• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Parler is back online so...

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,464
719
126
Ok, so you just didn't read the link from fski.

Do you think AWS just booted them willy nilly, without evidence of widespread violent rhetoric, and then words turn into actions in the form of a hostile takeover of the federal Capitol complex?
Nope
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,464
719
126
How far do you take this absolute distinction twixt "words" and "actions"? I don't see that the boundary between them is as clear cut as you imply.

If someone offers someone else a large sum of money to kill a third party, is that 'talk' or 'action'? Are you saying that should only be a crime if and when the killing actually happens?

How about copyright violations? Repeating someone else's words or music is just 'talk', surely?

What about espionage? I assume you have no problem with wikileaks confidential-document dumps? Or with someone publically publishing your passwords for things? It's just 'words', right?

How about fraud? Is that fine as long as it only involves words, even untrue words?
If someone offers money to kill someone, and they take it, in the United States that is considered attempted murder. Which of course is a crime. If two buddies talk about how nice it would be to kill someone, that is not a crime.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,464
719
126
What’s really bizarre is he seems to believe that Amazon has some obligation to carry and amplify their speech and it’s somehow wrong if they choose not to.

Again as I said earlier he only seems concerned with the first amendment rights of certain people.
As I said, if its in their ToS, then they are within their rights. Im not arguing that.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,388
3,035
126
The part where they claim to already do that.

Maybe they have failed in your eyes, but Republicans love the amount of moderation (or lack thereof) on their platform.
OH BOO HOO....CRYBABY......ever since yo boy Trump was crushed in the presidential election....hahhaahhaahaaaaaaa
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,746
136
As I said, if its in their ToS, then they are within their rights. Im not arguing that.
Forget their terms of service though, the first amendment protects them. The right to free speech also encompasses the right to NOT speak if you don't wish to. To call this censorship is to say that as it relates to the first amendment Amazon must transmit speech on Parler's behalf AND must have a business association with Parler against its will, which would also violate Amazon's first amendment right of free association. I don't think corporations should have first amendment rights because they aren't people but the Supreme Court decided the other way on that a long time ago. Hell, now corporations can even have a religion, haha.

If people are really that concerned about speech being suppressed by private companies then the answer is easy, net neutrality on steroids. Regulate internet infrastructure as a utility the way I would prefer it to be done and we're all good. After all, that's why they can't cut the power to KKK headquarters; the power company must serve all customers it reaches equally regardless of ideology or conduct (outside of say, not paying their bill or being a safety hazard or whatever). Conservatives want it both ways though.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,010
1,353
136
If someone offers money to kill someone, and they take it, in the United States that is considered attempted murder. Which of course is a crime. If two buddies talk about how nice it would be to kill someone, that is not a crime.
So two people can be planning a murder but it's only a crime if it involves exchanging money? Really?
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,015
828
126
I support talk. Talk about whatever you want. The minute it goes into action, where it affects people or companies, I think they should be convicted to the full effect of the law. But I support them being to talk about anything they want.

OP: does this affect your life at all? Or just outraged by it?

This type of talk affected me on January 6th, 2021.

I’m not outraged, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paratus

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,015
828
126
How far do you take this absolute distinction twixt "words" and "actions"? I don't see that the boundary between them is as clear cut as you imply.

If someone offers someone else a large sum of money to kill a third party, is that 'talk' or 'action'? Are you saying that should only be a crime if and when the killing actually happens?

How about copyright violations? Repeating someone else's words or music is just 'talk', surely?

What about espionage? I assume you have no problem with wikileaks confidential-document dumps? Or with someone publically publishing your passwords for things? It's just 'words', right?

How about fraud? Is that fine as long as it only involves words, even untrue words?



I was kind of wondering about that too. What if their talk is planning the violence like...

OK Billy Bob, you bring the "firecrackers," Johnny Ray, you bring the "whisky", Mollie Sue, you bring your "ARse" and finally, Bubba, you bring the "sharp shiny doohickies". We'll meet up on such and such date, such and such time and on such and such street. And don't forget to bring the big trump flag.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
15,125
5,246
136
As I said, if its in their ToS, then they are within their rights. Im not arguing that.
Do you find yourself in a corner trying to defend something indefensible and coming up short? There might be a reason for that. Throw it all on the ground and start from scratch. Got kids? Let them guide you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,746
136
I was kind of wondering about that too. What if their talk is planning the violence like...

OK Billy Bob, you bring the "firecrackers," Johnny Ray, you bring the "whisky", Mollie Sue, you bring your "ARse" and finally, Bubba, you bring the "sharp shiny doohickies". We'll meet up on such and such date, such and such time and on such and such street. And don't forget to bring the big trump flag.
I’m unclear as to what this has to do with Parler though. They had a contract with another private entity that elected to cancel that contract. That’s the beginning and end of it.
 

zzyzxroad

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2017
2,965
2,007
136
As I said, if its in their ToS, then they are within their rights. Im not arguing that.
Make sure you don't gloss over what cytg111 said.

On a side note, have you watched CNN recently? Not sure if you are keeping up with them but COVID stats are still running wild.

~~~
This was taken moments ago:
1613936114044.png
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,609
2,762
136
I’m unclear as to what this has to do with Parler though. They had a contract with another private entity that elected to cancel that contract. That’s the beginning and end of it.
I think that's actually another aspect of the same issue, in the end - laws about private property (including 'intellectual property') and laws about conspiracy are both cases where 'free speech' is not an absolute and where the law doesn't make the absolute distinction between 'words' and 'actions' that blackangst was trying to make. Speech is an action. If I tell you the password to a Super Top Sekrit government computer that's as much an action as passing you a physical key, even though it's just "words".

All I'm saying is it's not as simple as blackangst is trying to pretend it is. Every case has to be argued on it's own merits. In this case those contracts are central to that.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,097
20,746
136
I think that's actually another aspect of the same issue, in the end - laws about private property (including 'intellectual property') and laws about conspiracy are both cases where 'free speech' is not an absolute and where the law doesn't make the absolute distinction between 'words' and 'actions' that blackangst was trying to make. Speech is an action. If I tell you the password to a Super Top Sekrit government computer that's as much an action as passing you a physical key, even though it's just "words".
I can’t say I agree - in this case Amazon’s free speech rights are essentially absolute. Amazon has declined to ‘speak’ for Parler by hosting their content and they have declined to continue a business partnership with them. Since Amazon is private there’s no way for Parler to require Amazon to do either of these things other than through litigation. If they tried that though that’s asking the government to force Amazon to speak and therefore Amazon would be protected by the first amendment.

The only free speech potentially at issue here is that of Amazon. Parler simply has no right to free speech as it relates to Amazon. Absolutely zero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,464
719
126
Make sure you don't gloss over what cytg111 said.

On a side note, have you watched CNN recently? Not sure if you are keeping up with them but COVID stats are still running wild.

~~~
This was taken moments ago:
View attachment 40083
Ive noticed they only show covid stats when the story is about COVID. Not all the time like they were doing. Right now, for example, no ticker.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,464
719
126
I was kind of wondering about that too. What if their talk is planning the violence like...

OK Billy Bob, you bring the "firecrackers," Johnny Ray, you bring the "whisky", Mollie Sue, you bring your "ARse" and finally, Bubba, you bring the "sharp shiny doohickies". We'll meet up on such and such date, such and such time and on such and such street. And don't forget to bring the big trump flag.
What if what if what if.
 

zzyzxroad

Platinum Member
Jan 29, 2017
2,965
2,007
136
Well you clearly thought it was worth talking about, so why not talk about it?

I never understood the point of the ‘who, me?’ game.
People who are regularly dishonest when posting in the P&N section of a tech site are perplexing. Are they really unaware of how clear their charade is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

ASK THE COMMUNITY