No, there isn’t going to be some general anti-2A or anti-conservative push on AWS. Parler is a very specific case associated with their willingness, or inability to police, explicit calls for the use of violence, anti-semitism, etc. by users of the service. If we took this forum as a counter-example, the moderators here will shut down discussions that advocated violence (as opposed to self-defense) or any of the other things that would trigger AWS to want to act. Their ( AWS Acceptable Use Policy (amazon.com) is available for anyone to see, and most users of their service have even more strict policies of their own. The AUP hasn’t changed since before the 2016 election, so it isn’t like they’ve changed things because of President Trump’s election. But if you don’t think your usage can conform to the AUP, go elsewhere. You sure won’t be going to any mainstream company, big or small, because they all have the same or more comprehensive AUPs.
I think what is missing is if a single report by user will always get a human to weigh in or not. Or at least if overwhelmed, do they prioritize by number of reports or other criteria.
To use a related arena, malware, what happens when you manually report something as suspicious is that it goes in a queue where it is fairly quickly run through automatic detection tools (including ML models) which determine its probability of being malware. If that probability is zero (e.g., matches the signature of known safe software) or very low then the automation just rejects the report (i.e., tells you it is safe). If the automation ranks the probability very high then it goes to the front of the queue for a human to evaluate. You would have to do something similar to manage the flow of user flagging in social media.
While tech employees, particularly software engineers and particularly in California would tend to lean heavily to the left that is not who is doing this moderation. And what I’ve found is conservatives tend to be more reserved in these environments while liberals wear their liberalism on their sleeves. So you can’t really assume that the person doing the moderating has liberal leanings.
In the light of FB blocking LawEnforcementToday, I would not preclude Twitter, Google, AWS and the rest of the woke gang from following suit. What’s wrong with LawEnforcementToday? I am sure you can find some disrespectful comments regarding Saint Floyd, or insufficient condemnation of trumpism, or some such excuse.
No, I think they said they wanted to defund Law Enforcement, and they are doing it, depriving it of voice. They want armed deplorables to be gone, they are deplatforming them, in any way they can from online presence to financial. Wokesters are trying to outdo each other, before long, you and I will have no internet and no bank account if we can’t prove we sufficiently participated in social justice, paid reparations, etc.
It is not like Law Enforcement could deplatform them, stop responding to 911 from the vicinity of these companies. After all, they can afford to hire private security and ambulances and not drain municipal resources.
How many conservatives are able to survive undetected and uncancelled in these environments? A mental picture of Ann Frank hiding from Gestapo comes to mind.
If you go back and read my post, I asked, “how long” before pro-2A web sites are banned. As for the AWS AUP in use today, there is no problem. The query was hypothetical. But IMO hardly a stretch given the policies soon to be in place by Biden-Harris.
VCDL was blocked from using MailChimp. From their last email…
NOTE: Mailchimp has just blocked VCDL from putting out VA-ALERTS, so we are sending this alert out to VCDL members only using our membership system. This email will repeat, hopefully very soon, once we have moved over to a new system so that everyone gets a copy. In the meantime forward this to others if you can do so.
Guns.com is down, but I haven’t seen any mention of why yet.
Until we’re told otherwise, I assume it’s because “guns.”
You know, though, if the new standard is that any website where users talk about violence can be taken down without warning, then what’s to stop trolls from simply going to websites they don’t like and calling for violence?
There is nothing preventing it, and the influx of newcomers in here yelling “racist” doesn’t bode well.
Moderation policy seems solid, so there should be no formal reason to deplatform this website. On the other hand, hosting provider may view it as forum for “armed vigilantes” to gather, and discuss scary topics like guns and training with guns.
Are you referring to in the USCCA Community, @Harvey? If so, please use that lovely flag so questionable content to be reviewed.
We do our best to allow for a large variety of viewpoints, but everyone has to remain respectful. We know everyone won’t agree and that’s OK as long as the conversation stays civil and productive.
P.S. please don’t let anyone else’s behavior get you to lower your communications standards.
And you guys do a rockin’ job, too.
See Respectfull…:
Another show of respect…
Be respectful in your conversation here. 
What politicians say outside of the Community is on them. 
Actually, if they were commenting in the Community their comments would be on them here too. 
I would say, an anti-2A politician showing up here would not be a good idea. We might(hehe, might) hurt their feelgoods.
See, this is how he should have communicated with the American People. Not through Twitter.
Typo fixed for clarity, hope you don’t mind Alexander! ~Dawn