Parler CEO: Unclear when will be back, sues Amazon Web Services for website takedown (Updates)
Alleges breach of contractual notice of terminnation requirement, and political motivation: “Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was ‘Hang Mike Pence.’ But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account.”
The takedown of Parler by the cabal of Google, Apple, and Amazon Web Services (AWS), joined by other vendors who now are afraid to deal with Parler, is one of the most dangerous moments for internet freedom.
The takedown is based on claim that Parler is so dangerous to public safety that it can’t exist. That claim is a lie, Parler is no worse and in many ways better than terrorist-infested Facebook, where the Capitol Hill riot was organized, and “Toxic Twitter” (the term used by Amnesty International). I documented both the lie and the implications in The claim that Parler represents some unique risk to public safety is a lie driven by politics.
The truth is that Parler was taken down because it is viewed by leftist tech giants as pro-Trump, and the growing home to conservative media stars and others disaffected by liberal social media platforms.
Now Parler is down. You can’t reach the website because AWS shut off their servers.
Any company that uses AWS is risking its business — as we know, it doesn’t take much for internet mobs to accuse people and companies of being racists, sexist, etc. Why would a company bet its future on the sensitivities of AWS employees who led the effort to kick out Parler? Talk about burning your brand.
Parler’s CEO John Matze was on Tucker Carlson Tonight. The bottom line is that he doesn’t know when Parler will be back. Everytime they line up new server vendors, they back out at the last minute.
Parler has sued AWS. You can read the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (pdfs). From the Complaint:
1. This is a civil action for injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, and damages. Last Month, Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) and the popular social media platform Twitter signed a multi-year deal so that AWS could support the daily delivery of millions of tweets. AWS currently provides that same service to Parler, a conservative microblogging alternative and competitor to Twitter.
2. When Twitter announced two evenings ago that it was permanently banning President Trump from its platform, conservative users began to flee Twitter en masse for Parler. The exodus was so large that the next day, yesterday, Parler became the number one free app downloaded from Apple’s App Store.
3. Yet last evening, AWS announced that it would suspend Parler’s account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59 PM PST. And it stated the reason for the suspension was that AWS was not confident Parler could properly police its platform regarding content that encourages or incites violence against others. However, Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was “Hang Mike Pence.” But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account.
4. AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.
5. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.
6. This emergency suit seeks a Temporary Restraining Order against Defendant Amazon Web Services to prevent it from shutting down Parler’s account at the end of today. Doing so is the equivalent of pulling the plug on a hospital patient on life support. It will kill Parler’s business—at the very time it is set to skyrocket.
Yup, Twitter uses AWS. How convenient.
The Judge has set the following schedule per the docket:
ORDER re Plaintiff’s 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order: The Court orders Parler to “serve all motion papers,” including the Complaint, on AWS by no later than 5:00 p.m. PST today, January 11, 2021. AWS shall respond to the Motion for TRO no later than 5:00 p.m. PST, January 12, 2021. Parler may file any reply no later than 12:00 noon PST, January 13, 2021. The parties shall follow all rules for briefing, including page limits, set out in the Local Rules. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (MW) (Entered: 01/11/2021)
AWS issued this smug statement:
“There is no merit to these claims,” an Amazon Web Services spokesperson said in a statement. “AWS provides technology and services to customers across the political spectrum, and we respect Parler’s right to determine for itself what content it will allow. However, it is clear that there is significant content on Parler that encourages and incites violence against others, and that Parler is unable or unwilling to promptly identify and remove this content, which is a violation of our terms of service. We made our concerns known to Parler over a number of weeks and during that time we saw a significant increase in this type of dangerous content, not a decrease, which led to our suspension of their services Sunday evening.”
The lawsuit is going to be tough. I think the alleged failure to adhere to the contractual notice of termination provision is going to be a lot more important than antitrust theories that get the media attention.
We need to consider our alliances. The reality is that these internet oligopolies are so politically corrupt that their exercise of omnipotent power is a threat to all our freedoms.
UPDATE 1-12-2021
AWS has filed its Opposition to Motion for TRO (pdf.)
UPDATE 1-14-2021
Oral argument on the motion was held today. I can’t find a recording or report on how it went. Here are more documents filed in court, so all the pleadings are in this post for future reference:
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Amazon Motion to Seal – 1-12-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Declaration of [Redacted Amazon Executive 1] In Opposition 1-12-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Declaration of [Redacted Amazon Exec 2] In Opposition 1-12-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Declaration of Ambika K. Doran In Opposition 1-12-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Parler Reply In Support 1-13-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Declaration of John Matze Jr. In Support 1-13-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Declaration of Amy Peikoff In Support 1-13-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Parler Motion to Seal – 1-15-2021
Parler v. Amazon Web Services – Parler Supplemental Authority and Matze Affidavit 1-18-2021
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I also find it curious that a “hacker” suddenly gained access to Parler’s data in the past few days. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some SJW at Amazon leaked the data or opened a back door.
I’d bet on it.
They need to move their servers offshore, out of reach of America’s cancel mob. They can quickly be back up running a simple list server. Then they can work on restoring full functionally. Also, we should all be going to VPN and end to end encryption.
I also suggest that comments have a public field and a separate private members only field.
The “cancel mob” is international and worldwide. There is no escaping them unless a separate information and financial structure is built outside of their control. First, there must be people who want to solve the problem, and with the access to funds to finance such a structure. If there are any, they’re keeping well out of sight.
“But before Parler fell offline, Twitter user @donk_enby was able to scrape 70TB of posts, messages and videos, all of which are linked to the accounts that published them. The scrape is said to have picked up 99.9% of the content ever posted to the platform, including deleted items.”
https://www.techradar.com/news/massive-parler-data-leak-exposes-millions-of-posts-messages-and-videos
@donk_enby needs to be tracked down and brought to justice.
I read somewhere else that the hacker decided to do this after the capital building was breached. But that doesn’t add up.
Even with a very fast internet link, say 300 Mbps, it would take more than three weeks to download 70 TB of data. And that would be if you were doing straight data file transfers.
If it was truly “scraped” then you’d be slowed down a lot as every individual picture or post or other chunk of data would require the Parler web servers to dish up the content which you’d then need to scrape.
Scraping 70 TB would likely take at least several months.
It doesn’t add up. I strongly suspect this hacker had inside help at Amazon and/or some of these other tech companies.
Nope there is a good account of the hack on ars technica. Apparently Parler is poorly implemented and secured. Circa 80 terabytes of data including supposedly deleted data. The hacker apparently did it because of the mass take down of Parler in order to preserve the record in terms of the Capitol protests.
For clarity I’m referencing the ars article I havent checked any details for myself at this stage.
Like most of the tech press, Ars Technica is infested with SJW weasels who will lie and coordinate their misinformation, “journolist” style, to push the narrative.
Don’t trust what you read from any source that employs Social Justice Weasels.
Err no, the journalists there have a pretty high standard. The stories are well balanced and from a tech and science point of view written by people who specialise in those subjects. Since in part this is a tech story it’s a good source of info. Indeed it’s one of the best places for commentators, where a significant number have authoritive knowledge of the subject and add their own knowledge to the sorry written. So no I can’t say I agree
It would take three days to download this data, minimum. My understanding is that AWS more or less opened the door for hackers before blocking the servers. Either irresponsible or malicious.
No, the Parler API was the weakness it effectively only flagged posts as not there as opposed to actually deleting them. It was a shit show from a technical perspective. The scraping used scripts to automate the process. I don’t know how fast that process is but clearly it’s pretty quick
No, read my comments above. It’s not physically possible to “scrape” that much data that fast.
Stop regurgitating bullshit you read for Social Justice Weasel-infested “press” sites as if it is fact, or as if you know what you are talking about, troll.
LOL, for fuck’s sake the writer of that story is from UC Berkley and he says shit like “…looking for a forum to discuss debunked conspiracy theories…”
SMH… typical SJW tripe… anything we disagree with is a “debunked” conspiracy theory.
@ Paul
You are welcome to provide a better source. I’m not sure personal attacks on the journalist means very much. As for regurgitating well it’s not really is it as I’ve said it’s an authoritive source on the subject of tech and science. What you choose to do with that information is up to you.
They didn’t have 3 days did they? That means that whoever has the data, if it’s real, had to be an Amazon insider. That’s the only way they have the bandwidth and disk space to capture the data in the time allotted.
The other possibility is that it’s a fake hack. Destroy Parler’s credibility with a fake data hack to keep new users afraid so they won’t sign up.
No, it used a process called scraping, which basically means that all the publicly available feeds were copied to an archive. From my reading its apparent that it was a group of people doing this hence the swift download.
wordpress plugin hacks are pretty common though
It will probably be ruled Parlor has no standing.
Surely you mean they sued too late… the appropriate time to bring the lawsuit was BEFORE amazon shut them off.
You both seem to think standing and laches are some crazy thing the courts just invented. They’re both core components of our legal system. And neither is relevant here. Of course Parler has standing; it would never occur to anyone to deny it. Not even Amazon will claim that. And the suit is very timely, so no laches. But if you would destroy both of those doctrines just because you don’t like the outcome of some case then you’re a greater threat to our liberties than any of our opponents.
No Milhouse, were are just being sarcastic.
Well, Brave Sir Robbin and JDmyrm, it appears that milhouse’s sense of humor has once again taken the short bus to his keyboard. BTW, milhouse…./s/ (just for you)
I like Milhouse, but he does not seem to find me funny. But alas, few people do.
As some comedian allegedly said on his deathbed, “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.”
I think you’re funny. And Milhouse might, too. These are serious times, though, so don’t be hard on yourself over this.
You still haven’t processed what has happened. You just saw a takeover of our government combined with a fascistic cooperation of tech to limit dissent while we are in a state of medical lockdown. But, those who may oppose or wish to rework the legal tools abused to allow that to happen are the greatest threat.
We have high ranking senators employ Chinese spies for decades. We have a member of the intelligence committee sleeping with a Chinese spy and retaining his position when it gets known.
We have an obviously two-tiered legal system with no apparent interest in justice or even the law. How can you possibly think that removing ANY technicalities are a greater threat?
@ Brave Sir Robbin
Well at least you have the best handle, anyone with a Holy Grail reference earns comedy points with me
Milhouse, no one thinks standing and laches are anything new, just the misapplication of them against one political party
.
“We need to consider our alliances. The reality is that these internet oligopolies are so politically corrupt that their exercise of omnipotent power is a threat to all our freedoms.”
I’m concerned conservatives aren’t organizing enough in response to the lefties’ purge. I’d like to see some group (conservative blogs?) join forces to generate and maintain a set of recommendations or options for conservative consumers regarding email, online shopping, social media, etc. Maybe it’s just that I’m simply unaware of any existing web pages that might serve such purposes…
godaddy struck AR15 today. I think it’ll be another lawsuit against the techies.
Me thinks that this is not the first web service they have been kicked off of.
Don’t have a subscription to reason, but was wondering how they could get anyone on the left to bond on the proposal to impose heavy taxes on social media? Not that the left wouldn’t love to steal their money also.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/11/a-wilderness-of-mirror-imaging/
In the news roundup, we touch on the disgraceful demonstration-cum-riot at the Capitol this week and the equally disgraceful Silicon Valley rush to score points on the right in a way they never did with the BLM demonstrations-cum-riots last summer. Nate Jones has a different take, but we manage to successfully predict Parler’s shift from platform to (antitrust) plaintiff and to bond over my proposal to impose heavy taxes on social media platforms with more than ten million users. Really, why spend three years in court trying to break ’em up when you can get them to do it themselves and raise money to boot?
Was it AOC who said no one needs more than $1 billion. If so, I am starting to agree. We should tax it all away and give it to the people.
AOC for Speaker!
Twitter uses AWS. Hmmm…
Good thing Trump didn’t let the Intelligence Community hosting contract go to AWS. Recall Microsoft won it with an open-source solution, and Amazon sued them demanding that they win because they’re Amazon.
Amazon will probably restore service to Parler a few days after January 20th. There will be some sort of “settlement” tied to some non-disclosure requirement.
They are just preventing We The People from organizing to disrupt the coronation of the fraudulent monarch.
I doubt that they will back off now, we are going to have to impose sorry on them.
This isn’t about His Fraudulence, or his whore. It’s about power. But Amazon may have bitten off more than it can chew here. Even if Parler dies, every AWS customer must now be looking for an alternative, because nobody knows when the rough music will play for them, especially since AWS apparently doesn’t consider itself bound by its contractual obligation to give a customer 30 days’ notice. So I expect a mass abandonment of AWS as soon as people can find somewhere else to go.
AWS is just selling excess Amazon server capacity. With all the small businesses shut down and people cowering in fear at home, Amazon orders have exploded, and, likely server capacity is being stretched. They need to free up server space, so they get all moralist and boot off people so their business is not disrupted.
I do not doubt there business and moralizing arrogance, but, likely, there is also a business need here, too. They need to clear out server capacity, so off with there heads.
Just my guess.
It does make one wonder who will be able to by and sell when the local brink & mortar stores are no more…..
That’s not right. While utilizing “excess capacity” and capabilities they had developed for their own selling platform was part of their original business justification for starting AWS, that was a long time ago, and AWS has evolved into a behemoth in it’s own right.
“Cloud services” is “the big thing” in information technology right now (along with big data and AI). Small and medium sized businesses can gain enormous advantages by using the cloud platforms, and even the big corporations are making huge moves into public cloud providers like AWS.
And AWS is hugely profitable for Amazon, much more so than it’s original business of selling and delivering “stuff.”
AWS is a core part of their business strategy and a major driver in their market valuation.
I hear everything you are saying, and agree, but I still think the need for quick server space led them to avenue to go after competition (ideological and business) they did not like.
So the flow goes sort of like this. (1) Amazon notices they need more server capacity quickly and cannot build out to meet demand quickly enough, (2) they start to contemplate how they can free up some existing server space, (3) Oh look, there’s Parlor, we hate those guys. Let’s deplatform them and kill two birds with one stone.
That’s all I’m saying. How this helps “you,” is that if you understand the enemy and his motivations, in total, you may be able to more easily anticipate his moves. In other words, they had a confluence between business and ideological interests, which made in easy for them to act.
That – and any potential customer not currently using AWS will have to weigh the massive business risk of getting cancelled-in-a-heartbeat. That might give even far Left entrepreneurs pause and make them consider alternatives.
Seems like there’s a demand for a “Switzerland” of server providers, that will offer space to all comers, provided they’re not engaging in criminal activity. Otherwise, carry on.
Twitter lets the Ayotollah, the leader of the biggest state sponsor of terror, for decades, post calls for ‘Death To Israel’.
Apparently that doesn’t trigger a violation of whatever standards Twitter and Amazon AWS have prohibiting calls for violence. Do they think he isn’t serious?
“Twitter lets the Ayotollah, the leader of the biggest state sponsor of terror, for decades, post calls for ‘Death To Israel’.”
During WWII the Germans practiced mostly peaceful genocide against Jews. They built mostly peaceful death camps like Auschwitz. Today, many decades later, Auschwitz is a very peaceful place demonstrating the success of the venture. All the Ayatollah wants, therefore, is peace, and killing Jews creates peace, according to Twitter fact checkers.
The Islamic definition of peace is not an absence of war, but rather an absence of opposition to Islam.
Can’t have double-standards if you have no standards at all.
Monopolies are bad Mmkay.
Parler may have found a new home:
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2021/01/11/progressives-who-desperately-want-to-censor-parler-just-got-some-bad-news-n308467
We will see if this pans out. Personally I am worried that if this happens both Parler and Gab will be hosted by the same US-based provider (Epik). That gives the Communists one target to shoot at.
POTUS DJT still has a winning hand to play. Bill Barr obviously never told him about his broad inherent power to enforce, entirely on his own authority, the Article IV guarantee that every state “shall have a republican form of government.”
1. President Trump declares the election-stealing states to be unrepublican (the core definition of republicanism being popular sovereignty, where officeholders are selected by honest democratic majority rule elections).
2. He invokes the republican guarantee clause (Article IV) to invalidate all fruits of these unrepublican trees (such as Wednesday’s electoral vote count).
3. And he orders federally conducted re-runs of the tainted elections, along with a corresponding delay in the presidential selection and inauguration process.
4. Somebody sues (either Biden or the tainted states), otherwise the order stands and Trump has a valid legal claim to the presidency until step 3 is completed, regardless of what competing claims to the presidency can be made by Joe Biden.
5. Faced with this dire ambiguity SCOTUS is forced to immediately take up the case. If the Court follows its established deference to the political branches on guarantee clause issues it should agree that new elections, conducted in impeccably open and honest fashion by the federal government, are a good and allowable remedy.
This needs to be spread fast, far and loud enough that DJT hears about it! Anybody have any ideas?
Full outline here:
http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2021/01/declare-election-stealing-states.html?m=1
You seem pretty obsessed by this idea.
1. President Trump declares the election-stealing states to be unrepublican (the core definition of republicanism being popular sovereignty, where officeholders are selected by honest democratic majority rule elections).
He no longer has a role in the process, he cant declare anything. He could try and litigate on that basis but he would have to prove that election fraud happened which he has failed to do so thus far.
2. He invokes the republican guarantee clause (Article IV) to invalidate all fruits of these unrepublican trees (such as Wednesday’s electoral vote count).
Same problem he doesnt have the authority to unilaterally decide that he would have to lititgate.
3. And he orders federally conducted re-runs of the tainted elections, along with a corresponding delay in the presidential selection and inauguration process.
There is no such thing a federally run election that would run contrary to the Constitution since it give the state the power to run the elections not the federal authorities.
4. Somebody sues (either Biden or the tainted states), otherwise the order stands and Trump has a valid legal claim to the presidency until step 3 is completed, regardless of what competing claims to the presidency can be made by Joe Biden.
Again Trump would have to litigate he doesnt have the authority to change elections unilaterally. IF he held that power that would mean that the President in effect is a totalitarian dictator as he could just decide when an election is held or if he didnt like the result decide that it should go again until he wins. Which WOULD be in contravention of the Article you cite.
5. Faced with this dire ambiguity SCOTUS is forced to immediately take up the case. If the Court follows its established deference to the political branches on guarantee clause issues it should agree that new elections, conducted in impeccably open and honest fashion by the federal government, are a good and allowable remedy.
Again you’d have to prove that the election was fraudulent
Your idea is absurd. But besides all the other problems with it, there’s a doozy right there in your words: “the core definition of republicanism being popular sovereignty, where officeholders are selected by honest democratic majority rule elections”. If that were indeed “the core definition of republicanism” then Trump’s own presidency would automatically be illegitimate and unrepublican because he didn’t get the majority of the vote in 2016.
He wasn’t trying for it, because those weren’t the rules, but according to you the existing rules and constitution are not republican. And while the Republican Guarantee clause applies only to the states, the constitution itself is supposed to be what gives the USA a republican form of government, only according to you it doesn’t!
In any case, a state’s presidential electors are not part of its government, and therefore how they are chosen does not reflect on its form of government. If a legislature were to decide that that state’s electors should be chosen by lottery, or by athletic competition, would that make the state no longer a republic?! Of course it wouldn’t. And such an arrangement would not violate the Republican Guarantee clause. How much more so the arrangements, however flawed, that the states now have.
“If a legislature were to decide that that state’s electors should be chosen by lottery, or by athletic competition, would that make the state no longer a republic?!”
I think it may be interesting to watch them beat each other with sticks. I also think that would make basketball more interesting. And chess… definitely chess. So, basically, I guess I am for turning everything into a hockey match.
But yes, you are correct. Even if the legislature made this mode and manner of appointing electors, it would be constitutional.
I think this guy is trying to promote his own blog or something.
PS: Milhouse, that “beat each other with sticks” thing was, again, an attempt at humor.
Let me know if I ever crack a smile.
The country is going to hell. Might as well enjoy the ride down, because the end of the road is going to suck.
It’s a legitimate sport.
6. The democrat party runs to the SCOTUS and an injunction is immediately placed upon anything Trump does and all lawsuits are dismissed for “lack of standing” and then Joe and the Hoe are installed in the White House on Jan 20th as required by law and the Constitution.
It would happen. And you know it. So just stop with this nonsense.
The Republicans worked very hard to lose this election. And they accomplished their goal. They lost. And then to add injury to insult they managed to lose both GA Senate seats to their democrat opponents.
It’s over. The Republic is dead. I’m amazed that it lasted as long as it did before the career politicians destroyed it. But it’s gone and now we’re simply subjects of the ruling political elite and required to STFU and do as we’re told. Nothing more, nothing less.
holy fking shit dude…crack is whack
Did Obama say Bezos has enough money?
Vile Obama sure as heck didn’t tell Richard Branson that, when he was vacationing on Branson’s private island in the British Virgin Islands. Nor did he tell his host, “You didn’t build that.” See, Obama only reserves such criticisms for others. Never himself and his billionaire cronies.
““Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was ‘Hang Mike Pence.’ But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account.””
Of course they haven’t. They want Pence to be hung as well.
This is what fascism looks like.
Rather it serves to be the “2 minutes of hate” as written about in 1984. If one believes “right wingers” posted that… sorry… heavy doubts.
Good; sue for breach of contract and every other legitimate cause of action. And, I’d argue that Amazon’s malicious, politically-motivated intent, here, supports punitive damages.
And as together as they seem externally, internally, Amazon is one big charlie foxtrot waiting to trip over itself.
Who owns the fiber optic and copper cables that all this information is carried on? If Parler finds alternative servers, can the next roadblock be “you may not send your data over my lines”?
The FCC regulates that aspect to some extent although it’s stance has yoyo’d depending on who’s running it. Presently there is no net neutrality under the current republican leadership ( although it’s just changed hands so that position might be revised?) Therefore from that point of view there could be in theory (read unlikely) efforts by the owner of the lines to limit access but just to confuse it even more states are allowed to impose there own net neutrality rules. So I guess it might be a possibility depending on the specific attitude of the telecom companies. Still I think would be unlikely though that’s a gut feeling.
would have a bunch of similarities to the netflix cache/peering agreements a few years back that blew up into a stupid meme on the internet.
There is no technical limitation on that, so yes if backbones wanted to block Parler they could. It’s easier for them to refuse a direct line into their networks and then threaten the edge providers with cancelation if they don’t block Parler.
Simple enough, move Parler to an offshore web site with privacy protections. They have them in Iceland and Switzerland, and they don’t censor content except for patently illegal content (e.g. unlawful sale of drugs).
We also need to “out” whichever social media platform hosted an Antifa woman’s video on how to break a driver’s window and cut his or her seatbelt to “remove” him or her. If that isn’t incitement to commit a violent felony, I don’t know what is. (And some states extend the Castle Doctrine to cars.)
In any event, I don’t know which social platform hosted this video originally (I saw it on one social media platform but it was posted by somebody other than the original author to condemn it) and I’m not going to speculate on where it was published originally. If that can be found out beyond a reasonable doubt, the platform in question should be “outed.”
As for Facebook and Twitter, perhaps their advertisers should be shown some of the repulsive material that appears there without violating what they call their community standards. Facebook once hosted a “Jewish ritual murder” page (truthaboutjews) which was eventually taken down, but I recall that it took some time to get this to happen.
You don’t need castle doctrine, because even in damnable states that require retreat there is clearly nowhere to retreat to in your car. Unfortunately this doesn’t stop a DA that wants to make an example of you from using the process to punish you.
In the Portland area a baker was sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for some homos. Lost it all. So why can’t Google, Facebook, and Twitter be sued for refusing service to Conservatives?
Because Portland city law (and/or Oregon state law) makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but there is no state or city law doing the same for political opinion. It’s as simple as that.