Opinion
Lab
Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
8 comments
For
Turi5y ago
While there's a justifiable case for Twitter, Facebook, Snap and others banning President Trump for inciting a mob into the Capitol, the argument is far weaker when it comes to infrastructure companies taking a service off-air entirely.
··
jape5y ago
I'm not sure I agree... isn't it equally reasonable for an infrastructure company to hold their users to a standard of behavior (in this case not using that infrastructure to promote violence). I would say that the impact of violating the terms, the service going off-air entirely, isn't the problem of the infrastructure provider. Some terms violations are more serious than others.
··
Turi5y ago
Taking down a service feels like it's punishing everyone for the failings of a few (or - in the case of Parler - a lot). Is there therefore an argument that the infrastructure companies should have taken down Twitter, Youtube and FB for hosting all the same people?
··
jape5y ago
I think that could be right... but then is that a different argument? Not about the severity of the penalty, but the equal application of penalties for terms violations?
··
Against
AVetsch5y ago
I chose neutral because AWS and Apple were within reason to abolish Parler's platform from its servers. Had Parler continued to exist, then who knows if another riot similar to the Capitol riot would have been planned and coordinated.
But if I had to choose, I'd rather it had been the FBI that took down Parler's servers rather than Apple or AWS.
By having the companies be the one to shut down a social media platform, it sets a precedent that is not helpful. This indicates that businesses need to cooperate with big tech companies if they are to thrive or even survive. If a business has to rely on AWS to maintain its presence, then that's a sign that AWS holds the power to decide which company gets to thrive or perish.
Although Parler was a social media news site bent towards conservatives concerned with free speech, I'd rather it had been the FBI that caused Parler's downfall rather than Apple or AWS.
Furthermore, this move insinuates that real power no longer lies with elected government officials but with thirty-something big tech businessmen that has control over what we can and cannot do.
··
msiacotos5y ago
I kind of disagree with this reasoning.
While I agree that I wish the FBI or some other intelligence agency had taken some kind of action, I think it is socially responsible that these companies took the actions they did.
Your response suggests that all legitimate power for policing public discourse lies with the government but I think that is dangerous. I believe that that kind of power needs to be dispersed among the various sources of power in society like the people (through voting, spending money, and conversations in the media), businesses (through their considerable economic power), and the government (through legitimate institutions like the FBI).
But overall the public and government have not acted in protecting society at large from this threat. Usually big business doesn't either, but here they did.
So in short I think these big companies have a legitimate claim to taking down Parler that is separate and equal to the claim that the government has to policing these types of things.
··
Against
msiacotos5y ago
I disagree because of AWS/Apple/Google's responsibility as a service provider. Parler is an app that facilitates discussions that are explicitly antagonistic and prone to violence. As service providers it is these companies jobs to make sure they are monitoring potentially harmful traffic on their sites.
YouTube is required to monitor copyrighted and potentially harmful content. This is the legal responsibility of YouTube under the DMCA. Even though YouTube is not producing the content themselves, they are facilitating the exchange of that content.
The role of AWS/Apple/Google are slightly different in that they provide access to Parler, not just the content. But this doesn't change the fact that by supporting the app they are providing a communication network for potentially dangerous individuals.
Therefore it is well within their rights, and responsibilities, to remove Parler from their platforms.
··
Nsoper194y ago
Yeah but AWS/Apple/Google only do this to a competitor who threatens them directly. For instance, ISIS and the Taliban aren't banned from their platforms but Parler is? It's very obvious what's going here.
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!