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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#101

Post by ABeeSea »

maxerickson wrote: post #17
mensetmanusman wrote: post #5

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...

Yes, power companies have different regulations than AWS. 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.

Plus AWS does actually make their own power. The own and/or fund wind and solar farms across the globe. They also run their own fiber and are part of undersea cable consortiums.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#102

Post by betterunix2 »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #45
chasing wrote: post #41

Parler wasn't some innocent social media site that happened to have some disgusting content on it. The disgusting content was literally its reason for existing, despite all of the bland "we're just a free speech site" stuff. And I have yet to hear anyone discuss how "anything goes" and social media do not mix. It's much easier to turn a community toxic than it is to keep it healthy, and healthy communities (of any so…

The NYT lied to the American public to whip them up into supporting the Iraq War, which led to the deaths of millions of people (many of them innocent). Why won't AWS, Google, and Apple collectively ban them? Their open calls for violence were far more consequential and severe and serious than anything on Parler

The NYT did not make the Iraq war possible. It did not facilitate planning the war. It did not play any role in convincing the Bush administration to go to war.

Can we stop with the "whataboutism" already?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#103

Post by Karunamon »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #91
abarringer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh com'n. As if twitter doesn't allow people to post stupid junk? Multiple accounts that posted "Kill all white women" "Today seems like a good day for another reminder that all republicans deserve to die" are still active along with plenty of other insane things. You can cherry pick bad stuff from any social media site.

Twitter puts an active effort into removing those posts. You can definitely make the case they don’t go far enough, but Parler did the bare minimum. You would have to cherry pick the reasonable content off that site.

Mea culpa: I had the completely wrong idea on this post. See down thread. I would delete this comment if I could.

Is that why "Hang Mike Pence" was allowed to trend with 14K tweets, and later that same day "Hang Pence" with 55K?[1]

I'd wager every penny I own that almost none of those people were banned or sanctioned in any way.

[1]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1347791913806532609

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#104

Post by fisensee »

minimuffins wrote: post #81
chasing wrote: post #41

Parler wasn't some innocent social media site that happened to have some disgusting content on it. The disgusting content was literally its reason for existing, despite all of the bland "we're just a free speech site" stuff. And I have yet to hear anyone discuss how "anything goes" and social media do not mix. It's much easier to turn a community toxic than it is to keep it healthy, and healthy communities (of any so…

[flagged]

While I agree with you mostly on the censorship from private companies on public discourse, I have difficulties to see how amazon is censoring anybody really. With the media platforms and social networks I am also very concerned with every action they take in regards to deleting content and banning users, since they basically operate as a monopoly for public discourse. But infrastructure services such as aws or google are only offering a completely optional service in regards to hosting a webpage/forum/etc. Everybody can buy a server and give others their ip address. By not offering their services to certain parties they're not silencing anyone, they're just not helping them. Parler could just as well buy some racks, like the many other companies that already do. So how is amazon deciding what people on the internet see and what they don't see?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#105

Post by optimalsolver »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #5

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...

I assure you there will be countless power supply/food delivery companies extremely eager for the chance to service Amazon/AWS.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#106

Post by Reedx »

betterunix2 wrote: post #102
notsureaboutpg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT lied to the American public to whip them up into supporting the Iraq War, which led to the deaths of millions of people (many of them innocent). Why won't AWS, Google, and Apple collectively ban them? Their open calls for violence were far more consequential and severe and serious than anything on Parler

The NYT did not make the Iraq war possible. It did not facilitate planning the war. It did not play any role in convincing the Bush administration to go to war. Can we stop with the "whataboutism" already?

They played a large role in selling the war to the public (manufacturing consent).

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#107

Post by nenadst »

hammock wrote: post #22
valvar wrote: post #11

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?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#108

Post by neogodless »

CivBase wrote: post #27
moate wrote: post #20

Earlier 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.

I don't think it's possible to define a standard that people with wildly different perceptions of reality can agree is "objective."

If you believe that there is a massive conspiracy that resulted in widespread election fraud, flipping the election results, and that the massive conspiracy is going to ruin everyone's lives in the future, you'll find it objectively truthful to make sure everyone posts as much information about the election being stolen as possible up to and including taking up arms and fighting for your freedom, and there's no way to reasonably interpret that content as harmful to the greater good.

If you believe there was no conspiracy resulting in widespread election fraud, but there is a massive disinformation campaign stemming from a demagogue that now has enough followers willing to take up arms and attempt to overthrow the government, you will find it objectively truthful that posting information about the election being stolen will contribute to inciting those followers and is a grave threat to our model of democracy.

Content is, by its nature, open to interpretation, and often written with persuasive language. If you're persuaded, your beliefs and actions will tend one way, and if you're not, they'll tend another way. The same content can only be evaluated in a subjective manner.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#109

Post by garyclarke27 »

afavour wrote: post #90
garyclarke27 wrote: post #67

This vicious lethal (effectively kills Parler) action by Amazon - driven by a mob of woke employees - will cause long term damage to AWS. I had plans to use AWS for a potentially huge SAAS business, even though it is not likely to be contentious, just the thought of them being able to destroy everything overnight, without due process, without recourse - sends chills down my spine. I cannot now imagine, being able to…

This is hyperbolic in the extreme, and to blame "woke employees" with everything going on right now is just plain silly. When deciding whether to choose to host your services with AWS you can answer a simple question: are you planning on violating their terms of service? If the answer is yes, do not use AWS.

I'm just commenting on the decision to evict Parler from AWS, there were several news articles that it was employee driven maybe these reports are wrong, I don't know, the MSM is not exactly a reliable source of facts lately. I also don't see how Parler is responsible for the illegal behaviour of the rioters - surely the poor preparation by the security forces for a well publicised rally is more of a contributing factor than Parler.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#110

Post by chickenpotpie »

Karunamon wrote: post #103
chickenpotpie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter puts an active effort into removing those posts. You can definitely make the case they don’t go far enough, but Parler did the bare minimum. You would have to cherry pick the reasonable content off that site.

Mea culpa: I had the completely wrong idea on this post. See down thread. I would delete this comment if I could. Is that why "Hang Mike Pence" was allowed to trend with 14K tweets, and later that same day "Hang Pence" with 55K?[1] I'd wager every penny I own that almost none of those people were banned or sanctioned in any way. [1]: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1347791913806532609

And then Twitter removed it. Could have been faster definitely, but Parler would have never taken it down at all.
Post reply on HN