31–40 of 53 posts
“Right to exist” talk sounds like socialism. It’s a free market. Find someone who wants to host your app. Pay them. There is no problem.
I think as a whole we need to agree that things are black and white and in fact grey. This, healthcare, and other topics are much more nuanced than pointing fingers at one side or the other.
“Right to exist” talk sounds like socialism. It’s a free market. Find someone who wants to host your app. Pay them. There is no problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate speech is actually protected speech under the 1st Amendment, meaning you have every right as a US citizen to speak and publish hate. True threats, on the other hand, do not have the benefit of 1st Amendment protection. Then again, Parler claims that such speech is removed via moderation. Do we have evidence that Parler has chosen not to moderate such speech?
Parler has to find a private company willing to accept money to build and maintain a soapbox for you to speak that hate from. AWS is not obligated to that. The speech is free, the soapbox is not (unless it is not privately owned). "Do we have evidence" - seems the answer is "yes", have you read the AWS letter?
> Over the past several weeks, we’ve reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence.
> ...
> This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah yeah everyone is a facist and nazi. We get it. Yawn.
Nah just Trump. He also managed to ruin the lives of many people who believed his crap while he ran away to hide. Typical fascist.
Parler most certainly does have a right to exist. And companies have a right to not associate with a platform that incites violence and foments activity against the very constitution it appeals to.
You can be sure that any companies that host user-published content today are looking closely at the response to Parler, and are probably accelerating plans to get off of AWS. What happens when the Eye of Sauron turns to you and declares that you don't do enough to moderate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate speech is actually protected speech under the 1st Amendment, meaning you have every right as a US citizen to speak and publish hate. True threats, on the other hand, do not have the benefit of 1st Amendment protection. Then again, Parler claims that such speech is removed via moderation. Do we have evidence that Parler has chosen not to moderate such speech?
Parler has to find a private company willing to accept money to build and maintain a soapbox for you to speak that hate from. AWS is not obligated to that. The speech is free, the soapbox is not (unless it is not privately owned). "Do we have evidence" - seems the answer is "yes", have you read the AWS letter?
These companies have simply exercised their own rights. There could be an argument about monopolies, or their rights to censorship, but to say this is about 1st Amendment rights is rather distracting.
I can't agree that it has a right to exist but absolutely people who want it to exist have the right to work to make that happen. Just as others have the right not to participate.
They have the right to speak hate, of course. But no private company is obligated help build the soapbox to shout it from.
Especially good if I can know who they are so to avoid giving them my custom.
> Can Ethereum Help? Of course not. No amount of blockchain magic can obviate the need for physical infrastructure to host a large web service. (No, "it'll be distributed" or "it'll be on the blockchain" aren't viable solutions.)
I'm not an Ethereum expert, but I don't think it's typical blockchain stuff. TBH I find Ethereum extremely confusing, but it seems to bill itself more as "distributed compute units" instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> plots of murder for example Parler claims to moderate such illegal speech. I'm curious if anyone here has evidence that, when brought to moderator's attention, Parler has opted not to delete such content?
Correct.