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

Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 984 posts

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#81

Post by Nursie »

jennyyang wrote: post #76
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do when people simply want to spew emotional tirades and mindlessly copy memes, and won't argue in good or any faith? What is that worth really?

That's their right to spew whatever they want. Just because it's worthless doesn't mean we should stop it. I personally think every single conversation in Twitter is absolutely worthless, maybe even has negative value. Does that give me the right to shut down Twitter? No. I value free speech so if people want to waste their time spewing nonsense, that is their right.

No, it's twitter's right to carry it or not. AFAICT there's no right to tweet.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#82

Post by MikeUt »

inerte wrote: post #77
MikeUt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consider that someone with millions of followers is basically planning acts of violence with a retweet So by your standard, would https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330 count as planning acts of violence, or would he need more followers first, since he's not at "millions" yet?

Oh my god! You got me, bro! You’re so smart.

Let me be more direct - how do you think these powers of restriction on "influencing people" you want, will be used by an administration you don't want? Do you think there might be some foreign countries where such powers are already in place, that could give us a clue how things might turn out, or is America too much of a unique exception to be able to learn from anyone else's experience?

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#83

Post by mschuster91 »

mrstone wrote: post #67
mschuster91 wrote: post #26

I call bollocks on this. Everyone whose business goes against the terms of service of the major three cloud providers (in the case of Parler, serving as a platform for calls to violence and sedition, which are criminal offenses ) still has the freedom to go to any of the literally hundreds of "bullet-proof hosting" providers, to rent rack space and a fiber uplink somewhere and to place one's own bare metal hardware t…

I completely agree with this - why is freedom of speech even coming up? You couldn't say this stuff in real life on a street corner, why should it be protected online?

> why is freedom of speech even coming up?

The wider context of the debate is the thing, IMO. Prior to the Internet, exchange of opinions used to be locally restricted - now with the Internet, we have a couple of clashes.

The most obvious is that the US model of "free speech" is almost absolute, whereas European societies believe that some forms of speech (esp. calls to violence, Holocaust denial, Nazi imagery) should be banned to protect society and its minorities from the worst. I'm German, given the history of what my ancestors did I'm firmly on the latter camp.

The second one, related to that, is that social networks are, for about the first time in human history, truly global, and it's not in the clear at all who should / could claim legal authority over what happens there. When a person denies the Holocaust, Twitter can ban them, they can refuse to do anything or they can place a German-wide ban (per the NetzDG law). On the other side, when a German woman posts a photo of herself topless on Facebook, that is perfectly fine by German law but risks heavy fines for Facebook in the US, so Facebook errs on deleting stuff.

And the third and final clash is STBX President Trump: should a private company have the power to take away the capability of a sitting US president to communicate efficiently with his citizens? Should a President (or any other political figure) be allowed to "govern by Tweet" in the first place? Is a call for violence, even for genocide (Iran's Khamenei comes to mind), acceptable simply because its caller is a government leader?

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#84

Post by BlackPlot »

api wrote: post #2

If I were running something likely to be deplatformed, I would never consider anything but a multi-cloud solution where no single provider is a single point of failure. It's not that hard to do.

Exactly, it's crucial using multi-clouds because you never know when you will breach any clause of ToS. It's not so difficult to manage multiclouds with management tools as Anthos, Azure Arc, of course I would suggest independent like Openshift or CAST AI which pros would be one cluster

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#85

Post by MrPatan »

inerte wrote: post #77
MikeUt wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consider that someone with millions of followers is basically planning acts of violence with a retweet So by your standard, would https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330 count as planning acts of violence, or would he need more followers first, since he's not at "millions" yet?

Oh my god! You got me, bro! You’re so smart.

But which one is it? I'm not smart, I'd like you to spell it out.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#86

Post by lisper »

ipsocannibal wrote: post #79
lisper wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The right to bare [sic] arms doesn't mean we give everyone an M60. Actually, most second amendment advocates believe that this is exactly what it means. They think that the whole point of the second amendment is to empower people to resist the government by physical force.

And they are wrong as evidenced by many Supreme Court rulings. Find any point of view and I'll find a group of people that take that view to an untenable extreme. The only reason they have that view is because they live in a world where its not a reality. If it were those people would likely be dead due to a pandemic of gun violence.

> And they are wrong as evidenced by many Supreme Court rulings.

Right. Because the Supreme Court never makes a mistake, never reverses itself, and is completely immune to political influence.

If your best argument for being optimistic about the future of civilization is the Supreme Court then you've just made my point for me.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#87

Post by sleepysysadmin »

mrstone wrote: post #67
mschuster91 wrote: post #26

I call bollocks on this. Everyone whose business goes against the terms of service of the major three cloud providers (in the case of Parler, serving as a platform for calls to violence and sedition, which are criminal offenses ) still has the freedom to go to any of the literally hundreds of "bullet-proof hosting" providers, to rent rack space and a fiber uplink somewhere and to place one's own bare metal hardware t…

I completely agree with this - why is freedom of speech even coming up? You couldn't say this stuff in real life on a street corner, why should it be protected online?

>I completely agree with this - why is freedom of speech even coming up? You couldn't say this stuff in real life on a street corner, why should it be protected online?

Because the platform was not 100% about violence.

Do you think it would be impossible to find threats of violence on twitter? How many twitter accounts say "kill trump" as their name? https://twitter.com/kill_trump_rn

Finding examples of threats of violence is not difficult regardless of platform.

If deplatforming only requires finding say 100 cases of inciting violence. Which is all Amazon ever found. Then to silence your political opponents requires nothing more than getting on their platform together to threaten violence. Your political opponents become silenced and must find a new platform. Rinse repeat.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#88

Post by ipsocannibal »

jennyyang wrote: post #76
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do when people simply want to spew emotional tirades and mindlessly copy memes, and won't argue in good or any faith? What is that worth really?

That's their right to spew whatever they want. Just because it's worthless doesn't mean we should stop it. I personally think every single conversation in Twitter is absolutely worthless, maybe even has negative value. Does that give me the right to shut down Twitter? No. I value free speech so if people want to waste their time spewing nonsense, that is their right.

I think this point of view neglects the emergent properties of a society where millions of people can spew nonsense all at once, at the speed of light, using AI assisted audience targeting. Crackpots and liars have existed since the beginning of time but never before has a technology been designed to so readily amplify and reenforce their nonsense. Never before has a technology been so adept at hiding from you that the speaker is a crackpot or liar.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#89

Post by voodootrucker »

Pilfer wrote: post #71
voodootrucker wrote: post #65

Wow, why did this fall off the front page? There's no way it wasn't being upvoted sufficiently watching the flurry of initial comments... Was this discussion blocked? And if so, is there a particular policy it violated? This discussion seems extremely important right now. @dang can you elaborate?

Looks like it triggered the flamewar detector. This usually happens if a post has more comments than votes, and the post did not reach the minimum threshold (40 points).

Thanks, I never realized that existed.

Re: Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers

#90

Post by ogre_codes »

zarkov99 wrote: post #80
ogre_codes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parler has hosted content no worse than Twitter or Facebook or thousands of other sites. Nonsense. Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook were moderating content. If Twitter and Facebook hadn't been moderating hate speech, Parler would not exist. Posting voices and content which is banned on Twitter and Facebook is the single unique "Feature" of Parler. Over the months, Amazon has been in contact with Parl…

I think you are mis-informed here, or perhaps your definition of hate speech is different from mine. Parler was created because there was a perception that the moderation at Twitter was heavily slanted against conservatives. Many respectable people joined Parler, though, again perhaps we have different definitions of respectable. Parler has a moderation mechanism which is manual, not automatic as in Twitter, and like…

> I think you are mis-informed here, or perhaps your definition of hate speech is different from mine.

My issues with Parler are pretty much in line with what Amazon lays out in their court filing against Parler.

> "This case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety," Amazon wrote, "such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."

https://deadline.com/2021/01/amazon-court-filing-parler-for-...

Maybe you think "inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination..." is an Ok sort of thing for public discourse. That kind of speech is banned here on HN, and as I suggested, nearly every other public discussion group.

Post reply on HN