Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support • Hacker News Board

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#511

Post by flatline » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:39 PM UTC

sn_master wrote: post #491

Johnny555 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the parler content legal? "Amazon Web Services suspended Parler from its web hosting services... citing a letter it had obtained that mentions 98 examples of Parler posts that "encourage and incite violence." Don't forget that Amazon also has legal liability for hosting and distributing illegal content. Amazon is not a monopoly -- the mitigation for AWS being able to cut off your business is to architect your app…

"legal" in a democracy is something that only a court can decide. I don't know what was Parler's size, but in any website with millions of visitors a handful will post aweful things each day. Were those 98 posts posted by the same user? Did anyone report them and Parler refused to take them down? Were they popular or downvoted with few views?

If a service provider detects illegal activity taking place on their services, I assume the correct action is to contact the relevant authorities and suspend the activity until it gets straightened out. Which seems to be what has happened here. I don't know exactly what efforts were made to work with Parler in advance but I do believe there have been some, and Parler has refused to take action on their own behalf.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#512

Post by nix23 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

caleb-allen wrote: post #412

Closi wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree - but I think this can only be solved via legislation. Amazon has too much market power if it can shut down another company at the push of a button for something that isn't illegal (even if it's distasteful).

Amazon is not the only cloud provider. Parler could have just as easily been a customer of Microsoft or Google

Hehe as is if those are any better.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#513

Post by lokar » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:40 PM UTC

jlkuester7 wrote: post #469

cactus2093 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the best mitigations here, both technical and social? Vocally side with the popular issues, or try to stay completely out of them, to try to avoid becoming a target (e.g., social media presence)? For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government. Seems like a pretty easy thing to stay clear of. I get the concern you're expressing, but not everything is a s…

> not everything is a slippery slope From a risk management perspective, this does not seem like a safe assumption to make. The DailyStormer got "canceled" by vendors for not even trying to moderate content that actively promoted violence (among other horrible things). Now Parlor gets "canceled" by vendors for not doing a good enough job trying to moderate content promoting violence. The bar for getting "canceled" is…

Parlor did not have a real, honest, effort at moderation.

It was done poorly, and seems to have been just a fig leaf to say they were doing it. Objectively it was not working. Way way way worse than anything on FB or Twitter.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#514

Post by Daishiman » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

hertzrat wrote: post #450

DangerousPie wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the mitigation is "don't build a platform to attract white supremacists banned from other sites and then watch as they use it to plan a riot in the Capitol."

Imagine a hypothetical, well-intentioned free speech focused platform, without censorship and with low moderation: it will attract those people because those people have nowhere else to go. That strategy is a non-starter. The real requirement is that we are pushing for a world of auto-moderation where robots have to approve every single thing we say online - otherwise you are not allowed to let people communicate.

You platform is indeed hypothetical because what you're asking for is essentially impossible. Low moderation just doesn't work at large scale without a substantial number of people suffering from its effects, including harrassment, threats of violence, spamming, and child pornography.

I would say that this hasn't been possible for at least the last 15 years.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#515

Post by kukx » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

There is a risk of radicalization of masses. And banning people will not help with reversing it. They will find another way to communicate and the tech giants will no longer be able to challenge the flawed message. And the ideas should be challenged, especially the bad ones. Why the tech giants act this way and decrease their reach/base? It would be naive to think it is out of a good will. I suspect they want to show the new government that there is no need to regulate them, because they can do it themselves.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#516

Post by epistasis » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

plutonorm wrote: post #467

epistasis wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these companies are "shutting you down" for your speech, it's the same sort of speech that would have gotten you shut down in the public square. Have they shut down text messaging, phone calls, group messaging, all the encrypted messaging apps? Do the tech companies control postal mail, letters to the editor, and printing presses? Of course not. You are looking for others to give you a platform to reach a wide aud…

All well and good. But say for instance you lived in nazi Germany, would you have the right to protest? Would you have the right to say things that are outside of the overton window? You would not have the right, and your opinions would be spat upon. And yet they would be true and right for you. In your mind you would have every right to express yourself and undermine the government outside of democratic means. The p…

Oh come on, this is a not very old debate, and within living memory of many of us we actually had to fight against the Nazis and then determine how best to prevent fascism from taking hold. This is the basic debate about government. This is why any technologist who hopes to influence the world should read deeply of history and the prior debates along these same lines.

The clearest guideline that I have seen is the Paradox of Tolerance, where we must stop some speech in order to make room for as many as possible. Fascists hate this, because fascists are the ones who demand total and perfect freedom to act and speak as the wish, up to the point of being allowed to perform violence on those whose speech they don't like. Which is why the fascists were chanting "Hang Pence" as they stormed the capitol.

Don't you dare try to accuse me of being arrogant for judging fascists, and don't you dare accuse me of trying to be the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. I can name fascists as unacceptable to society without being an ultimate arbiter.

We are in dangerous waters in the US, and all our words mean something right now. Will we fall for the lies of the fascists who say "let us violate all social norms with our speech, and we promise we woke take over with violence than force you to follow our norms with violence," or will we stand up to them and enable as open a society as we can?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#517

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

hertzrat wrote: post #450

DangerousPie wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the mitigation is "don't build a platform to attract white supremacists banned from other sites and then watch as they use it to plan a riot in the Capitol."

Imagine a hypothetical, well-intentioned free speech focused platform, without censorship and with low moderation: it will attract those people because those people have nowhere else to go. That strategy is a non-starter. The real requirement is that we are pushing for a world of auto-moderation where robots have to approve every single thing we say online - otherwise you are not allowed to let people communicate.

[deleted]

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#518

Post by the_drunkard » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

derision wrote: post #28

eejit_compiler wrote: post #10

Earlier 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

it's clear that selective enforcement occurs, especially on Twitter. while i'm sure there are examples of violence being incited on Parler, I can find just as many examples (if not more) on Twitter.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#519

Post by Johnny555 » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

sn_master wrote: post #491

Johnny555 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the parler content legal? "Amazon Web Services suspended Parler from its web hosting services... citing a letter it had obtained that mentions 98 examples of Parler posts that "encourage and incite violence." Don't forget that Amazon also has legal liability for hosting and distributing illegal content. Amazon is not a monopoly -- the mitigation for AWS being able to cut off your business is to architect your app…

"legal" in a democracy is something that only a court can decide. I don't know what was Parler's size, but in any website with millions of visitors a handful will post aweful things each day. Were those 98 posts posted by the same user? Did anyone report them and Parler refused to take them down? Were they popular or downvoted with few views?

So if someone posts a plot to kill lawmakers, take over the government all while using their website to organize the insurrection, you're saying that they can't be held to ToS terms banning illegal content until a court has ruled on whether or not their insurrection is illegal?

I haven't seen the examples that AWS provided to Parler, but I trust that AWS lawyers signed off on the plan so they show a lack of moderation on Parler's part.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#520

Post by Blahah » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

creatorbytes wrote: post #417

cactus2093 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the best mitigations here, both technical and social? Vocally side with the popular issues, or try to stay completely out of them, to try to avoid becoming a target (e.g., social media presence)? For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government. Seems like a pretty easy thing to stay clear of. I get the concern you're expressing, but not everything is a s…

That’s quite the straw man. We should separate an issue of moderation and actual motives of the platform itself. Did the platform have algorithms to make pro-capital storming posts ascend higher than other equally engaged posts? Did the owner/company make a call to violence? Did their platform spike in popularity in such a short time frame, they were unable to moderate to the same degree as other platforms? (Even Goo…

It really isn't a straw man.

If clients or customers bring bad publicity to a company they can refuse them service. They can in fact refuse service for any reason that isn't discriminatory in many jurisdictions.

Censorship has nothing to do with this. Any person can host a website from home, pay for a dedicated line, build their own datacenter, find a colo, host on a decentralised network, etc.

Amazon is under no obligation to provide service to Parler. They are not censored by Amazon refusing them as customers.

It's also not relevant to antitrust, literally at all.

A far more dangerous precedent would be compelling companies to provide service to hate groups and terrorists.