If you admit you know little about Oracle then why are you trying to argue it is a "different" kind of tech giant when they clearly have a cloud infrastructure business that could adequately support Parler?
Did Parler try to get on Oracle, and were they turned down? Did Oracle drop them from being hosted at some point in the past? Do Parler and Oracle have any connection?
If the answers to these questions are "no", then I don't see how Oracle is relevant.
Are you arguing the people that stormed the Capitol Building and killed a cop *didn't* use Parler to discuss, plan out, communicate about and celebrate their attacks? Or are you arguing that Parler itself should face no consequences for that activity?
First of all: "family members were told that the officer had a blood clot and suffered a stroke and was on a ventilator."-
'He spent his life trying to help other people,' the officer's brother said. 'This political climate got my brother killed.'
www.westernjournal.com
Secondly: No, I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that, if you're writing the story, you can exaggerate or belittle problems at will. I'm sure one could cherry-pick one or two messages from here and then write an article about how this site is a bastion of hate, if they were so inclined.
No, it doesn't. Otherwise we'd all be reading off a government-approved script right now. Censorship moves back and forth in response to circumstances and opinions of the time.
That's kind of like saying "If heroin were so addictive, it'd would have destroyed the country by now!"
Heroin is really that addictive and dangerous, but people go to great lengths to deter the manufacture, sale, and use of it, so it hasn't. You can't say that, just because the worst case scenario hasn't happened, that there's no danger.
Likewise, people recognize the dangers of creeping censorship and attempt to stop it as much as possible. It also moves slowly and takes generations, such that unless you're looking for it, you're not going to be able to see it happen.
The biggest threat to free speech is irresponsible use of free speech,
And who defines what "irresponsible" is? I'm sure the Britons didn't much like the kind of speech that the would-be Americans were spreading before and during their revolution. I'm sure they called them violent terrorists, seditionists, and whatever else, and would have liked to censor their speech if they could.
If two countries are at war, each should predictably view the speech of the other as "irresponsible".
It was thought of as "irresponsible" to express anti-war sentiments, hence the Sedition Act of 1918, then that was repealed two years later.
My religion, i
n America in the past, and in other countries today, is viewed as an "irresponsible use of free speech".
I'd say that the biggest threat to free speech is people who take it upon themselves to decide what is and isn't a "responsible use of free speech".