1. Since a bunch of people are asking, here's my view of the Parler-AWS situation. Yes, Parler should be removed from AWS, but not the way it was done and not because Amazon feels like it or wants political favors from incoming Democrats.
2. The problem is that what Parler is doing probably should be illegal, because it should be responsible on product liability terms for the known outcomes of its product, aka violence. But it’s not illegal, bc Section 230 means it has no obligation for what its product fosters.
3. So we’re dealing with a legal product and there’s no grounds to remove it from AWS. That said, this isn't a Parler-problem specifically, because Parler isn't any different from Facebook, YouTube, or Grindr in terms of fostering violence. mattstoller.substack.com/p/rumors-sprea…
4. Similarly, what these platforms did in removing Parler should be illegal, because they should have a public obligation to carry all customers engaging in legal activity on equal terms. But it’s not illegal, because there is no such obligation.
5. We need the legal obligation for these platforms to carry all legal content, and a framework that makes business models fostering violence illegal. In other words, get rid of Section 230 and impose public utility rules. Any other path leads to censorship and authoritarianism.
6. In other words, these are *public choices* and should be made by *public rules.* We have limits on speech in common law, like defamation. We also have product liability claims. These work well, but were repealed w/Section 230.
We need the rule of law, not the rule of Zuck.
We need the rule of law, not the rule of Zuck.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
