531–540 of 640 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not know if it was the original intention of the founders, but you can't ignore that the people who are/were funding it are influential far-right figures.
When you say "far-right" I think you mean "moderate conservative."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes probably. Wherever it is, that provider is in an interesting legal position by holding this data. Also, I assume there is content from EU citizens in there, and so GDPR violations galore.
So people post it on Parlor themselves, it is publicly available, but it would be illegal to download for me? That does not make much sense.
The GDPR talks about "data controllers", and citizens have the right to demand such controller remove their personal data. A "data controller" in this context means you knowingly possess the data and are in the position to make decisions about it. You're not a data controller, tho, if e.g. you run some service that allows users to upload data, without your involvement and direction and also do not decide how to use such data. E.g. amazon would not be liable if people put a data dumb in their cloud (unless amazon used the data themselves, instead of just storing/hosting the data at the behest of their customers).
Even before the GDPR there have been related laws and court cases, like the case that culminated in the "right to be forgotten" based on a decision by the European Court of Justice, which may well come into play here. I also remember a case in Germany, where a women allowed her partner to take intimate pictures of her, then after the relationship ended had a court order him to destroy the material (not a revenge porn case, there was no allegation he ever shared any of those pictures), meaning it's not always about what's public.
I don't know how California's mini-GDPR compares.
Then of course there is still the avenue of copyright law if the stuff is put online. Just because a parler user gave parler the permission to distribute a certain piece of content doesn't mean that everybody else has the same permission. I'm pretty sure Parler didn't make people assign them the copyright (which isn't even possible in some jurisdictions), therefore the people who posted on parler still retain the rights to their content. They can therefore use the DMCA or other similar jurisdictions around the world to demand takedowns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what you’re doing. At the scale $EMPLOYER works at, AWS built in services are key. Things like DynamoDB global tables are extremely hard to run on your own, and things similar to AuroraDB and Kinesis can be run on your own but they take up a lot of personnel hours better spent focusing on product. We could probably eliminate those services and self-run, but it would be an extremely unwise usage of company…
> We could probably eliminate those services and self-run, but it would be an extremely unwise usage of company time and money. Unless $EMPLOYER was Parler ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a note here, it wasn't Twilio. It was a free trial of Okta that they were using for their entire userbase. https://twitter.com/okta/status/1348191370528256002?ref_src=...
How cheap can you be to run your whole site on a trial and fail open if it doesn't work anymore?
Unpopular opinion: it is not bad, it is just normal average modern startup attitude. Let's put everything into cloud, use Spanner or Aurora for data, Firebase for user mgmt, throw together bunch of lambdas and voila, we are in business. And I am not being judgemental, because this approach is working 95 times of 100, and most of startups are dying anyway before they hit the wall of vendor lock.
Either way, I think it's for the best that they are technically inept.
Also embarrassing: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vqew/the-hacker-who-archiv... > donk_enby had originally intended to grab data only from the day of the Capitol takeover, but found that the poor construction and security of Parler allowed her to capture, essentially, the entire website. That ended up being 56.7 terabytes of data, which included every public post on Parler, 412 million files in all—including 150 m…
Someone put together an animated heatmap of Parler photo locations along the Mall throughout the day of 1/6: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/kvx88n/oc_...
Showing that people posted videos from the rally at the Monument and then went to the front of the Capitol buildings. Note that many on site participants reported there was no cell or data service at the Capital, so they were not coordinating with Parler, just reporting.
The heat map might generate hypothesis but conclusions that Parler users or demonstrators as a whole did anything other than asserting rights under the 1st amendment do not necessarily follow from the data[1].
[1]https://gist.github.com/kylemcdonald/8fdabd6526924012c1f5afe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your home is not infrastructure. Internet service, banking and online payments are infrastructure just like water, gas and electricity and companies shouldn't have the right to cut you off on ideological grounds or because your spew out so called hate speech. Note I said internet service not a subscription to a social media service. Your internet provider may decline to provide you with email, hell the may even decli…
On the other hand, there are a thousand different cloud providers; surely at least one would have taken Parler on as a customer. And even failing that, it’s much easier for Parler to run their own servers than it is for me to run my own power plant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absolutely a fair position to take. But you have to realize that it's moving the goalposts from your original one, which was that anything short of free speech absolutism is "censorship". Discussions like this are frustrating, because one side frames it as though they're defending free speech from the insidious censors — except it's painfully obvious that if you push them enough, they'll admit that yes, there…
Absolutist free speech is the _ideal_, but we don't live in an ideal world. There are bad people. That said, unilateral one-sided censorship is not okay. It's like Red Scare Hollywood. My point a few rungs up was that there are many other forms of expression that are notoriously violent and misogynistic but don't get flagged by these same companies. I'm not saying I want that but I'm pointing out insistencies. Doxxin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AWS can really sting you. I've completely stopped using it for private projects after receiving a $100 bill for something I accidentally provisioned through the command line. Not only is it very easy to spend real money by accident, the web interface makes it incredibly hard to work out what you're spending money on (it took me a long time to even understand what I was paying for, and then longer still to turn it all…
The first thing I do at companies I join is dig through common services and tag all resources in a consistent way(ie. app=web-frontend). Then you can create resource groups and breakdown billing at an ‘application level’ through cost explorer, instead of relying on their default, very general filters. Not perfect, but it gets you 90% of the way towards understanding where your costs are.
It amazes me when I get pushback for that, but it's to be expected inside toxic culture corporations. I'm kinda disgusted with AWS now so I'm looking to re-tool. The dangerous defaults and concern about arbitrary or uncaring TOU enforcement should be an impetus to diversification of service provision.