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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#571

Post by pbronez »

Domenic_S wrote: post #522
throwaway5752 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to separate the fact that they are distancing themselves from a fascist, white-supremacist platform that was instrumental in a near-overthrow of the US government. And even if you think that's okay, this wasn't insurrection in response to oppression, it was an insurrection to overthrow an uncontested democratic result. I guess Parler is so radioactive that Amazon would rather be sued than continue to busin…

> near-overthrow of the US government That's giving WAY too much credit. The US Government is not a room or a building. A coup is considered successful if it holds power for 7 days; these jokers didn't hold power for 7 seconds. > insurrection to overthrow an uncontested democratic result. This is overstating from a certain point of view. It was contested in court (and soundly affirmed). Bear with me for a moment - if…

> if what Trump was saying about the election were true, we would want this kind of reaction.

This is an counterfactual to consider. Indeed, we should defend the integrity of the democratic system at almost any cost. However, facts matter.

Trump's statements about the election were not, in fact, true. They are lies. The votes have been counted, recounted and certified. The courts have been consulted. The media has investigated. Election observers from both campaigns watched the whole thing.

Some of the insurrectionists may have thought they were defending democracy, but that doesn't change the fact that they were actually attacking the very democracy they claimed to defend.

> how have we let misinformation get so bad that it ultimately forms insurrection?

Catastrophically bad leadership. While the individual insurrectionists must fact justice, the leaders who intentionally deluded and incited them must also be held accountable. Just as a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance, a lawful democracy cannot tolerate democratically-elected leaders who use their authority to attack the core mechanisms of democracy.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#572

Post by raunakdag »

legutierr wrote: post #440
chmod600 wrote: post #425

This is a weird case of private companies getting together and voluntarily enforcing the supremecy of the state. I'm sure it's happened before, but probably not in situations we'd like to emulate. Insurrection is bad, but the possibility of insurrection is good. When any possibility of insurrection is crushed, for everyone now and in the future (not just insurrectionists), that sounds like it won't end well for the p…

It happens all the time in the banking arena. Banks are frequently used to deny market access to businesses that are undesirable to the federal government but are otherwise legal businesses.

I hadn't thought about it this way. I assume marijuana dispensaries/businesses are one of the examples you're referencing?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#573

Post by [deleted] »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #536
lokar wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems likely that this is true. But couldn't you get to the same end-result by having good intentions but a bad moderation system? (e.g. I want to keep Nazi content off my service so I subject all posts to a review by 5 other users. That might work until you get a bunch of Nazis that suddenly sign up up-vote each other's content). Not every new service can afford to moderate things like "FB or Twitter". And this i…

[deleted]

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#574

Post by bird_monster »

zmb_ wrote: post #321

I'm struggling to try to understand what this means for the risks of running a business in the cloud going forward. It was not just AWS dropping them, but many of their other vendors dropped them too, essentially killing their business overnight. Granted, for this first case the bar was extremely high. You needed literal storming of the Capitol and a platform seemingly specifically targeted at those people for this t…

> I'm struggling to try to understand what this means for the risks of running a business in the cloud going forward. It was not just AWS dropping them, but many of their other vendors dropped them too, essentially killing their business overnight.

Businesses that are not terror cells have nothing to worry about. Companies have always pulled away from extremist groups. You wouldn't expect Microsoft to accept a contract with ISIS, would you?

This is really not that complicated. Once you attempt to overthrow a country's government, businesses in that country don't want to work with you. This has always been true.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#575

Post by nix23 »

pixl97 wrote: post #531
nix23 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>98 examples of Parler posts that "encourage and incite violence." Just imagine how much that would be in Facebook numbers? I think we can block Facebook too, no?

Facebook runs on AWS? No they have their own infra. Lesson of the day, if you're doing shady shit, own your own servers and stay off mine.

>Facebook runs on AWS?

That means you as a Infrastructure provider can jugge what normally justice will do, but when you have the money to run your own DC you can jump over that problems? Don't you see that this is the opposite of a free society? It does not matter if it's extreme right or left, Wikileaks, Wikipedia Pirate-bay or Sci-hub.

BTW: Totally not right wing, but in a free an fair society justice should have the decision if a Service is illegal and NOT Market-providers like Amazon Google or Apple.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#576

Post by rirarobo »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #540
yks wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think things are pretty clear cut, if you want to start a service to obviously harbor fascist user-driven content, then yes, prepare to be cut off from the mainstream vendors. DailyStormer and Parler are explicitly those types of services. It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that because Parler is down, "mom and pop" websites with comment section attached now need to lawyer up.

> It is a bit disingenuous to suggest that because Parler is down, "mom and pop" websites with comment section attached now need to lawyer up. This is definitely a straw-man, but at the same time, if your website hosts user-supplied content and you don't have a rock-solid strategy for moderating it, then yeah you probably should be worried. (Though the spammers will probably take down your site long before AWS...)

I disagree, you don't need a "rock-solid strategy for moderating" "user-supplied content", you just need a user base that is by and large not inciting violence, particularly against government officials.

If I run some hobbyist forum where say 1 in 1000 users is posting hate speech or calling for violence, as long as I have less-than-rock-solid moderation that can clean up some of their posts and ban the worst offenders based on user reports, I wouldn't be too worried. It's also in my interest to keep the community healthy.

Now, if 20% or 50% of my users are posting hate speech and calling for violence, yeah I would be worried, but I would be less worried about moderation, and more worried about why my hobby attracts extremists. Might call for some self reflection.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#577

Post by chmod600 »

grahamburger wrote: post #490
chmod600 wrote: post #425

This is a weird case of private companies getting together and voluntarily enforcing the supremecy of the state. I'm sure it's happened before, but probably not in situations we'd like to emulate. Insurrection is bad, but the possibility of insurrection is good. When any possibility of insurrection is crushed, for everyone now and in the future (not just insurrectionists), that sounds like it won't end well for the p…

> This is a weird case of private companies getting together and voluntarily enforcing the supremecy of the state. It's maybe weirder than that, because of the involvement of the president. Even if you believe the president was entirely uninvolved and unaware, the purpose of the insurrection was to keep a leader in power, not remove one. The actions of tech companies are both a challenge to the supremacy of the (curr…

The insurrectionists were attacking Congress, so that makes things more complicated.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#578

Post by Daishiman »

joering2 wrote: post #468
chmod600 wrote: post #425

This is a weird case of private companies getting together and voluntarily enforcing the supremecy of the state. I'm sure it's happened before, but probably not in situations we'd like to emulate. Insurrection is bad, but the possibility of insurrection is good. When any possibility of insurrection is crushed, for everyone now and in the future (not just insurrectionists), that sounds like it won't end well for the p…

Fun fact: I spoke with two of my good buddies one up high Amazon another at Twitter. The fellow from twitter told me they will never suspend Trump because despite what he says, Twitter makes few million dollars daily (!!) off of his feed. The reason you see him being booted out is because my buddy from Amazon told me they may be ready to drop Twitter as a client altogether (mostly because of Trump) and the way their…

This is speculation by an employee who clearly doesn't have power to make the associated business decisions.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#579

Post by sn_master »

pixl97 wrote: post #558
sn_master wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because ISIS leaders and the organization have been convicted by courts all over the world. Parler and the other conservatives who got banned were not convicted by any court within or even outside the United States. People are mad because big tech is shutting things down without any due process simply to appease the new emperor in power. Big tech made a decision that the hell with the judicial system, Democrats now h…

Someone doesn't understand civil law. If I dont have to wait for a child porn conviction to ban you from my site for posting 'illegal' content. I will do it immediately and sever all contracts. Its funny how we have the freedom of association right up to the moment it affects those supporting fascism, then all of a sudden a different set of laws matter.

Can you give an example of content that was within that range of offense or danger that was posted on Parler?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#580

Post by kingdomcome50 »

throwaway329123 wrote: post #466
notabee wrote: post #442

Most providers also don't allow ISIS on their platforms. Another known terror-sponsoring organization. For a long time now. And yet I don't see people tying themselves into free speech knots over ISIS getting deplatformed. I wonder why that is?

ISIS used to publish videos of them beheading people as propaganda to recruit young people for the jihad. They'd also claim terrorists attacks and encourage their supporters to do the same. So, what is your point?

I can't say for sure, but I think the point is to highlight some hypocrisy of the "free speech" argument.

That is, if you claim censoring ISIS speech is okay but not Parler speech, then you must also be claiming that there is a line somewhere between the two that is being crossed. You are therefore acknowledging a limit to free speech. But that isn't the point yet.

The point is that you (not necessary you) are drawing a line at all. It's that there is a line. And if there exists a limit to free speech, it means someone has to decide where that limit is placed. We are almost to the point.

And if someone gets to decide where the limit to free speech is placed, who gets to make that decision and why? Clearly you have put that line between ISIS and Parler according to your own belief system (or maybe not, you haven't explicitly denoted anything). But the point is that there exists a reason to limit free speech. I promise the point is coming.

If there exists reasons to limit free speech then we have a problem. You see, you and I may agree ISIS should be de-platformed, but other people may believe other things and therefore have other reasons. The point is that there is no such thing as "free speech". That everyone has their reasons. And that the people shouting "free speech" often mean "free speech within the thresholds that I am comfortable". That nobody actually, truly, deep-down believes in "free speech".

The point is that "free speech" is a myth.

So quit wasting your time calling out Amazon for infringing on something that doesn't exist (again, not necessarily you).

Post reply on HN