Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Facebook Removing All Content That Mentions ‘Stop the Steal’ Ahead of Inauguration Day
DerekJohnson
Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 68,315 
in Tug Tavern
Facebook announced on Monday it is removing all content that contains the phrase “stop the steal” ahead of President-elect Joe Biden’s Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
The company issued a statement saying it was removing content containing the phrase that was used by supporters of President Donald Trump to question the integrity of the 2020 general election. Trump supporters held multiple rallies across the country called “Stop the Steal” following the Nov. 3 election.
The social media company said that the move is an attempt to remove content that “could incite further violence during these next few weeks.” Content will be removed under the company’s Coordinating Harm policy.
“We’ve been allowing robust conversations related to the election outcome and that will continue,” Facebook officials Guy Rosen and Monika Bickert said in a statement.
“But with continued attempts to organize events against the outcome of the US presidential election that can lead to violence, and use of the term by those involved in Wednesday’s violence in DC, we’re taking this additional step in the lead up to the inauguration.”
This comes as big tech companies ramped up efforts to police content that they claim could lead to potential harm offline. The companies’ latest round of content policing started after pockets of civil unrest and acts of violence marred otherwise peaceful protests at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
A group of rioters and a minority of protesters waving American and Trump flags illegally stormed the Capitol building as lawmakers were counting electoral votes in a joint session of Congress. Clashes on the day left five people dead—three for medical reasons—and dozens of police officers injured.
Facebook said that it has teams working 24/7 to enforce its policies days leading up to and around Jan. 20. They said they have already removed a significant number of posts.
“We will keep our Integrity Operations Center operating at least through January 22 to monitor and respond to threats in real time,” the company said.
The company, which has indefinitely suspended Trump’s account on the platform, has also paused ads in the United States about politics and the elections and said it would keep a number of measures and restrictions that put in place before the U.S. elections, such as not recommending civic groups for people to join.
A “news digest” will be added to the platform’s news section so that its users can “find reliable news” about Jan. 20, the company added.
The targeted moderation by Facebook, Twitter, and other Silicon Valley companies have raised concerns over First Amendment rights and the lack of checks and balances on decisions made by big tech companies. Discussions over limiting or eliminating liability protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for tech companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct have been heavily discussed in the past year.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expressed concern over Twitter’s decision to suspend Trump from social media, saying that it could set a precedent for big tech companies to silence voices.
“We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions— especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” the ACLU statement read.
Apple, Google, and Amazon have also garnered widespread scrutiny for banning the social media network Parler from their services. Parler, which has attracted a large following of classical liberal and conservative-leaning users, has filed a lawsuit against Amazon in an effort to reverse the company’s decision.
Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan
The company issued a statement saying it was removing content containing the phrase that was used by supporters of President Donald Trump to question the integrity of the 2020 general election. Trump supporters held multiple rallies across the country called “Stop the Steal” following the Nov. 3 election.
The social media company said that the move is an attempt to remove content that “could incite further violence during these next few weeks.” Content will be removed under the company’s Coordinating Harm policy.
“We’ve been allowing robust conversations related to the election outcome and that will continue,” Facebook officials Guy Rosen and Monika Bickert said in a statement.
“But with continued attempts to organize events against the outcome of the US presidential election that can lead to violence, and use of the term by those involved in Wednesday’s violence in DC, we’re taking this additional step in the lead up to the inauguration.”
This comes as big tech companies ramped up efforts to police content that they claim could lead to potential harm offline. The companies’ latest round of content policing started after pockets of civil unrest and acts of violence marred otherwise peaceful protests at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
A group of rioters and a minority of protesters waving American and Trump flags illegally stormed the Capitol building as lawmakers were counting electoral votes in a joint session of Congress. Clashes on the day left five people dead—three for medical reasons—and dozens of police officers injured.
Facebook said that it has teams working 24/7 to enforce its policies days leading up to and around Jan. 20. They said they have already removed a significant number of posts.
“We will keep our Integrity Operations Center operating at least through January 22 to monitor and respond to threats in real time,” the company said.
The company, which has indefinitely suspended Trump’s account on the platform, has also paused ads in the United States about politics and the elections and said it would keep a number of measures and restrictions that put in place before the U.S. elections, such as not recommending civic groups for people to join.
A “news digest” will be added to the platform’s news section so that its users can “find reliable news” about Jan. 20, the company added.
The targeted moderation by Facebook, Twitter, and other Silicon Valley companies have raised concerns over First Amendment rights and the lack of checks and balances on decisions made by big tech companies. Discussions over limiting or eliminating liability protections under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for tech companies that have engaged in censoring or political conduct have been heavily discussed in the past year.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expressed concern over Twitter’s decision to suspend Trump from social media, saying that it could set a precedent for big tech companies to silence voices.
“We understand the desire to permanently suspend him now, but it should concern everyone when companies like Facebook and Twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions— especially when political realities make those decisions easier,” the ACLU statement read.
Apple, Google, and Amazon have also garnered widespread scrutiny for banning the social media network Parler from their services. Parler, which has attracted a large following of classical liberal and conservative-leaning users, has filed a lawsuit against Amazon in an effort to reverse the company’s decision.
Follow Janita on Twitter: @janitakan
Comments
-
I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
-
A statement from the executive --> https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/we-can-uphold-free-speech-and-hold-president-trump-accountable/
TL;DR, "The First Amendment doesn’t protect the rights of public employees to say whatever they want when speaking in their official capacity." -
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
-
ACLU has barely said a word about 10 months of executive orders curtailing civil liberties. They’re scared as anyone else.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
-
The great awakening here that the ACLU is anything but a Democrat political action committee is precious
-
All the American keep posting it. Make them earn it.
-
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
-
No one would care if the antifa users were on triple probation for violating the terms of use. The best choice would be if no one was on triple probation. But fascists got to fascist.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
-
Whataboutism. I'm not defending antifa. They should be banned if they violate the terms of use.WestlinnDuck said:
No one would care if the antifa users were on triple probation for violating the terms of use. The best choice would be if no one was on triple probation. But fascists got to fascist.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
-
Anyone who foolishly believed that the ACLU was still a Civil Rights organization is pretty naive.doogie said:The great awakening here that the ACLU is anything but a Democrat political action committee is precious
-
Ironic that right wing seditionists are suddenly begging the ACLU to help their cause.
-
God forbid twitter might have the power to modify its own terms of service....AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
That's as bullshit an excuse as a business hiding behind "that's our policy'" with a dissatisfied customer. Ok -then change the fucking policy. Maybe the policy is wrong.
#cowardly
-
Twitter and Facebook stock still down. Not a good business plan to drop thousands of people and content.
-
zero tolerance was the beginning of the downfall of western civilizationPurpleThrobber said:
God forbid twitter might have the power to modify its own terms of service....AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
That's as bullshit an excuse as a business hiding behind "that's our policy'" with a dissatisfied customer. Ok -then change the fucking policy. Maybe the policy is wrong.
#cowardly
Zero accountability -
Twitter lost 5 billion in stock value or something. I had an article. Top lazy to find it again.
-
if $5 billion was all they lost - no biggie, they will bounce back.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Twitter lost 5 billion in stock value or something. I had an article. Top lazy to find it again.
They only way they get hurt is if the major corporations stop advertising. What I have heard major advertising is being pulled from other companies/businesses that supported the Trumpster - until they denounce the Trumpster and apologize publicly the bans and non-support will continue.
See Brennan's comments on this -
Sounds like the market has decided.LebamDawg said:
if $5 billion was all they lost - no biggie, they will bounce back.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Twitter lost 5 billion in stock value or something. I had an article. Top lazy to find it again.
They only way they get hurt is if the major corporations stop advertising. What I have heard major advertising is being pulled from other companies/businesses that supported the Trumpster - until they denounce the Trumpster and apologize publicly the bans and non-support will continue.
See Brennan's comments on this -
They won't lose much. Corporate America is woke as fuck now.LebamDawg said:
if $5 billion was all they lost - no biggie, they will bounce back.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Twitter lost 5 billion in stock value or something. I had an article. Top lazy to find it again.
They only way they get hurt is if the major corporations stop advertising. What I have heard major advertising is being pulled from other companies/businesses that supported the Trumpster - until they denounce the Trumpster and apologize publicly the bans and non-support will continue.
See Brennan's comments on this -
I'm fine with all these people and companies revealing themselves for who they are
The pendulum always swings back. Its physics. Action brings reaction and everything decays to another form -
@GrundleStiltzkinRaceBannon said:I'm fine with all these people and companies revealing themselves for who they are
The pendulum always swings back. Its physics. Action brings reaction and everything decays to another form
I can’t believe you don’t see it.
The pendulum always swing back... -
okTheKobeStopper said:
@GrundleStiltzkinRaceBannon said:I'm fine with all these people and companies revealing themselves for who they are
The pendulum always swings back. Its physics. Action brings reaction and everything decays to another form
I can’t believe you don’t see it.
The pendulum always swing back... -
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage. -
They've really fallen off their mission statement these last five years.SFGbob said:
Anyone who foolishly believed that the ACLU was still a Civil Rights organization is pretty naive.doogie said:The great awakening here that the ACLU is anything but a Democrat political action committee is precious
-
You can't see what exists only in your fevered imagination
-
Right.alumni94 said:Twitter and Facebook stock still down. Not a good business plan to drop thousands of people and content.
well, countless users probably do violate the terms, but only one is empowered to incite an insurrection to topple the oldest democracy and replace it with himself as dictator. Of course the bastard should be banned and cut off so long as it is legal, which it is. A good analogy is cops don't stop everybody speeding a few miles over the speed limit. But if you are doing 200 mph down I-5 you will get stopped and your license stripped.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage. -
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population. -
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population. -
California was threatening to shut power because of 'vid violations.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population.
-
Which is bonkers levels of big brotherismGrundleStiltzkin said:
California was threatening to shut power because of 'vid violations.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population. -
They did it and still doGrundleStiltzkin said:
California was threatening to shut power because of 'vid violations.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population.
