Amazon wins against Parler.
 

Amazon wins against Parler.

Amazon was well witihin its rights, said the judge.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:55:10 -0500, micky wrote:

Amazon wins against Parler.

Amazon was well witihin its rights, said the judge.

Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:04:34 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Against free speech! Would you like all your posts shut down; no matter what
side you were on, blocked by the monolith?

--
Tekkie

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:10:19 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:04:34 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Against free speech! Would you like all your posts shut down; no matter what
side you were on, blocked by the monolith?

I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 6:22:18 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:10:19 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:04:34 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Against free speech! Would you like all your posts shut down; no matter what
side you were on, blocked by the monolith?
I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

And as I understand it, Parler was given the opportunity to do that before they
were booted.



Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.

And don't forget the crazy contradiction. At the same time these alleged
conservatives are complaining about these companies marking posts or
booting people and companies, Trump vetoed the defense spending bill
because he demanded that removing 230 protection be added to it.
That 230 protection means that internet companies can't be held liable
for whatever other people put on their websites. Obviously if you pull
that protection, there will be a big increase in more censorship.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:22:12 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:10:19 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:04:34 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Against free speech! Would you like all your posts shut down; no matter what
side you were on, blocked by the monolith?

I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

Well put.

Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 07:25:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 6:22:18 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:10:19 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:04:34 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Against free speech! Would you like all your posts shut down; no matter what
side you were on, blocked by the monolith?
I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

And as I understand it, Parler was given the opportunity to do that before they
were booted.



Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.

And don't forget the crazy contradiction. At the same time these alleged
conservatives are complaining about these companies marking posts or
booting people and companies, Trump vetoed the defense spending bill
because he demanded that removing 230 protection be added to it.
That 230 protection means that internet companies can't be held liable
for whatever other people put on their websites. Obviously if you pull
that protection, there will be a big increase in more censorship.

Exactly right. Contradictions like that make a person wonder who was
running the show, if anyone.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 12:58:33 -0600, Jim Joyce
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 07:25:29 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 6:22:18 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:10:19 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:04:34 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Parler hasn't run out of legal options, but this is a very promising step.

Against free speech! Would you like all your posts shut down; no matter what
side you were on, blocked by the monolith?
I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

And as I understand it, Parler was given the opportunity to do that before they
were booted.



Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.

And don't forget the crazy contradiction. At the same time these alleged
conservatives are complaining about these companies marking posts or
booting people and companies, Trump vetoed the defense spending bill
because he demanded that removing 230 protection be added to it.
That 230 protection means that internet companies can't be held liable
for whatever other people put on their websites. Obviously if you pull
that protection, there will be a big increase in more censorship.

Exactly right. Contradictions like that make a person wonder who was
running the show, if anyone.

That still might have been a strategic move if Trump is thinking about
starting a right wing cloud. He knew they were going to override his
veto and now he has the democrats on the side of the legislation that
will hold him harmless on his cloud.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:22:12 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

Judged by whose standards? The monolith with no rules or rules for certain
people?

Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.


Yes, with special exemptions set up by Congress. Is this part of special carve
outs that Congress does? Why is it that they only block one side of an argument
but allow more aggressive, hateful speech by others? If you had a site say JJ
Truth which users would sign up and you moderated and someone comes in say Bub.
Bub says Ex lax is the best. The monolith does not like that so they shut you
down. Your thoughts?

--
Tekkie

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:14:29 -0500, posted for all of us to
digest...


That still might have been a strategic move if Trump is thinking about
starting a right wing cloud. He knew they were going to override his
veto and now he has the democrats on the side of the legislation that
will hold him harmless on his cloud.

Good thinking. Crafty

--
Tekkie

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:17:30 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:22:12 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

Judged by whose standards? The monolith with no rules or rules for certain
people?

Judged by the standards of the owners of the specific platform under
consideration, obviously.

Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.


Yes, with special exemptions set up by Congress. Is this part of special carve
outs that Congress does? Why is it that they only block one side of an argument
but allow more aggressive, hateful speech by others? If you had a site say JJ
Truth which users would sign up and you moderated and someone comes in say Bub.
Bub says Ex lax is the best. The monolith does not like that so they shut you
down. Your thoughts?

I invite others to weigh in. I wasn't able to follow your "special
exemptions" argument.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 4:17:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:22:12 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...

I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.
Judged by whose standards? The monolith with no rules or rules for certain
people?

Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.

Yes, with special exemptions set up by Congress. Is this part of special carve
outs that Congress does? Why is it that they only block one side of an argument
but allow more aggressive, hateful speech by others? If you had a site say JJ
Truth which users would sign up and you moderated and someone comes in say Bub.
Bub says Ex lax is the best. The monolith does not like that so they shut you
down. Your thoughts?

--
Tekkie


Give us some examples of others who are spreading aggressive, hateful speech,
loaded with lies. I agree the rules should be applied fairly.

The only reason we are in this bad place is because of one man, Trump.
He brought us here. What should any responsible company do when leaders
are using your facilities to spread total lies, lies about a stolen election and
those lies lead to insurrection at the Capitol? As to the lies, just watch what
happens in court now. There are now 3 Dominion related lawsuits for defamation
in federal court. Team Trump, Ruddy, Powell, et al will have to show what facts
they have to support all the claims they put forth for two months, eg that
Dominion was founded by Hugo Chavez, that the fixed elections in Venezuela,
that their machines were rigged to divert votes to Biden, etc. So far, they
have nothing but claims.

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Monday, January 25, 2021 at 7:26:58 PM UTC-5, Jim Joyce wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:17:30 -0500, Tekkie© wrote:


On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 17:22:12 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...


I wouldn't like my posts to be shut down, no one would, but if it happened
to me, I hope I would use the opportunity to consider whether my speech was
too hateful, too violent, too inciteful, too racist, too whatever.

Judged by whose standards? The monolith with no rules or rules for certain
people?
Judged by the standards of the owners of the specific platform under
consideration, obviously.
Also, as others have pointed out, Amazon is a private company. As such,
they are free to set rules as they see fit. As an Amazon customer, Parler
was either unable or unwilling to police its messaging platform so it's
only right that they got the boot.


Yes, with special exemptions set up by Congress. Is this part of special carve
outs that Congress does? Why is it that they only block one side of an argument
but allow more aggressive, hateful speech by others? If you had a site say JJ
Truth which users would sign up and you moderated and someone comes in say Bub.
Bub says Ex lax is the best. The monolith does not like that so they shut you
down. Your thoughts?
I invite others to weigh in. I wasn't able to follow your "special
exemptions" argument.

I guess he's talking about the 230 protection. But that doesn't enable any special
rights as to setting up terms of service rules. Like we discussed before, remove
the 230 protection and internet companies will be censoring more, because then
they are open to liability suits for what others post on their websites. Who would
host Qanon or Trump then?

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:26:53 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Judged by the standards of the owners of the specific platform under
consideration, obviously.

Ok, I'll accept that. But one must be on the correct side of the monolith.

I invite others to weigh in. I wasn't able to follow your "special
exemptions" argument.

I forget the carve out for them. Regulation 213? 203?

Now back to a.h.r!

--
Tekkie

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On 01/26/2021 03:40 PM, Tekkie� wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:26:53 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Judged by the standards of the owners of the specific platform under
consideration, obviously.

Ok, I'll accept that. But one must be on the correct side of the monolith.

I invite others to weigh in. I wasn't able to follow your "special
exemptions" argument.

I forget the carve out for them. Regulation 213? 203?

230. It started as an anti-indecency thing but that got dropped along
the way.

Paragraph C has two parts:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be held liable on account of€”
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content
providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material
described in paragraph (1)


1 exempts them from liability for material posted by third parties on
their site. This differs from traditional publishers. If 'Tropic of
Cancer' was banned it was the publisher of the material they went after,
not Henry Miller.

2 means they can censor anything they find objectionable without liability.

Repealing the whole thing means endless suits for any platform:

https://mashable.com/article/apple-telegram-lawsuit/

That's a little different since Ginsburg is suing the Apple App Store
and not telegram.

Rewriting it to include 1 and not 2 won't happen since the government is
all to happy to use private censors both internationally and domestically.

Now back to a.h.r!

lowbrowwoman, the Endlessly Driveling Senile Gossip
 

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:28:57 -0700, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

230. It started as an anti-indecency thing but that got dropped along
the way.

Paragraph C has two parts:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

MORE off topic ****, senile asshole!

Amazon wins against Parler.
 

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 20:28:57 -0700, rbowman posted for all of us to digest...


On 01/26/2021 03:40 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:26:53 -0600, Jim Joyce posted for all of us to digest...



Judged by the standards of the owners of the specific platform under
consideration, obviously.

Ok, I'll accept that. But one must be on the correct side of the monolith.

I invite others to weigh in. I wasn't able to follow your "special
exemptions" argument.

I forget the carve out for them. Regulation 213? 203?

230. It started as an anti-indecency thing but that got dropped along
the way.

Paragraph C has two parts:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another
information content provider.

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer
service shall be held liable on account of?
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content
providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material
described in paragraph (1)


1 exempts them from liability for material posted by third parties on
their site. This differs from traditional publishers. If 'Tropic of
Cancer' was banned it was the publisher of the material they went after,
not Henry Miller.

2 means they can censor anything they find objectionable without liability.

Repealing the whole thing means endless suits for any platform:

https://mashable.com/article/apple-telegram-lawsuit/

That's a little different since Ginsburg is suing the Apple App Store
and not telegram.

Rewriting it to include 1 and not 2 won't happen since the government is
all to happy to use private censors both internationally and domestically.

Now back to a.h.r!


Thanks for doing the research for me. I'll try to email it to myself.

--
Tekkie