Major implications for speech

 The recent judicial motion denying Parler injunctive relief from a capricious deplatforming is very worrying.  It basically says that contracts need not be kept if there's a nexus of wrongthink and wrong-identity.  Twitter is fine hosting violent content, because Tech Bro's like them.  Parler isn't.

Now you can say that Twitter attempts to police speech. I think there's lots of evidence (Ayatollah??) that they use a lot of identity based intersectional ideas to determine who is good and who is bad. Thus, I think that argument is rather weak. The reality is they try to police speech they think is problematic. And that is what makes this initial judgment so worrying. It sets up carte blanche for much bigger purges. Any site that hosts any wrong political idea can get purged by looking for any type of heresy. Heresy need not be actual legal level incitement to violence, it just needs to be wrong think.

Right now Alex Jones types can still build their own server systems and payment processing solutions. But, pretty soon, I suspect even the transmission of data on public lines will be deemed problematic*.  And, the government won't have to do much of anything. Establishment una-party will do it all via corporate influence. Thus, the right is in very real danger of having many basic civilization level products denied to them b/c "identity - politics".

What could ever go wrong with that.....

The main legal bone of contention is whether the 30 days to cure dominates, or whether Amazon can suspend immediately upon any (perceived) breach of contract.

Since this contract is reputed to be fairly standard for the industry, I'd wager either

• Parler had a really bad contract (the 7.2bii clause),or,
• any contact at anytime is liable to suspension if "wrongthink".

On this, one, I'm not quite sure which way the truth lies </intendedpun>.

*Note - Normally utility status prevents companies from regulating on the basis of speech (the phone company can't cut off your phone because you swear). But, I suspect identity will allow a work around.  The phone company is cutting you off from what you say, but because of the problematic nature of your political identity. Private companies have that right to discriminate.  Thus the parallels I've been seeing of the old robber baron days where companies used to pull equivalent type of stuff on their employees in company towns.  The end result was a near civil war in the 1890's before some pro-sociality on the part of elites occurred. This prosociality was then expanded as a costly commitment display for elite status and effectively served to weed out elite overproduction issues.