[eejit_compiler]

Indeed, and I think it's because Parler is best known for hosting violent, far-right content, that is linked to the recent insurrection at the Capitol Building. Whereas the other services you cite are much more generic in their clientele.

So based on this, Amazon made a business decision to deny service to Parler, due to the adverse publicity (and perhaps, potential legal liability) generated for them by hosting this content.

[derision]

What about calling for the eradication of Jews? https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784

Twitter doesn't seem to have any issue with this content

[enriquec]

or the fact that nicolas maduro - a man already convicted of crimes against humanity by the UN - still has an account and has gone uncensored. how anyone here defends such blatant hypocrisy is beyond me

[santoshalper]

I agree with you. Both Donald trump and Khamenei should have been kicked off twitter.

[StellarTabi]

I don't think "convicted of crimes against humanity by the UN" violates Twitter's ToS, and I'm assuming he didn't use Twitter to commit any of the alleged crimes, so this is a pretty bad faith, whataboutism, complete non-sense, etc.. By this logic you could ban both Bush and Obama, too.

[turing_complete]

How ignorant or evil must someone be to think Bush and Obama are like Nicolás Maduro?

[StellarTabi]

War in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Drone strike, also irrelevant since those activities also didn't break Twitter's ToS?

[hackyhacky]

Please remind me when Nicolas Maduro led an armed mob into the US Capitol.

We judge threats not only on their intent, but on their success in executing that intent. On that measure, Parler is much more dangerous than Maduro, Putin, or the Ayatollah.

[megous]

You don't watch non-US news much, do you?

[hackyhacky]

Actually, I do. Does Venezuelan news tell you that Maduro successfully occupied Washington?

[StellarTabi]

I remember when the US tried to overthrow Maduro recently, what do you mean?

[enriquec]

evidence?

[the_drunkard]

it's clear that selective enforcement occurs, especially on Twitter. while i'm sure there are examples of violence being incited on Parler, I can find just as many examples (if not more) on Twitter.

[hackyhacky]

Twitter let Trump spew his garbage right up until the point that it led to an armed insurrection.

So far, Parler and its associates have come a lot closer to dismantling American democracy than Iran ever has. That's why they get taken more seriously.

As Twitter said, it's not just the content, but the context as well. When Iranian soldiers invade the US Capitol, I'm sure they'll face a Twitter ban as well.

[ryan93]

The mob in the capital had zero chance of dismantling democracy. khamenei has real power.

[hackyhacky]

The mob nearly succeeded in capturing, kidnapping, or killing democratically-elected members of Congress. Or, as they were chanting, in hanging the vice president. I see no reason not to take them seriously.

The leadership in Iran, in contrast, has not gotten any closer to its goal of destroying Israel since the Revolution.

[valuearb]

That’s not what that tweet says. So you admit your argument carries little weight without sensationalizing it?

[enriquec]

The tweet says: "#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen."

Do you think that is not as bad as what Trump has said?

[smolder]

They're not wrong that it's different, Israel and Jews are two different things. You can be against Israel without being and antisemite, though I wouldn't guess that's the case here.

[smolder]

They're not wrong that it's different, Israel and Jews are two different things. You can be against Israel without being an antisemite, though I wouldn't guess that's the case here.

[valuearb]

Israel is a country, the Jews are a race. The poster claimed it called for the eradication of a race, not a nation.

And it can be argued that if the Israeli nation wasn’t a socialist theocracy, things would be much better there, just as we can say the same for Iran.

[jtdev]

Did you not read the tweet? Seems rather clear to me.

[valuearb]

Israel is a country, Jews are a race. You can be for the replacement of Israel with a more inclusive nation-state without calling for a Jewish genocide.

Now you and I both know the Ayatollah believes in a Jewish genocide, but this particular tweet isn’t proof or evidence of it.

[mminer237]

You have to understand things in context though. Trump never said "storm the US capitol". Twitter's official reason for banning him was for glorifying violence by tweeting that “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” and that he wouldn't be going to the inauguration.

If you can twist that into supporting the rioters and calling for violence at the inauguration, I don't see how you can't see calling for the destruction of Israel could cause people to be anti-Semitic.

If Trump tweeted that Mexico was cancerous tumor on America that has to be removed and eradicated, it is possible, and it will happen, do you think Twitter be cool with that? What if he had previously endorsed the genocide of all Mexican people? What if Americans had commonly been committing terrorist attacks against Mexicans?

[valuearb]

I don’t disagree with your point about context, or Twitter banning the Ayatollah.

My point was that OP didn’t have to mistate the literal tweet.

[jtdev]

Do those downvoting here actually support the sentiment of the Ayatollah??

[CivBase]

Then maybe AWS should just come out and say "We disabled our services for Parler because it's very unpopular and we don't want to be associated with it."

[eejit_compiler]

They pretty much already did. In corporate PR terms, "it contravened our Terms of Service" is essentially synonymous with "we don't want to be associated with it".

[mech422]

I'd be happier with something like:

"parler is just not worth the aggravation" - they are likely to be a minuscule revenue source that requires constant monitoring to make sure we not facing any liability, as well as potentially pissing off our existing clients. Therefore, its in our best interests just not to bother with them.

Anyone that thinks corporations care one way or another about anything except their bottom lines, has a much higher view of corporations then I do.

I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. That's just capitalism. No master except the almighty dollar.

but if they were at least honest about it, maybe we could stop re-hashing this everyday...