- This topic has 22 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
after amazon is threatening free speech by shutting down Parler, is it to boycott amazon?
and while we’re at it lets boycott twitter facebook instagram to send a message.Add to that google and apple
Good luck
Amazon has every right to shut down Parler
You have every right to boycott Amazon, twitter and FacebookYou can, if you want to. But it basically means getting off the Internet entirely. Most non-Google websites use Amazon Web Services to some extent. And online retailers take advantage of Amazon’s infrastructure.
Bored Guy: Perhaps get a life to relieve the boredom. Have you considered taking up virtual bridge, x-country skiing or joining a Daf Yomi class?
Amazon, Twitter, et. al. are private firms that have no first amendment obligations? Just as cable platforms such FoxNews, OAN and NewsMax regularly reject ads that don’t conform to their agendas, any platform can reject any customers, especially when they facilitate those advocating violence. Should we boycott YWN if one of the Mods wakes up one morning and deletes all the postings that reflect negatively on Trump, misnagdim, or Ungareshe cooking?“Should we boycott YWN if one of the Mods wakes up one morning and deletes all the postings that reflect negatively on Trump, misnagdim, or Ungareshe cooking?“
👆🏻
Calling 29, can you hear me? PLEASE!!!!
😜
I thought I already was doing that.
🤔
“any platform can reject any customers, especially when they facilitate those advocating violence.”
IMO, there is merit to the idea that the internet should be considered a public good and there should be some protection that companies can’t be banished from the internet by Jeff Bezos snapping his fingers.
Amazon removing Parler from its servers isn’t the same as Fox rejecting an advertiser. Let’s also be honest and admit that the “advocating violence” standard is just an excuse as there is zero attempt to apply this standard to other social media companies and political/social ideas. One can be horrified and disgusted by what happened at the Capital, and Trump’s behavior surrounding it, and also call out this obvious double standard.This is NOT a free speech issue/
Free Speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment ONLY applies to government action. Amazon is not a part of or acting ion behalf of the Government.
Shop where you wish, or don’t
Yserbius123,
“You can, if you want to. But it basically means getting off the Internet entirely. Most non-Google websites use Amazon Web Services to some extent. And online retailers take advantage of Amazon’s infrastructure.”
Which suggests that while not a Free Speech issue, Amazon’s control of the Internet may be an Antitrust issue.
BK613: You are using terminology a bit too broadly. I think you meant to say you thought there was merit to regulating “the internet” as a “public utility” rather than a “public good”. First, there is no single commodity or service that constitutes “the internet”. There are ISPs, social media platforms, cloud service providers, a gazillion Aps, etc. Next, a “public good” is a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization and the provider is unable to capture the value of the benefits it offers since it doesn’t lend itself to exclusion via pricing. A “public utility” is an essential service with high barriers to entry and where there are social benefits to granting franchise service areas to monopoly providers in return for cost-based regulation, Either way, I’m no sure any component of internet service lends itself to such regulation, For example, ISPs were once limited to copper wire and then a wide range of optical cable providers but can also be offered over the airwaves.
Server farms and cloud service require purchasing a bunch of servers in a large air-conditioned building with good electrical service (as Amazon has done all over norther Virginia). What are you going to “regulate”.Businesses have the right to refuse service.
If I would boycott Amazon it could be about the massive wealth Bezos has accrued from the work of his poorly paid employees. Amazon is a service that makes life (with or without Covid) convenient for me as an elder. Ergo my preference is to support those Amazon workers who are organizing for better wages, hours and conditions.
Gadolhadorah: We can call it what ever we want I don’t know enough about this topic to argue one way or the other. Although using your descriptions public utility sounds good too.
I believe there is a difference between, for example, twitter or any of the “gazillion apps” not doing business with (banning) anyone they choose (although it would be nice if they didn’t have such a glaring double standard in applying their standards, but I digress) and Amazon webservices not allowing a business/person to “exist” on online by not selling them server space. Can Con Ed or National Grid refuse to provide a business with electricity or gas?BK613. Actually, words do matter and so do the implications of those words.
ConEd and NatGrid are “public utilities’ in the classical sense and have been granted exclusive distribution franchises in the areas they serve and are guaranteed recovery of all their prudently incurred costs plus a market rate or return. No other company can legally erect poles and wires and distribute electricity in their service areas. They used to have a monopoly on sales of energy as well but that market was opened to competition over a decade ago.
Amazon does not have a monopoly and is not guaranteed cost recovery plus a regulated profit by the government. Anyone who doesn’t like their service can purchase cloud or web hosting services from Microsoft or one of at least a dozen other companies. For example, within 10 days of losing Amazon services, they contracted with another provider.
Most lawyers agree that the ONLY legal course of action for the type of issue you cite would be under the Federal Trade laws and even then, the burden would be difficult to show they had a pattern of misleading consumers in the application of their standards of conduct. In Parler’s case, Amazon had warned them about the need for a capability to moderate and delete postings explicitly advocating violence and they refused to take timely action. The FTC, however, doesn’t have legal authority to tell Amazon how those standards should be applied as between political messaging, hyperbole etc. Amazon is not subject to First Amendment laws as would a government agency enforcing its rules.Republicans have long opposed strict enforcement of antitrust laws. They insist that corporations can do no wrong.
Dr. Frankenstein, meet your creation.
Internet is (so far) not censored in US of A. Trump and anyone else are able to create a website or maybe even a mailing list. The fact that the country depends on Twitter to focus voter attention is sad.
Amazon is NOT the government. Private companies have a right to censor (e.g YWN has the right to exclude anti-semitic speech, even though the government does not).
Parler can take their business elsewhere. Amazon does not have a monopoly.
Aside from not wanting to support Amazon, I have started cutting down on my Amazon purchases when possible for a different reason: Shopping local.
The lockdowns which badly affected many Jewish businesses have reminded me of what my priorities as a Yid should be. It is a mitzvah to support another Yid, Even if it costs a bit more and it is less convenient. Why should I give my money to a mega corporation, especially one whos’ politics I don’t support, when I can get a mitzvah every time I make a purchase?
This is aside from the fact that communities should really patronize their local businesses at any rate.@justlookin
There are many local businesses that are surviving the lockdown, Pandemic restriction by selling on Amazon.
I’m on the Economic Development Commission in our town. Amazon opened a local distribution facility here in 2020. It has provided more than 500 jobs to area residents with a starting wage of $15 hour. They buy local, instead of putting in fuel pumps, as FEDEX and UPS have done they buy from the local gas stations. They keep many local restaurants going with their food orders. They donate to local causes.Sometimes the corporate giant can be real gentle in the local areas.
>> many local businesses that are surviving the lockdown, Pandemic restriction by selling on Amazon
Indeed so. Note that amazon is not “getting rich” at the consumer expense. They are “non profit” last time I checked. Their riches come from investors who volunteer to give them money to expand their business.
CTLAWYER:
Point taken. However I am not saying Amazon doesn’t have its place in online commerce. Many Yidden used to, and still do make living selling on eBay, but people aren’t generally ordering items on eBay they would otherwise have bought at a local and/or Jewish-owned store.
I am getting out of the habit of ordering items that I would buy at my local store but often would order on Amazon for the convenience. It’s too easy to pop open the Amazon app and order that jar of coffee or can of cocoa which will show up at my door the next day or so, but instead I can make sure to buy it locally and do my small part to help support my fellow Jew.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.