[danans]

> But we were talking about tolerance.

Tolerance for incitement to violence? I don't personally support tolerance of that, which is my right, and what I personally feel is better to avoid the spread of toxic cultures like found on Parler. Tolerance of diverse and non violence-provoking political opinions, including those I disagree with? That is something I totally support.

Parler clearly does tolerate incitement to violence, which is their right. Good for them for exercising it, but nobody has to support them, nor should anyone be prevented from supporting them. Likewise, if there are consequences (commericial or legal) for tolerating incitement to violence, Parler owns those too.

You are also free to tolerate it and provide services to support those who do.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Tolerance for incitement to violence?

That's the thing which is illegal because it isn't speech. It isn't information, it's action. See above.

> Parler clearly does, which is their right.

No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

[danans]

> That's the thing which is illegal because it isn't speech. It isn't information, it's action. See above.

It's a distinction without a difference. I don't want to host violence provoking content. I don't think others should either. You think they should, and you have your reasons. Everyone (and every organization) can make up their own minds.

Clearly, we disagree about which approach is better for society, and happily we do so cordially, which is just the sort of conversation we need more of.

> No, they don't. It violates their policy and they removed all that was reported to them.

That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today. Quoting https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-parler-violent-content-w...

"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints," Amazon's lawyers stated in a court filing. "Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."

"Parler's refusal to moderate content resulted in a "steady increase" in violent content on the network, breaching Amazon's terms of service, AWS contended.""

[AnthonyMouse]

> It's a distinction without a difference. I don't want to host violence provoking content. I don't think others should either. You think they should, and you have your reasons.

Still no. Nobody wants to be hosting it. The question is what happens when perfect moderation is impossible, which it is.

> That's false, and that it is false was upheld by the Federal judge today.

You're quoting Amazon's lawyers, not the judge.

Wanting to do something hard and being less than 100% successful is not the same thing as not wanting or trying to do it.