Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 640 posts

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#351

Post by cblconfederate »

aabhay wrote: post #173
WClayFerguson wrote: post #168

I've been telling developers for years if you build your infrastructure on top of tons of 3rd party services like Google Cloud or AWS then you basically don't own it, and can be shut down any day, against your will. Web companies should build on "Linux" only, as their base platform, so they own everything above that. I was a fan of Parler but building on AWS was a huge mistake, and they should have realized they were…

It is increasingly, vanishingly hard to not use the big three cloud services. Mainly because any platform or tool you might use is _also_ hosted on these clouds.

that logic is a vicious cycle

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#352

Post by rendall »

mschuster91 wrote: post #332
rendall wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down" I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with?

> but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? Parler had people discussing murdering Congresspeople and didn't do anything about it. No matter which faction of "what level of free speech is acceptable" one subscribes, this is never acceptable and it is no wonder that Parler got booted off.

> this is never acceptable

I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehensible; and beliefs that you hold dear will someday, by someone, be seen as unacceptable and reprehensible. To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand.

David Goldberger didn't defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie because he is a Nazi, but to defend his (and all of our) rights.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...

The people who planned actual murders and crimes must be caught and punished. But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#353

Post by kennywinker »

rendall wrote: post #343
kennywinker wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can express opinions all you want, but you’re going to have to do a lot of work in order to justify compelling someone to do business with you after you say something they don’t like. Like, amazon isn’t actually the basic infrastructure of the internet. You can build web sites and apps without involving them. So why would a law force them to do business with you?

I didn't say anything about "forcing Amazon to do business" with me. If that's your solution, it's a non-starter. I don't have a solution, but Amazon + Apple + Google coordinating to shut down a platform for communication - even a platform that contains expression that I strongly disagree with, I might add - is a problem that requires a solution This is what I wish more people understood now rather than later, but at…

If you come up with a good solution, let us know. Until then, I’m happy to support antitrust action against apple/google/amazon/facebook - but for more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists attempting to overthrow a fair and free election.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#354

Post by vizual »

joecot wrote: post #25
jakear wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just use a web app? I don’t have the Twitter app installed because the web app does everything I need.

They have a Progressive Web App, which should be able to be loaded up and a home screen shortcut just like any app would. But it's not straight forward for Android (Parler users were trying to explain how to do it to each other with hilarious results), and I believe on Apple it can't be done. There have been called for regulating how Apple and Google protect their app stores after Parler was pulled, but I don't think…

> They don't want to, because it draws from their app store revenue.

One word: Regulation. Easy to regulate Big Tech through laws. But incoming administration in US isn't going to take it seriously given that Big Tech did exactly what they wanted.

But they can be easily tamed if other countries do it. If European Union, UK and India regulate Big Tech their dominance is over. They don't have any presence in China anyways. US is no longer that hot a market for online and ecommerce (even though monetarily US dominates as of now but that won't be the case the next decade).

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#355

Post by toyg »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #128
userbinator wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dates were represented as strings in "YYYYMMDD" format (so today would be "20210113053923") instead of UNIX timestamps Such a representation naturally avoids the Y2K38 problem, and could go beyond Y10K. It's traditional in Windows and DOS (neither of which have the Y2K38 problem) to store timestamps as a structure of fields. The other things you noted I agree with, however.

If they're using a javascript 53bit int representation for the seconds (or an int64_t cast down to a javascript big int) then it's a Y142711K problem, by which point the Imperium of Mankind will hopefully have settled on a more robust format.

I expect Slaanesh and friends will manage to sabotage that somehow.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#356

Post by sha1337 »

f430 wrote: post #244
freebuju wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no honor as a person and as an employee. And even worse, terrible problem solving skills. Did it occur to you the people you thought your fisting could have just replicated the same abuse elsewhere? Why not officially report them so they could have been on the book for these transgressions industry-wide? How was not quitting the shitty job on top of your list here?

are you kidding me? Do you think we have rule of law in Canada? Our laws are a joke compared to United States. Who the hell am I going to report to exactly? Who will take it seriously?

You are right. The law is a joke. Pornhub had videos of teenagers getting raped for months and never took them down until they got back-lashed by social media for it. Is Pornhub still up? Yup. Has anyone been punished for hosting this stuff? Nope. The only way to bring down companies like these without waiting for a grand societal paradigm-shift is to act outside the law unfortunately, because people don't care enough, that's just the sad reality.

I'm willing to bet that most of the people that are criticizing you for wanting to date an 18 yo have probably pumped and dumped many girls in their lives themselves. They probably consume porn as well and might have accidentally fapped to rape footage, who knows.

I think you're by no means a saint, but they're certainly not better than you. And expressions such as "thauts illigul" don't really say anything about the moral value of your actions.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#357

Post by berkes »

foepys wrote: post #286
bawolff wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im more curious how someone pulls down 56 terabytes in a very short period of time without sysadmins at parler noticing. I'm surprised they didn't unintentionally DoS them.

Parler used AWS and AWS is always happy to serve any request without problems and notify you about it hours later if you decided to create usage alerts.

> and notify you about it hours later if you decided to create usage alerts

and bill you at the end of the month.

This is the crucial part: AWS will serve whatever is request. It brings them money.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#358

Post by Codazoa »

wang_li wrote: post #258
stevesarmpit wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Speech isn't a thing that applies to Internet companies, only the government and how they must deal with people who wish to speak in public forums. Internet providers and services aren't "public forums" given their infrastructure is not a public space, but a private space they control. Whether or not someone thinks these services are "censoring" things or not isn't a real argument, again for the reason it must b…

Free speech is a cultural value and a philosophy it, can apply to anyone and everyone. The first amendment of the US constitution protects the people from politicians and bureaucrats. Just because it’s done by a private party doesn’t mean it’s not censorship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4t6zNZ-b0A

So does that mean if I am hosting a dinner at my home on my own private property and someone starts spewing hate at people I have to let him because it's his free speech? No, I'm kicking that asshole off my property and banning him from returning.

It's the same for these tech companies. They are private companies and if you break their ToS for inciting violence or posting illegal shit then they have the right to ban you. You have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#359

Post by rendall »

kennywinker wrote: post #353
rendall wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about "forcing Amazon to do business" with me. If that's your solution, it's a non-starter. I don't have a solution, but Amazon + Apple + Google coordinating to shut down a platform for communication - even a platform that contains expression that I strongly disagree with, I might add - is a problem that requires a solution This is what I wish more people understood now rather than later, but at…

If you come up with a good solution, let us know. Until then, I’m happy to support antitrust action against apple/google/amazon/facebook - but for more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists attempting to overthrow a fair and free election.

> more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists

Hint: it's the identical problem to deplatforming BLM or Antifa or Occupy or the Proud Boys or pick anyone you agree with that annoys powerful people. "Having the better politics" will not protect you. "Oh they're just fascists" will not protect your peoples.

Re: Pirate Bay founder thinks Parler’s inability to stay online is 'embarrassing'

#360

Post by mschuster91 »

rendall wrote: post #352
mschuster91 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? Parler had people discussing murdering Congresspeople and didn't do anything about it. No matter which faction of "what level of free speech is acceptable" one subscribes, this is never acceptable and it is no wonder that Parler got booted off.

> this is never acceptable I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehensible; and beliefs that you hold dear will someday, by someone, be seen as unacceptable and reprehensible. To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. David Goldberger didn't defend the ri…

> To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand.

Actually, even in the US there are exceptions - namedly when speech is likely to incite crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Post reply on HN