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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#331

Post by bebopcowboy »

charly187 wrote: post #194
standardUser wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about finding posts encouraging violence, it is about refusing to try to moderate that content, and your suggestion otherwise is disingenuous. If Facebook said "we are no longer going to try and moderate content that incites violence" there would obviously be blowback.

This myth that Parler doesn't moderate is simply not true. All screenshotted accounts I could find on Buzzfeed - such as ones from @QanonLV were banned from there before it was taken down.

Don’t bother man, the morons on this site have already decided what they believe, and it conveniently aligns with their political beliefs.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#333

Post by disposekinetics »

clarkmoody wrote: post #63

The great irony here is that these de-platformings are only concerned with non-state violence (or so they claim). There is no censorship of people advocating for disarming the entire population (using political violence) or depriving them of property (again, using state power). And as far as I can tell, none of the politicians who initiate and perpetuate war are de-platformed.

Twitter has hosted the Revolutionary Communist Party USA for at least ten years. It would seem they have no ethical problem with hosting calls for a coup.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#334

Post by krrrh »

ketamine__ wrote: post #140
chickenpotpie wrote: post #88

Putting myself in AWS’s shoes makes this choice seem obvious. If I imagine myself maintaining a server and I learn it’s being used for death threats and coup plannings, I would tell them to stop doing that or I’m shutting them down. And then if they didn’t do it I would immediately revoke their access. I don’t know about everyone else on this site but I wasn’t put on this planet to design and build tools for terroris…

Parler had the option to police their users but put an unqualified volunteer moderation team in charge. As you can imagine this leads to suboptimal results where the most egregious content isn't removed. I was on last night and saw a picture of Peloi's house with the address attached. These are dangerous people that are stalking our democratically elected leaders.

> unqualified volunteer moderation team in charge

Devils advocate here, but this does for the most part work for Reddit.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#335

Post by jeffreyrogers »

mech422 wrote: post #325
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that none of the other options want their business (though I have no doubt that Google and probably Microsoft would also exclude them). It's that you can't just switch platforms within days, while you could go order another cake since there's almost no time commitment to requesting a cake.

while that maybe true - it happens fairly often, usually with no warning at all. If anything, parler got preferential treatment by getting notice BEFORE getting terminated. Most just get "your account has been locked/terminated/etc" emails after the fact. There's bunches of horror stories on HN about it...

I don't think the fact that it's happened to others has any bearing on its rightness or wrongness.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#336

Post by FeepingCreature »

mech422 wrote: post #148
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #131

This is troubling. I understand the 1st amendment argument, but isn't this more an anti-trust case? If a baker won't bake you a cake because you're gay there are dozens of other bakeries nearby that will, regardless of the merits or lackthereof of choosing not to bake a cake in that situation. If your service provider kicks you off their platform they've destroyed your entire business. I understand if they won't allo…

And if all the bakers in town refuse to bake you a cake, should you be able to force one to? Seriously, when there are dozens of options and none of them want your business, shouldn't that give you pause? If all the insurance agencies refuse to insure your ship because they think it will sink, wouldn't it be prudent to double check your blueprints/construction ?

> And if all the bakers in town refuse to bake you a cake, should you be able to force one to?

Yes.

edit: Well, they could also close all of their bakeries. I'm willing to allow them that option.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#338

Post by reddog »

hackyhacky wrote: post #115
vorpalhex wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Actually, Parler has been use to literally plan an overthrow of the US government. That's why it's banned. So far, Parler and its associates have come a lot closer to dismantling American democracy than Iran ever has. That's why they get taken more seriously. Neither Twitter, nor Apple, nor Amazon want to be responsible for the rise of a fascist regime in the US. Too often, you can't see the rise of authoritarianism…

I've read that Twitter and Facebook were used more than Parler to orchestarate the capital takeover. But, being founding members of the high tech corporate cartel, they will never get banned.

Your right though -- you often can't see the rise of authoritarianism until its too late. Sometimes it comes from the place you least expect.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#339

Post by no-dr-onboard »

frogpelt wrote: post #317
explorigin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also curious about Parler but, when going to sign up, it asked for my phone number. Ummmm, no thank you. That kind of association is like going to a protest with your cellphone. Pretty easy to get the wrong kind of association attached to you.

Does your choice of words cause you to pause and think about where we are as a society? The "wrong kind of association" for creating a social media account?

Unlikely, but I'm certainly not one to say.

Perhaps another question to ask would be, "How fair is it that others are pigeonholed to platforms like this and undoubtedly get the "wrong kind of association"?

Are we reducing certain thoughts, beliefs and, dare I say, questions indiscriminately down to "crimethink"?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#340

Post by tylerhou »

readams wrote: post #315
cs-szazz wrote: post #77

Serious question, it seems AWS is by no means a monopoly on web hosting (Google, Azure, Digital Ocean, Linode, the list goes on). It seems to be they're well within their rights as a company to not host Parler, and Parler can try to go somewhere else. If no other companies want to host Parler, isn't that more a reflection of Parler than the hosting companies? It doesn't seem like they should be obligated to host, sin…

You can ask the question of whether you think in general that marginalized voices should be allowed to exist. Obviously, you don't like these particular people (and neither do I) so you don't see any problem with eradicating their voice. If Amazon were just one provider and there were other options it might even then still be OK. But it's not just a choice of Amazon. Any provider hosting them will be subject to the c…

> Picture instead private businesses who all refuse to do business with Jews.

This is a false equivalency.

Race, religion, etc. are protected classes. It's impossible for people to change their race, and our society has agreed that we shouldn't force people to change their religion.

Political beliefs are not protected classes. When your political beliefs include inciting violence by spreading unfounded conspiracy theories, then private companies have a right to kick you off.

> Certainly all the tech companies banding together to silence politics they don't like plays exactly into the narrative the far right is pushing.

In my opinion, the far right is already too far gone — they are already conspiracy theorists. Any contradictory information will be used as evidence to show that the conspiracy is much wider and bigger than one could have imagined — adding to the weight of the theory. There is no reasoning with them unless someone they truly believe (read: Trump) dismisses the theory convincingly.

Post reply on HN