There were times when real estate agents would not sell homes to black people in white neighborhoods because they would bring down prices. After all the black people could go elsewhere. It was simply “good business”.
Thankfully society realized that this “good business” was discriminatory and laws were passed against such activities.
We’ll await the lawsuit Parler has launched vs Amazon for breaching their 30 day rule (let alone any monopolistic collusion)
Another very bad analogy, Galileo! Red lining was a discriminatory practice against a protected class. It specifically targeted a group of people based on their race. You cannot compare that with Amazon choosing to sever a relationship with a company that they believe is being used to foment violence.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not at all the same as "no blacks allowed". Are these truly your arguments?
You seem to be twisting yourself into pretzels simply to support Apple/Google/Amazion companies with enormous power and heft in the marketplace to collectively kick out competitors to their business - illegally I might add (though by the time courts fully decide, the victim will long be dead) - under paper thin reasons, simply to justify your fairly transparent politics of the moment.
Your “arguments” range from “well they are private companies that can do what they like”; to “they are not monopolies, there are other options for Parler” to “it’s just good business.”
The excuse they - and you - are giving is a sham.
Firstly Apple/Google/Amazon are not some disinterested private parties removed from ties to political parties. Silicon Valley is closely tied to the Dem establishment with a fast moving revolving door. It’s an open secret. It’s as much an open secret as Oil companies being closely tied with the GOP of old. It’s as much an open secret as the incoming Treasury and Defense Secretary ties with Wall Street and the Military complex. In fact I’m not even sure anyone is pretending it’s a secret. Biden can just give a medal of freedom to Cook, Pichai, Bezos next month just to rub it in.
This was a politically sanctioned throttling of a platform that the incoming political party’s political opponents were herded into in the first place, just because they could (without even having to give any proof Parler had any more hate than Twitter/YouTube had as Greenwald points out. The beauty of this system is that if for example the Govt controlled the platforms they would at least be obligated to prove their accusations; private companies in this case have little obligation.)
Secondly at the time redlining was being done it was politically and socially sanctioned in the areas this was practiced with the same arguments you’re using to justify forcing unpopular groups into your space being used: “they’re just private companies; there are other options; it’s just good business” It took a while to society to understand the inherent dangers of this. Eventually when it bites Neoliberals in the ass, they will started complaining too.
Thirdly, Parler is a direct competitor to Twitter. It didn’t escape anyone’s notice that Dorsey triumphantly posted a pic of the top apps in Apple’s App Store without Parler at No 1 after Apple pulled the plug with 24 hrs notice. He was just reminding everyone of the enormous power he had to first throw people of his platform with little transparency and then to crush any competing platforms they had to flock to.
Fourthly, even the Dems earlier railed against Apple/Amazon/Google etc as unfettered monopolies and expressed disquiet about their enormous power. The same is going on in far more liberal Europe. Of course when this enormous power aligns with them - great! Then suddenly it’s all about private companies doing what they like - the GOP argument when enormously wealthy companies supported them in the past.
While it’s amusing at one level from the outside to see these two corrupt parties in a 2-party duopoly and their supporters switching stances to suit their power plays within the increasingly dysfunctional country hilariously named the “United” States, at another level these Big Tech/Big Gov fusion is being treated with alarm even by those who don’t like Trump from the Merkel to Obrador (the point of my original post and what Greenwald has written about) where all these paper-thin justifications are seen for that they are: exercises in raw unaccountable power for political purposes.
I should clarify that I never expressed "support" for the actions of these companies against Parler. Neither did I condemn it. My personal opinion is that we should have many many more Twitter clones like Parler. I am pro-federated internet services, splintered like crazy, I'm not a fan of big tech, and I think the internet is kinda lame these days because of how limited our options are.
However, Parler just seems like a cheap cash-in by various religious extremist backers to harness the interest of a particular group. Glenn referred to the site as privacy focused. They're not: they require a picture of your drivers license (and a video of yourself). And they were recently victims of a massive hack that exposed those drivers licenses, and the private messages, of all (or most?) of their users.
We should call a spade a spade, and not talk them up like something great just for the sake of making a counterpoint (not really saying you were doing that - but Glenn seemed to be).
But yes, I did rationalize them getting their services cut. I mean, I hear you - and I think you are making some wise points - but one difference (that you seem aware of) between Twitter and Parler is that Twitter is coming to the table and listening to the (as I said in another comment) tech-illiterate blowhards in office and attempting to appease them. While Parler isn't. Yes, both sites are pieces of crap and have awful users on them, but of the two, only Twitter is attempting to say, "We know this group of people are using our site to plan some shit on Jan 20th - and we're dedicating x resources to monitoring and managing it." While Parler isn't. So as an emergency measure - because this seems like a genuine emergency to a lot of people - it seems more acceptable to break contracts and deplatform them in this time of need. This isn't simply about killing competition.
> It didn’t escape anyone’s notice that Dorsey triumphantly posted a pic of the top apps in Apple’s App Store without Parler at No 1 after Apple pulled the plug with 24 hrs notice.
This seems like it did escape your notice in some way. He posted a pic of only the #1 app, Signal. And he is responding to Elon Musk's, and other's, recent support for Signal - and not Whatsapp - as a secure messenger.
Has it escaped your attention that the far left also feels censored by Twitter/Facebook (because they are)? My take is that these companies want to serve the middle. Right now the Trump/Qanon group is far from the middle, and they are kinda going nuts.
Again, I think you make good points, and I'm not arguing against everything you've said. I just don't quite see the legacy of this being similar to redlining, and I think Big Tech's relationship with the gov is more fluid and opportunistic than you consider it.
Did you even read the GG article? All these tech monopolies have much worse content on their platforms that they ignore for political reasons. It is pure hypocrisy of the worst sort and is obvious.
In the other comments in this thread, it's being argued that Big Tech's tight relationship with Dems in Congress is a factor in this. Because the deplatforming benefits the incoming party.
So you think Big Tech’s relationship with Congress is tight because the CEO’s get subpoenaed and humiliated on TV and not because Big Tech gives their campaign’s millions of dollars?
Just admit it. You are a shill and got called out on it. Now all your shill arguments are falling apart.
That's not the point and you know it.
The point is that these private companies have decided it’s not good business to serve this customer. Now this customer can move to other services.
There were times when real estate agents would not sell homes to black people in white neighborhoods because they would bring down prices. After all the black people could go elsewhere. It was simply “good business”.
Thankfully society realized that this “good business” was discriminatory and laws were passed against such activities.
We’ll await the lawsuit Parler has launched vs Amazon for breaching their 30 day rule (let alone any monopolistic collusion)
Another very bad analogy, Galileo! Red lining was a discriminatory practice against a protected class. It specifically targeted a group of people based on their race. You cannot compare that with Amazon choosing to sever a relationship with a company that they believe is being used to foment violence.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service" is not at all the same as "no blacks allowed". Are these truly your arguments?
You seem to be twisting yourself into pretzels simply to support Apple/Google/Amazion companies with enormous power and heft in the marketplace to collectively kick out competitors to their business - illegally I might add (though by the time courts fully decide, the victim will long be dead) - under paper thin reasons, simply to justify your fairly transparent politics of the moment.
Your “arguments” range from “well they are private companies that can do what they like”; to “they are not monopolies, there are other options for Parler” to “it’s just good business.”
The excuse they - and you - are giving is a sham.
Firstly Apple/Google/Amazon are not some disinterested private parties removed from ties to political parties. Silicon Valley is closely tied to the Dem establishment with a fast moving revolving door. It’s an open secret. It’s as much an open secret as Oil companies being closely tied with the GOP of old. It’s as much an open secret as the incoming Treasury and Defense Secretary ties with Wall Street and the Military complex. In fact I’m not even sure anyone is pretending it’s a secret. Biden can just give a medal of freedom to Cook, Pichai, Bezos next month just to rub it in.
This was a politically sanctioned throttling of a platform that the incoming political party’s political opponents were herded into in the first place, just because they could (without even having to give any proof Parler had any more hate than Twitter/YouTube had as Greenwald points out. The beauty of this system is that if for example the Govt controlled the platforms they would at least be obligated to prove their accusations; private companies in this case have little obligation.)
Secondly at the time redlining was being done it was politically and socially sanctioned in the areas this was practiced with the same arguments you’re using to justify forcing unpopular groups into your space being used: “they’re just private companies; there are other options; it’s just good business” It took a while to society to understand the inherent dangers of this. Eventually when it bites Neoliberals in the ass, they will started complaining too.
Thirdly, Parler is a direct competitor to Twitter. It didn’t escape anyone’s notice that Dorsey triumphantly posted a pic of the top apps in Apple’s App Store without Parler at No 1 after Apple pulled the plug with 24 hrs notice. He was just reminding everyone of the enormous power he had to first throw people of his platform with little transparency and then to crush any competing platforms they had to flock to.
Fourthly, even the Dems earlier railed against Apple/Amazon/Google etc as unfettered monopolies and expressed disquiet about their enormous power. The same is going on in far more liberal Europe. Of course when this enormous power aligns with them - great! Then suddenly it’s all about private companies doing what they like - the GOP argument when enormously wealthy companies supported them in the past.
While it’s amusing at one level from the outside to see these two corrupt parties in a 2-party duopoly and their supporters switching stances to suit their power plays within the increasingly dysfunctional country hilariously named the “United” States, at another level these Big Tech/Big Gov fusion is being treated with alarm even by those who don’t like Trump from the Merkel to Obrador (the point of my original post and what Greenwald has written about) where all these paper-thin justifications are seen for that they are: exercises in raw unaccountable power for political purposes.
I should clarify that I never expressed "support" for the actions of these companies against Parler. Neither did I condemn it. My personal opinion is that we should have many many more Twitter clones like Parler. I am pro-federated internet services, splintered like crazy, I'm not a fan of big tech, and I think the internet is kinda lame these days because of how limited our options are.
However, Parler just seems like a cheap cash-in by various religious extremist backers to harness the interest of a particular group. Glenn referred to the site as privacy focused. They're not: they require a picture of your drivers license (and a video of yourself). And they were recently victims of a massive hack that exposed those drivers licenses, and the private messages, of all (or most?) of their users.
Furthermore, they are being lauded - by folks like Glenn - as a bastion for free speech. That isn't true, either. They "censor" folks, just like Twitter does: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parler-speedruns-content-moderation-learning-curve-goes-we-allow-everything-to-were-good-censors-days.shtml
We should call a spade a spade, and not talk them up like something great just for the sake of making a counterpoint (not really saying you were doing that - but Glenn seemed to be).
But yes, I did rationalize them getting their services cut. I mean, I hear you - and I think you are making some wise points - but one difference (that you seem aware of) between Twitter and Parler is that Twitter is coming to the table and listening to the (as I said in another comment) tech-illiterate blowhards in office and attempting to appease them. While Parler isn't. Yes, both sites are pieces of crap and have awful users on them, but of the two, only Twitter is attempting to say, "We know this group of people are using our site to plan some shit on Jan 20th - and we're dedicating x resources to monitoring and managing it." While Parler isn't. So as an emergency measure - because this seems like a genuine emergency to a lot of people - it seems more acceptable to break contracts and deplatform them in this time of need. This isn't simply about killing competition.
> It didn’t escape anyone’s notice that Dorsey triumphantly posted a pic of the top apps in Apple’s App Store without Parler at No 1 after Apple pulled the plug with 24 hrs notice.
This seems like it did escape your notice in some way. He posted a pic of only the #1 app, Signal. And he is responding to Elon Musk's, and other's, recent support for Signal - and not Whatsapp - as a secure messenger.
Has it escaped your attention that the far left also feels censored by Twitter/Facebook (because they are)? My take is that these companies want to serve the middle. Right now the Trump/Qanon group is far from the middle, and they are kinda going nuts.
Again, I think you make good points, and I'm not arguing against everything you've said. I just don't quite see the legacy of this being similar to redlining, and I think Big Tech's relationship with the gov is more fluid and opportunistic than you consider it.
Where did you get the idea that Europe was far more liberal ? Have you seen UK libel laws, or the various Internet-related laws of the recent years ?
Did you even read the GG article? All these tech monopolies have much worse content on their platforms that they ignore for political reasons. It is pure hypocrisy of the worst sort and is obvious.
I did. I think one difference is that Twitter et al meets with all the politicians and makes gestures toward moderating/whatever to appease the tech-illtierate blowhards in office. While Parler just said, no way, we're not coming to the table. All the while Parler, of course, is actively "censoring" their users just like all these platforms are. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parler-speedruns-content-moderation-learning-curve-goes-we-allow-everything-to-were-good-censors-days.shtml
It’s not Congress that is censoring and destroying Parler. Why would it matter if Parler met with Congress?
In the other comments in this thread, it's being argued that Big Tech's tight relationship with Dems in Congress is a factor in this. Because the deplatforming benefits the incoming party.
So you think Big Tech’s relationship with Congress is tight because the CEO’s get subpoenaed and humiliated on TV and not because Big Tech gives their campaign’s millions of dollars?
Just admit it. You are a shill and got called out on it. Now all your shill arguments are falling apart.