was politically expedient.

I don't think anyone takes seriously any accusations of Parler involvement in the 6th. My primary question would be why AWS isn't being called out for conflict of interest and monopolistic practices.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 11 2021 07:47am

My guess is if circumstances were similar in another country, and a world leader were using Twitter's platform to egg on the insurrection, they would get banned as well. I don't think I ever came out before the 2020 election to say Trump should get banned from Twitter. There's certainly a public interest in hearing from the president on Twitter, but there's also a public interest in preventing violence or an insurrection.

I guess it depends on what definition of institution you go with. Twitter is one of the most relevant tech platforms, they are accountable to shareholders, customers, and whiny politicians who could regulate them. I believe that institutions and businesses can play a role in the betterment of society and democracy. Twitter is a company that can choose not to give a platform to a world leader who propagated a dangerous lie for 2 months, and who basically incited an insurrection. Banning Trump was a private sector business picking up the slack for an extremely dysfunctional political system.

I mean my guess is if Trump tweeted on Jan. 6th "go into the Capitol and kill all the Democrats", you wouldn't object to Twitter banning him? I could be wrong on that, but if you agree with a ban in that case, we simply draw the line at different places. Propagating a dangerous lie and inciting an insurrection is the line for me.

This post was edited by IceMage on Feb 11 2021 08:38am

No. I would be 100% on board for Twitter locking the tweet and the account and forwarding it to the FBI. That's the literal process. Once law enforcement has investigated the criminal wrongdoing, they can request the account be permanently locked/banned, or the post be removed. But removal of a post is destruction of evidence, which itself is a crime.

Right here on JSP, people have bragged about committing murder, and have talked about plans of impending criminal activity. Their posts were not deleted or removed, and the users were not banned, though they may have faced a temporary suspension. Instead, Paul notified their local authorities who acted based on the evidence of their own posts.

Social media companies are not law enforcement, and their actions in post removal can be viewed as impeding investigations.

- figures like Khamenei are constantly egging on a genocide (of Israel in this case). that his country and his followers arent able to follow through is no excuse for the double standard we see when twitter allows these kinds of messages while banning Trump.

- when I referred to 'institutions', I was thinking about formal organizations which foster and structure stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior.

- a public call for a capital crime would of course be a reason for a ban, yes. but this doesnt mean that I'm drawing an arbitrary, subjective line - the line I'm orienting myself around is drawn by the law. tweets which break the law (instigation of murder in this example) are ban-worthy, those which dont are not. my position is very logical and consistent: free speech rights end where criminal law begins and not one iota earlier.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 11 2021 09:16am

so according to you

"kill nancy pelosi" should be bannable
while "my second amendment guys know what to do with crazy nancy" should not

correct?

The documentary “The Corporation” explains it well.

Modern corporate personhood is a terrible arrangement that encourages white collar crime and exclusively defends the perpetrators.

probably. no matter where we draw the line, you will always be able to construct fringe cases which lie in a grey zone. one advantage of my proposal of drawing the line according to criminal law is that these fringe cases could be litigated according to established law instead of subjective rules made up by private companies.

Next time you're in Portland, lemme know and I'll buy you a beer out of sheer respect.

How stupid can a country be to elect such a total idiot as president.

Lol USA
Lol Trump
Lol rednecks

You mean President Biden? Careful, you'll get screeched at with words like that.