While Amazon certainly has a right to do it, I don't think booting Parler from AWS is a good or smart move.
To expand, yea Parler is largely unmitigated trash at absolute best. They should absolutely be moderating more.
And Amazon has every right to do it, and I certainly understand why they would.
But I'd rather it be confined (and visible) then increase sympathy for their argument that Twitter/Facebook banning them is a free speech problem because "look we can't even have our own space!"
That lets them further their bullshit narrative, and it could have bad policy consequences down the line.
If you came here to say "hur dur you support Parler and terrorists" save yourself the time and paint a self-portrait next to the word "idiot" in the dictionary.
The "shoulds" of moderation are complex, thorny, inexact, and impossible
People will disagree on them, and that's fine. I understand why many think AWS did the right thing, and don't think that's a crazy position. But I also don't think downstream policy concerns are nuts either
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Hello @TheBuffaloNews, might I suggest speaking with someone who knows even just the basics of constitutional law before publishing an editorial like this to make sure that you don't beclown yourselves? This is embarrassing.
2/ You couldn't even finish the first *sentence* without saying something bafflingly ridiculous.
Whether or not the government's compelling interests could be done in a more measured (i.e., less restrictive) way IS (part of) the constitutional analysis in First Amendment claims.
3/ If the govt addresses its interest it in a way that isn't the least restrictive, it violates the First Amendment. This is basic, 1L (or before) stuff. Questioning whether the decision was based on the least restrictive means test or the First Amendment is utter nonsense.
2/ It starts off innocently enough, correctly noting that the First Amendment protects a variety of expressive means and that public employees do not forfeit their First Amendment right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern.
3/ And whatever its problems (and lordy are there problems), Garcetti v. Ceballos is law and public employee speech made "pursuant to official duties" isn't constitutionally protected
Speech made as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, however, is generally protected
Guy who says he's into "nationalist politics" reminisces wistfully about the time racist white guy @ColbyCovMMA beat up on @TWooodley, noting that Woodley said "Black Lives Matter."