11–20 of 1001 posts
It fascinates me that the people most offended by the recent actions of google, amazon, facebook, etc are the ones pushing for the repeal of section 230.
It fascinates me that the people most offended by the recent actions of google, amazon, facebook, etc are the ones pushing for the repeal of section 230.
It would be interesting if power companies run by various oligarchs started disconnecting power to AWS servers: “go generate your own power” Or maybe food delivery truck drivers is a better analogy since that isn’t a utility...
This feels analogous to paper companies banding together and refusing to provide paper to a newspaper whose opinion column they disagree with.
It would be interesting if power companies run by various oligarchs started disconnecting power to AWS servers: “go generate your own power” Or maybe food delivery truck drivers is a better analogy since that isn’t a utility...
This feels analogous to paper companies banding together and refusing to provide paper to a newspaper whose opinion column they disagree with.
Parler could still go out and build their own servers. The fact that this is a project driven by "free speech enthusiasts" and not actual engineers means they're probably going to have a real hard time getting the engineering stuff back in line.
Apple/Google refusing to sell your app is just that: a store refusing to sell a product.
I don't know which social media platforms use AWS to any critical extent, but I can't imagine them ejecting a big name like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc over "finding dozens of posts on the service which it said encouraged violence".
It fascinates me that the people most offended by the recent actions of google, amazon, facebook, etc are the ones pushing for the repeal of section 230.
It would be interesting if power companies run by various oligarchs started disconnecting power to AWS servers: “go generate your own power” Or maybe food delivery truck drivers is a better analogy since that isn’t a utility...
Which means the analogy is boring.
There's probably a good discussion to be had about how to regulate services like AWS though. The dynamics are probably different, with power companies not quite having the same potential for wanting to disassociate from noxious customers.
I don't know which social media platforms use AWS to any critical extent, but I can't imagine them ejecting a big name like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc over "finding dozens of posts on the service which it said encouraged violence".
The distinction, that AWS, Google, and Apple have all claimed, is that Parler refuses to sufficiently moderate the inciting of violence. Perhaps that claim is in error, perhaps such judgements are too subjective. If so, large social media companies might avoid AWS for fear of it.
Where can one find a definition of "sufficient" in this context?
It fascinates me that the people most offended by the recent actions of google, amazon, facebook, etc are the ones pushing for the repeal of section 230.
This is fairly clearly an antitrust case, which has nothing to do with S230. Behavior of the digital giants is very similar to the behavior of railroad oligopolies of the 19th century which actually led to antitrust legislation.
It fascinates me that the people most offended by the recent actions of google, amazon, facebook, etc are the ones pushing for the repeal of section 230.
Maybe not repealed, but amended. Section 230 _allows_ for good-faith moderation, but says nothing about bad faith moderation. As much as I hate more legalese and overregulation, it's become pretty clear that these people can't be trusted to act with impunity, so an amendment to section 230 that prohibits arbitrary moderation might help. If you want to host user generated content, and not be held liable for it in a jo…
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
Your thesis is flawed. You can't define "good faith" in any real way. You either have to accept that sites will be moderated and some number of people will disagree with the moderation, or you have to swing HARD in the opposite direction and decide all sites are now publishers and responsible for all content on their sites including user created content.