I'm more concerned about the app store bans than AWS ban.
The app stores are true monopolies that as gatekeepers to users loading apps on phones (particularly so in apple's case). There isn't really any alternative to them.
In contrast, a hosting solution can be swapped out for another hosting solution. While non-trivial (especially if you are using a bunch of AWS specific services), there are viable solutions.
Parler has already found a new hosting solution with epik. [1]
Given that anyone can host a website (potentially even by buying their own bare metal hardware and procuring IP addresses), then one always has the ability to disseminate one's ideas. The "public square" equivalent is simply having your content online as it is available for all to read / consume.
That does not entitle you to speech on other people's platforms. That is the equivalent of saying you should have the right to go into a private venue, hosting a private event, and espouse your ideas.
I've long thought that we should reinterpret campaign finance law from this perspective. Specifically, that because the internet enables anyone to get their ideas published and accessible, then we should remove the ability of political campaigns to buy ANY advertisements. Having the right to speak should not be expanded to having the right to BUY eyeballs / impressions. You should be able to speak all you want, freely, on the internet. But all traffic should be earned, organic traffic from folks actually wanting to listen to you.
The ability to use targeted advertising to target specific messages to specific political segments seems disingenuous. It allows the politician to choose their voter instead of the voter to choose to listen to their politician. It is like digital gerrymandering.
Given that a politician can easily host videos, content, etc that can literally be consumed by the entire planet with relative ease (not to belittle the complexity of youtube), free speech exists fundamentally in the foundation of the internet / web.
Attacks on those fundamental components of the internet are concerning though. For example, SciHub having its domain names revoked and thus being unable to have DNS properly route to their servers is of grave concern. But the recent developments of NextDNS and similar decentralized DNS solutions are promising [2].
The app stores are true monopolies that as gatekeepers to users loading apps on phones (particularly so in apple's case). There isn't really any alternative to them.
In contrast, a hosting solution can be swapped out for another hosting solution. While non-trivial (especially if you are using a bunch of AWS specific services), there are viable solutions.
Parler has already found a new hosting solution with epik. [1]
Given that anyone can host a website (potentially even by buying their own bare metal hardware and procuring IP addresses), then one always has the ability to disseminate one's ideas. The "public square" equivalent is simply having your content online as it is available for all to read / consume.
That does not entitle you to speech on other people's platforms. That is the equivalent of saying you should have the right to go into a private venue, hosting a private event, and espouse your ideas.
I've long thought that we should reinterpret campaign finance law from this perspective. Specifically, that because the internet enables anyone to get their ideas published and accessible, then we should remove the ability of political campaigns to buy ANY advertisements. Having the right to speak should not be expanded to having the right to BUY eyeballs / impressions. You should be able to speak all you want, freely, on the internet. But all traffic should be earned, organic traffic from folks actually wanting to listen to you.
The ability to use targeted advertising to target specific messages to specific political segments seems disingenuous. It allows the politician to choose their voter instead of the voter to choose to listen to their politician. It is like digital gerrymandering.
Given that a politician can easily host videos, content, etc that can literally be consumed by the entire planet with relative ease (not to belittle the complexity of youtube), free speech exists fundamentally in the foundation of the internet / web.
Attacks on those fundamental components of the internet are concerning though. For example, SciHub having its domain names revoked and thus being unable to have DNS properly route to their servers is of grave concern. But the recent developments of NextDNS and similar decentralized DNS solutions are promising [2].
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/parler-moves-to-epik-domain-...
[2] https://www.coindesk.com/pirated-academic-sci-hub-handshake