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

Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#21

Post by CivBase »

eejit_compiler wrote: post #10
CivBase wrote: post #2

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".

Indeed, and I think it's because Parler is best known for hosting violent, far-right content, that is linked to the recent insurrection at the Capitol Building. Whereas the other services you cite are much more generic in their clientele. So based on this, Amazon made a business decision to deny service to Parler, due to the adverse publicity (and perhaps, potential legal liability) generated for them by hosting this…

Then maybe AWS should just come out and say "We disabled our services for Parler because it's very unpopular and we don't want to be associated with it."

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#22

Post by hammock »

valvar wrote: post #11
ortusdux wrote: post #7

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.

Yes, it's quite strange, but I'm guessing it's mostly due to media disinformation about section 230. People who are actually informed and in favour of free speech and opposed to megacorp oligopolies are strongly opposing changing section 230. Rather, they advocate breaking up the megacorps or making them utilities.

I've heard this before, and I'm so confused by section 230. Where can I read some reliable info on it?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#23

Post by layoutIfNeeded »

makeworld wrote: post #3
CivBase wrote: post #2

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".

Yes, because "dozens" represents different percentages of content on Parler vs much much bigger platforms like Twitter. Parler is filled with content that encourages violence, while Twitter is used for all kinds of things.

So they could have just filled their site with GPT3-generated nonsense to reach the acceptable percentage of nonviolent content? Cool!

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#24

Post by eejit_compiler »

moralestapia wrote: post #6
makeworld wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because "dozens" represents different percentages of content on Parler vs much much bigger platforms like Twitter. Parler is filled with content that encourages violence, while Twitter is used for all kinds of things.

Can you provide (or estimate) numbers on that? And also, what is the threshold for deciding which platform is on one side or another?

The threshold is if the management at Amazon etc. feel that it would generate too much bad publicity and/or potential legal liability for them to provide service to an organization mired in such controversy.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#25

Post by [deleted] »

itsoktocry wrote: post #18
gameswithgo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> that Parler refuses to sufficiently moderate Where can one find a definition of "sufficient" in this context?

[deleted]

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#27

Post by CivBase »

moate wrote: post #20
commandlinefan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hi there. 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 create…

Or you could define an objective standard by which platforms should moderate their content.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#28

Post by derision »

eejit_compiler wrote: post #10
CivBase wrote: post #2

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".

Indeed, and I think it's because Parler is best known for hosting violent, far-right content, that is linked to the recent insurrection at the Capitol Building. Whereas the other services you cite are much more generic in their clientele. So based on this, Amazon made a business decision to deny service to Parler, due to the adverse publicity (and perhaps, potential legal liability) generated for them by hosting this…

What about calling for the eradication of Jews? https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784

Twitter doesn't seem to have any issue with this content

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#29

Post by moate »

itsoktocry wrote: post #18
gameswithgo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> that Parler refuses to sufficiently moderate Where can one find a definition of "sufficient" in this context?

Probably the ToS has language about when AWS can decide to stop hosting. I would assume the langue is extremely broad, legally speaking, in how much control it gives AWS to their own platform.

If you're going to build something aimed entirely at "taking down/riling up the establishment" you need to make sure you're not entirely dependent on the establishment to keep your something online.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#30

Post by Karunamon »

moate wrote: post #20
commandlinefan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hi there. 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 create…

I'd argue that introducing legal uncertainty is part of the goal. When these platforms have to consider that every deleted post could get them sued, they will delete less.
Post reply on HN