There is no "conspiracy to destroy Parler".
The facts suggest otherwise, but, we'll see as the case proceeds. Thus far, in the latest installment, although still in preliminary stages... it appears Amazon has no leg to stand on... isn't even offering defenses that might work... and Parler is obviously winning the argument, as of Jan 14:
Jan 14: Is Amazon GOING DOWN? Lawyer Explains Parler's Response - Viva Frei Vlawg
I've not watched the other related links...
Jan 13: Amazon Empire STRIKES BACK! Lawyer Explains Response to Parler's Lawsuit - Viva Frei Vlawg
Jan 12: Parler is SUING Amazon! Lawyer Explains Lawsuit - Viva Frei Vlawg
Jan 11: HL-106: Parler SHUT DOWN by Amazon et al. What Can They Do? Viva & Barnes HIGHLIGHT
Otherwise, you must have missed the recent spectacle of Zuckerberg and Dorsey caught lying to Congress, again ? LOL!! The testimony they gave isn't really the point... as much as is the basis of the questions asked of them... which come from insiders who are acting as whistleblowers and exposing the facts...
If you can't read between those lines... to recognize the legal troubles they're in... based on the non-answers provided ? Congress isn't the most relevant venue, still... and we'll see where discovery leads soon enough, I expect...
"The notion that "SI is not fundamentally different from Parler" is ill-founded"
Because ? They are identical. Both are independent web-based platforms serving a customer base. The rest... who the customers are or what they say... is irrelevant. Your opinion of others speech, agreeing or disagreeing with it, also has nothing at all to do with defining the reality of the business, the business environment... their business relationships with others... or the requirements of contracts, or or the law ?
Neither SI nor Parler appear to have any risks tied to violations of the law... but, there are risks in the environment that have nothing to do with breaking the law. The only violations of the law apparent in Parler's case... are violations of law committed by Amazon "et al".
"SI doesn't promote execution of government officials, such as the Vice-President, or the planning thereof"
Neither does Parler. The platform isn't responsible for the content of others speech... no matter how abhorrent others might find it to be... which is sort of the whole point of the distinction being made between a "platform" and a "publisher"... with a variation in the liability that does apply to publishers... that does not apply to 'platforms"... who easily avoid becoming publishers by not engaging in opinion based discrimination in content moderation... or content curation that advances their own editorial views and excludes others. That's not the same thing as "having a focus" in who your offering seeks to address with a service, etc. But, why limit the asking of questions about "people promoting violence" to only one viewpoint or platform ?
SI doesn't try to, or pretend they should, tell you what opinions you're allowed to have... or express ? They do make it clear they'll not allow you to use their platform to violate the law ? As long as they act in good faith, there's no reason to assume that they've got any particular risk there ? I think SI does a good job... but don't recall instances in which "content moderation" was ever at issue... rather than "behavior moderation" focused on maintaining the community standards. Ah. Do remember one stock "discussion" with a contest that devolved into death threats... Mods no doubt have more experience they might recount. |
