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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#781

Post by CivBase »

kingdomcome50 wrote: post #684
CivBase wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, but shouldn't it at least bother you that Amazon is lying about their reason? I don't think congratulating a company for exercising their rights is appropriate when they're actively lying to our faces. Unless, of course, they actually stand by what they've said. In which case we come right back to my original post.

What am I supposed to say? Amazon doesn't really come off as the "good guy" by admitting they have weighed the current political climate against their profits. Especially given whose about to be in charge. They made a business decision and wrapped up in some good 'ol PR spin/legalese. It happens all the time. About everything. It's still their right to refuse service.

I never made the case that they don't have that right. I just called out their statement.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#782

Post by ncallaway »

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…

> Not every new service can afford to moderate things like "FB or Twitter". And this is an important risk to account for.

If you're planning on starting a service built around user generated content, you should have an answer for how you plan on moderating content.

If you don't have a plan for how to address illegal uses of your service (fraud, child pornography, etc), then you run the risk of being shut down. This isn't even a question of "is it or isn't it incitement".

If you want to run on a hosting platform that exists as a business unit anywhere in the United States, if you don't have a plan for moderating at least the most harmful illegal content, you are at risk of being shut down. FOSTA and SESTA make clear that the the service providers and hosting platforms bear some legal liability for this content, and they will shut you down if you don't moderate your platform.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#783

Post by mempko »

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…

President has been set long ago. From child porn, pirating websites, to al-Qaeda websites. There is nothing new about Parler being kicked off hosting sites. It took me five minutes being on the site to see calls for violence.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#784

Post by skynet-9000 »

IanCal wrote: post #756
roenxi wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds very reasonable up until attempting to identify what, objectively, is the bar to set business policy. Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." was the straw that broke the camels back [0]. That isn't an objective bar. Context which "everyone knows" is a political question - a highly political question. If AWS happens to have a s…

That is a wild misrepresentation of the facts. That was the second of two tweets, that they are taking together. This was the other "The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” They explain the context and how these tweets are being int…

Ok, so it looks like the two tweets were:

"The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

"To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th."

I fail to see the issue with these tweets. He is not planning to attend an inauguration because he will not be inaugurated President? Is that such a huge problem? Is it even something that the incoming President was requesting? And what is the issue with the other tweet?

This is a bizarre hill that Twitter chose to spend 10% of their market cap on. It seems like there must have been something else that they could have picked that would have made more sense.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#785

Post by ncallaway »

Closi wrote: post #396
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…

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 can't shut down any company at the push of a button. It can only shut down a company from using its services.

There are many other hosting providers in the world. If Parler hadn't hosted its service on AWS, then Amazon wouldn't be able to shut them down.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#786

Post by lightgreen »

adrr wrote: post #674
creatorbytes wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Parler wasn’t deleted because of public pressure alone. It was deleted because of AWS customers that threatened to leave. Last thing large enterprise customers want is to be caught up in is a controversy. Amazon made a business decision. No tech executive wants to explain to their CEO that they got boycotted due to a tech vendor choice. If AWs didn’t kick off Parler, the boycott of AWS based customers was coming. No…

> It was deleted because of AWS customers that threatened to leave.

What is the source of that statement? I did not find anything confirming that.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#787

Post by bastardoperator »

0xEFF wrote: post #754
roenxi wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds very reasonable up until attempting to identify what, objectively, is the bar to set business policy. Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." was the straw that broke the camels back [0]. That isn't an objective bar. Context which "everyone knows" is a political question - a highly political question. If AWS happens to have a s…

> Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." was the straw that broke the camels back [0]. That isn't an objective bar. When President Trump published this tweet, he knew full well extremists are actively planning to attack the inauguration on January 20th. There isn't a clear, objective bar in this kind of situation. Jack Dorsey, Tim Cook,…

The people voted to remove Donald Trump from office and he wouldn't and still does not accept it coupled with his calls to violent action. If he's willing to drag the entire country I can only imagine what he would try to do to a company that defied him, Trump is an abuser. While any of these companies could have taken action, I understand to some extent why they did not. It doesn't make it right, doesn't mean I condone their lack of response, but I can see why a company did not go heads up with this person and waited for the appropriate time to take action.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#788

Post by sli »

ncallaway wrote: post #767
roenxi wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds very reasonable up until attempting to identify what, objectively, is the bar to set business policy. Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." was the straw that broke the camels back [0]. That isn't an objective bar. Context which "everyone knows" is a political question - a highly political question. If AWS happens to have a s…

> Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th. Well, no, they didn't claim that. They claimed the two tweets, taken together, were the straw that broke the camel's back. And, yes, I think you could reasonably make the claim that the tweets were innocuous if you throw out the context of the President inciting a violent insurrection on Congress.…

> taken together

Taken together primarily, along with numerous other tweets in secondary. It wasn't just those two.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#789

Post by cphoover »

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…

> specifically targeted at those people for this to happen.

was it though? Wasn't it just a twitter without censorship?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#790

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN