Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#32I 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.
Because that would be very expensive for them...
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#33Earlier 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?
The Amazon email to Parler says:
> Over the past several weeks, we’ve reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence. [...] It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. [...] This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
(quoting from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p..., it's a ways down the page).
The email is lacking in specifics, though.
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
That’s not what that tweet says. So you admit your argument carries little weight without sensationalizing it?
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels analogous to paper companies banding together and refusing to provide paper to a newspaper whose opinion column they disagree with.
It's more analogous to a single server host refusing to host a site, while the material components (actual physical servers) are still readily available if likely outside the financial range for a site at their size (tbh though, I have no idea what sort of server needs this site would actual have). Parler could still go out and build their own servers. The fact that this is a project driven by "free speech enthusiast…
>Parler could still go out and build their own servers.
Yes, and as someone on Twitter pointed out, as a customer also denied service, Rosa Parks could have gone out and started her own bus line (likely outside her financial range though).
The argument to "do it yourself" is silly. Europe sees it. The ACLU sees it. Why can't you?
For the record: I think these platforms should be responsible for what they host.
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
HN posting rules require me to say more than just "LOLOK" so we'll go with this:
That standard doesn't exist and isn't objective. No, even that really clever one you're about to come up with. It's not real. It's all subjective. The entire US legal system is a "Common-law" legal system, meaning it's all subjective. Objective is for mathematics, not the law.
*edited for typo
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#37I 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".
Conservatives support AWS right to decide who it wants to do business with, so implicitly they support the ejection of Parlour.
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more analogous to a single server host refusing to host a site, while the material components (actual physical servers) are still readily available if likely outside the financial range for a site at their size (tbh though, I have no idea what sort of server needs this site would actual have). Parler could still go out and build their own servers. The fact that this is a project driven by "free speech enthusiast…
> Parler could still go out and build their own servers. Yes, and as someone on Twitter pointed out, as a customer also denied service, Rosa Parks could have gone out and started her own bus line (likely outside her financial range though). The argument to "do it yourself" is silly. Europe sees it. The ACLU sees it. Why can't you? For the record: I think these platforms should be responsible for what they host.
The 1st amendment gives all of the companies the freedom of association. They can deny doing business for any reason except for protected class. Are you trying to force companies to do business with entities that they do not wish to do business with?
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
or the fact that nicolas maduro - a man already convicted of crimes against humanity by the UN - still has an account and has gone uncensored. how anyone here defends such blatant hypocrisy is beyond me
Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support
#40I 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".
I would be near willing to bet that more of the Capitol Hill events were planned on private Facebook groups, chats, etc than on Parler. Signal is a chat app that is secure and group chats are big in planning... So are they going to ban Signal? Conspiracy theories are rampant on WeChat and even over text messages.
You’d likely be wrong. You have to meet your conspirators on public platforms or in public places before you can switch to private communications.