Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

deadline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 259 posts

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#191

Post by tzs »

mcherm wrote: post #80

I am very concerned about the ease and speed with which they have been deplatformed. I am not a big fan of Parler, but I am a very big fan of free speech, and if the various actors who have driven them out of business can act this quickly in this well-coordinated, what else could they decide to censor?

It wasn't quickly. Parler has been around for two years, and the kind of material that got them finally kicked out of places has been there from near the beginning. Parler's lack of moderation of user content has been in violation of Apple and Google's rules for all that time.

I bet if someone had started a service similar to Parler but non-political, where people posted massive amounts of death threats and hate speech but directed at people for non-political reasons and that service utterly failed to moderate, Apple and Google and the rest would not have given them two years. They would have been gone in a week.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#192

Post by LatteLazy »

cygx wrote: post #183
LatteLazy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right and it does. But we do already do that with (other) utilities: the power company can't cut off the supply to the local KKK office as long as they're operating legally and they pay their bills. This is the price we pay for an open society. Freedom means freedom for morons as well as for us. I wish there were an easier answer, but I wouldn't even trust myself with the power to decide who is allowed to spea…

So are you arguing for declaring cloud computing platforms public utilities?

I guess I'm arguing for 2 things:

* declaring pretty much any company (including cloud computing platforms and maybe the Apple app store and few others) a utility IF they have this sort of market breaking power.

* creating a lower tier than full "utility" status where a company does not have market breaking power but where they do have excess power.

I'm not convinced AWS has market breaking power because parler could get another provider. But getting and moving to another provider on ~24h notice is pretty market breaking. So maybe AWS (and other sub-utilities or whatever you want to call them) can cut you off BUT they need to give you 28 days notice and arrange for transfer of data and continuity of service. To me this is like if you're out of lease, your landlord still has to give you notice, they can't just turn up at 9am and tell you you need to be out by 5.

I don't think those are too onerous as requirements. And I do think that many companies (Google for search and ads, Visa/Mastercard) have gotten just as "infrastructural" as power/water/phone companies were back when the original push to utility status occurred. There should be a push to balance that.

That's power that reaches across our society without any check or balance or democratic input.

In fairness, Google etc have been pretty good at NOT abusing that power. But why wait for an abuse.

Ironically that's what parlar should teach us: be a bit more proactive about your problems, don't wait for a seige of the senate chamber.

What do you think? Have I gone off the deep end? :)

Fyi, this isn't just about parlar and controversial content etc. YouTube bans educational channels pretty much at random and no one does anything about it until there is a twitter storm. That's not right. Apple thinks it has a right to ban tumblr because nipples. Also, wrong imho. If Apple want be the main app provider (via app store for non-jail-broken users), they need to play fair not favourites.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#193

Post by loudtieblahblah »

igetspam wrote: post #190
loudtieblahblah wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone right of Biden is a nazi.

And not everyone "right of Biden" is being deplatformed, unless you think everyone right of center is on Parler. Parler is a cesspool of hate groups and conspiracy theories, many of them Nazi or Nazi adjacent.

Not everyone you disagree with is a nazi.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#194

Post by QuizzicalCarbon »

danhak wrote: post #58

There’s something very ironic about Parler—-which kicks users off its platform for espousing liberal ideology—-whining about being kicked off other platforms. From their own TOS: > "Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason or no reason“

Sounds boilerplate.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#195

Post by LatteLazy »

j8hn wrote: post #185
LatteLazy wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I should have picked better numbers. I'm just saying many of the comments, I won't pretend I know "most" let alone all. It's too late to stop the violence that's already happened. That's cheap and I don't like it but it's true sadly. There are real questions to be asked why the FBI weren't all over this from day 1. They need to be asked because it's (literally) their job to prevent this. Im just suggesting rea…

You raise a good question about why this wasn't stopped before it happened. Apparently at least one prominent group made public weeks ago that violence was planned at the Capitol. Specific violence to place members of congress under "citizens arrest". I expect to see congressional hearings about this. It's really hard to fathom they were unprepared if the planning was done right out in the open. https://www.seattleti…

To me, this whole thing stinks of the "bystander effect". That's from twitter/reddit not banning more and earlier, to the FBI and law enforcement failing to investigate, to individual police opening doors or declining to stop criminals literally entering the buildings.

Everyone thought "the next time I'll do something, someone else will catch this in some other office".

I get why, its political and touches on censorship and people rightly hesitate to use power (not the law enforcement side, that's their job). Plus you're making money from ads next to pages of QAnon or Stopthesteal or whatever other BS is there.

But that's just my opinion. As you say, we should have a real investigation with witnesses and experts and actual factz. Congresd is the right place for that to happen imho

I hope something actually comes of this. It would be shameful for it to be buried because its hard and no one wants to be less able to mobalise theirside...

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#196

Post by idunno246 »

paxys wrote: post #14

Didn't he just post yesterday that there were many vendors lined up offering to host them after AWS kicked them out, and they would rewrite the app and be up and running in a week?

I think both could be true. Yesterday it was just aws, and maybe they had a hosting provider lined up. But then today it became every vendor that they work with which is another level of problem, like having to build their own sms system.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#197

Post by voisin »

manfredo wrote: post #96

The way this forum was purged from the internet is making me uncomfortable. I never used Parler, and I really don't care about the fact that it's gone. But the way that a handful of private companies effectively decides who gets to reach an audience and who doesn't is deeply troubling. We're increasingly becoming a world where what is and isn't allowed in the public sphere is controlled by a handful of corporate lead…

I think at least some of the discomfort you (and I) are feeling with this is due to the fact that these private companies made exceptions to their terms of use for so long, that now that they suddenly enforce them, it feels capricious. They should have banned Trump for violating their terms years ago, but they gave him a pass and now they’ve revoked that pass. As long as there are unambiguous rules that are evenly enforced regardless of what political position you happen to hold, I have no problem with it.

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#198

Post by tzs »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #136
skynet-9000 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy is a legal term and used here in a context unrelated to conspiracy theories, but to your point: what if all of the hills start on fire at the same time?

@grzm, sorry can't reply to you. I agree, there can be a strong case to be made that it's just a coincidence and they all moved on the same external event just because they were all meaning to anyway. It also seems like a case could be made that it wasn't a coincidence as well. I doubt we'll ever know, since I don't think Parler will ever take any action in this direction.

> @grzm, sorry can't reply to you

For future reference, when that happens just do one of these:

1. Wait a few minutes. HN does not allow immediate replies to new comments. This is the preferred solution.

2. Click the timestamp on the comment to get that comment on a separate page. On that view you can reply even if the comment is in the "no replies yet" window from #1. (I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature).

Re: Parler CEO Says Service Dropped by “Every Vendor” and Could End His Business

#199

Post by FFRefresh »

24gttghh wrote: post #187
FFRefresh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anybody who espouses this view willing to define how we determine who the intolerant are (to then not tolerate them)? Where is the line? Should Fox News be taken off the air? Should any conservative talk radio show be shut down? Should all employees for any type of org that can considered conservative or adjacent be made to pay for tolerating the intolerant?

https://medium.com/thoughts-economics-politics-sustainabilit... https://images.app.goo.gl/nCWYshqYeZcN94kf7 Tolerating the intolerant gives the intolerant the foothold they need to get enough legitimacy to seize power and destroy the society which was tolerant of them.

I understand your viewpoint, but I'm asking where you draw the line for who counts as the intolerant?

If the risk is society's destruction as you say, then I'd imagine you'd be motivated to cast a pretty wide net for who counts as intolerant (who thus should be sanctioned and not given equal access to services until they fall in line). After all, anything can be justified to save our society from destruction, correct? It seems like it'd be better to be safe than sorry, with the stakes so high as you mention.

Are there any conservatives/republicans and their associated organizations that you think should maintain their equal access to services, and shouldn't face some sort of penalty for either directly/indirectly supporting an ideology that led to the events of January 6th?

Post reply on HN