Amazon Google and Apple pull the plug on Parler

[ckmk47]

Amazon, Apple, Google, & reddit are currently entitled to political opinions and actions just like we are.

Then they are a publisher and can be sued for content.
If they are a neutral platform, they can't be sued, but they can't censor.


Right now they have immunity as if they are a publisher, but censor as if they've got opinions.
Worst of both worlds for those who believe in freedom.

[zh cohen]

First amongst them IMO is paying elected officials competitive wages so corporations and donors have less impact.

Right, because if you give people enough money, they won't want any more ..

[PlatinumGuy]

Then they are a publisher and can be sued for content.
If they are a neutral platform, they can't be sued, but they can't censor.

That's a myth, as @Euclid pointed out.

Under current law, they are allowed to remove every Republican post and promote every Democrat post and still enjoy the full immunity protection of Section 230. There is zero requirement for neutrality.

[PlatinumGuy]

Right, because if you give people enough money, they won't want any more ..

There is a difference between wanting more money and being dependent on money. It's impossible to win political office without significant donors. We can change that pretty easily.

[R.A.T.]

Come on. Only an Amex RAT can say that (nothing personal). If you follow my posts here I am not a Trump supporter by any far stretch of the imagination, but these moves by the tech companies are very dangerous and are going to lead to bloodshed. This thing would have totally blown over, but now I'm afraid of what's next.

I was just pointing out the fact they violated the TOS. Now if you feel they are targeting one political view over another that is a valid point and up for discussion. As far as bloodshed, their inaction has already led to that.

As a republican I believe in less regulation. Should I just ignore that principal when I feel things are not going my way?

[PlatinumGuy]

Now if you feel they are targeting one political view over another that is a valid point and up for discussion.

Amazon, Apple, Google, & reddit are currently entitled to political opinions and actions just like we are.

[yzj]

I was just pointing out the fact they violated the TOS. Now if you feel they are targeting one political view over another that is a valid point and up for discussion. As far as bloodshed, their inaction has already led to that.

As a republican I believe in less regulation. Should I just ignore that principal when I feel things are not going my way?

As a Jew I believe in neither the democrats or the republicans but in what is negative or positive for society in general and the Jews specifically and it’s hard to make the case that concentrating almost unlimited power in the hands of a few (who happen to have agendas that don’t align with our values) is good for either of the above.

[PlatinumGuy]

As a Jew I believe in neither the democrats or the republicans but in what is negative or positive for society in general and the Jews specifically and it’s hard to make the case that concentrating almost unlimited power in the hands of a few (who happen to have agendas that don’t align with our values) is good for either of the above.

I also think the power should be taken away from them, but as a Jew I'm also happy Parler was shut down. Extremism threatens us more than anybody else. Yes, we should force them to remove BLM extremism too.

[JudahMcB]

It's impossible to win political office without significant donors.

Paying politicians more won't solve that. Implementing a system similar to the UK were every candidate gets the same amount of money for advertising would. TV stations should be required by the FCC to dedicate X number of minutes of advertising to each candidate. Paying staff and paying for flyers for example would come out of this budget and can't exceed the set amount.

[PlatinumGuy]

Paying politicians more won't solve that. Implementing a system similar to the UK were every candidate gets the same amount of money for advertising would. TV stations should be required by the FCC to dedicate X number of minutes of advertising to each candidate. Paying staff and paying for flyers for example would come out of this budget and can't exceed the set amount.

Thats part of what I meant. Israel does that too. If we’d give every serious presidential candidate $1B for a campaign, our country would look much better. I’m not sure if companies can be prohibited from political messaging without a constitutional amendment though.

[AsherO]

Paying politicians more won't solve that. Implementing a system similar to the UK were every candidate gets the same amount of money for advertising would. TV stations should be required by the FCC to dedicate X number of minutes of advertising to each candidate. Paying staff and paying for flyers for example would come out of this budget and can't exceed the set amount.

+1000

At this point the US political machine is “for the corporations, by the corporations”. Paying them extra cant make a difference if the barrier of entry to public office is (by and large) too high for a non-politically-connected or wealthy layperson.

[PlatinumGuy]

+1000

At this point the US political machine is “for the corporations, by the corporations”. Paying them extra cant make a difference if the barrier of entry to public office is (by and large) too high for a non-politically-connected or wealthy layperson.

I agree, I just think there’s also a broader competency issue with American politics. Too much of the debate is about abstract ideologies like Abortion & guns that have minor impact on us personally, but the things that impact our lives most like healthcare and education require executional talents more than ideology.

When you hire a plumber, you don’t care if cheated on his wife and what he thinks about capital punishment. You chose whoever can get the job done best.

Singapore pays their ministers $2m/year. It attracts talent and it works well.

[AsherO]

I agree, I just think there’s also a broader competency issue with American politics. Too much of the debate is about abstract ideologies like Abortion & guns that have minor impact on us personally, but the things that impact our lives most like healthcare and education require executional talents more than ideology.

When you hire a plumber, you don’t care if cheated on his wife and what he thinks about capital punishment. You chose whoever can get the job done best.

Singapore pays their ministers $2m/year. It attracts talent and it works well.

Either/all of these groups of policy issues are about appealing to an audience to gain either votes or political favor, I don’t believe 90% of senators/members of Congress actually believe in any of this. Major dearth of values, true leadership, and devotion to a cause.

Ironically, I believe Bernie Sanders really believes in his ideology, even though I’m in diametrical disagreement with him.

[PlatinumGuy]

Either/all of these groups of policy issues are about appealing to an audience to gain either votes or political favor, I don’t believe 90% of senators/members of Congress actually believe in any of this. Major dearth of values, true leadership, and devotion to a cause.

Ironically, I believe Bernie Sanders really believes in his ideology, even though I’m in diametrical disagreement with him.

I agree

[zh cohen]

There is a difference between wanting more money and being dependent on money. It's impossible to win political office without significant donors. We can change that pretty easily.

How does paying incumbents more make it easier to win office without donors?

[zh cohen]

That's a myth, as @Euclid pointed out.

Under current law, they are allowed to remove every Republican post and promote every Democrat post and still enjoy the full immunity protection of Section 230. There is zero requirement for neutrality.

That's exactly why people want section 230 to be reformed.

[AsherO]

How does paying incumbents more take away the incentive to raise money for campaigns?

I think at this point if the only thing that changes is salaries for members of Congress, then it won’t make a difference.

[PlatinumGuy]

How does paying incumbents more make it easier to win office without donors?

Donors affect future employment prospects and other ways of supporting incumbent members immediate financial needs. A senator is paid less than a first year lawyer at a top firm. That should change.

There is also the difference that starving officials make the positions less desirable and leaves them for puppets of other agendas. Make Political duties more lucrative and the competition would be fiercer.

But yes, paying official is more about attracting talent than affecting campaigns. For that, we need to support the campaigns directly. In Israel every party gets a budget.

That's exactly why people want section 230 to be reformed.

I’m all for that. I’m just pointing out the current purge is perfectly legal, and in some ways constitutionally guaranteed

[PlatinumGuy]

I think at this point if the only thing that changes is salaries for members of Congress, then it won’t make a difference.

A $10m/yr salary for congress members would change a lot, but not enough. It would still barely be in line with private market compensation for executives.

[zh cohen]

Paying politicians more won't solve that. Implementing a system similar to the UK were every candidate gets the same amount of money for advertising would. TV stations should be required by the FCC to dedicate X number of minutes of advertising to each candidate. Paying staff and paying for flyers for example would come out of this budget and can't exceed the set amount.

Are you going to put those same restrictions on social media? What about "earned media"?