601–610 of 984 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enterprise customers, of signficant volume, do indeed get custom agreements. (Or at least, they used to be able to do so.)
Are the terms confidential. Can customers "compare notes" to see if they are getting less favourable terms than others.
I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn, but there seems to be a spectrum ranging from "private property" on one side and "utility" on the other. Where property owners can decide what their property is used for, and utilities are "common carriers". In this spectrum, Twitter seems more towards private property, while AWS seems more.like a utility. The law hasn't caught up to addressing the changes of the l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an obviously impossible burden to load on someone, and I think you know that. If democracy is legitimately lost in America, it will happen via a series of events that we today cannot conceive of. It is more useful to think events like the Capitol incident as causing long-lasting damage to democracy, and there is a non-negligible possibility that societal schisms will widen, as opposed to heal. What that will…
This guy is a master troll, check his comment history. That's his whole shtick, and then he'll respond with wall-after-wall of text.
If I am so dumb, and you are so smart, why do you never humiliate me?
Or, you could even embarrass me right now, at least for fun. Go find our last interaction, and post a link to it right here underneath my comment. I have nothing to hide whatsoever, if I was a dummy in our past interactions, then link to it so others can see for their own eyes what sort of a "master troll" idiot they're dealing with.
Or if you won't do it, I will encourage third party readers myself. Click my username, go read some of my "wall-after-walls of text". Get a feel for "my whole shtick". Judge for yourself if what I actually say matches this characterization. Judge for yourself whether asking pointed questions that logically test the childish rhetoric and hyperbolic claims that are becoming an ever larger percentage of the discussion on culture war topics is "a shtick". Judge for yourself whether it makes sense that accuracy and sound logic are considered mandatory for technical threads, but when the topic of discussion is regarding matters like democracy (a sacred institution), then these things are not only not mandatory, but downvoted and outright mocked. A computer program won't run as desired on ambiguity and imprecision, so why do we expect an entire country will?
By my estimation, the culture of this website, like that of the country, is going downhill. People seem to be no longer able to speak truthfully, and they certainly won't talk about the abstract notion of truthful speech, something that philosophers have debated very seriously for ages. But here in 2021, on Hacker News, it's like it's become some sort of a taboo.
There aren't many people like me around here, but I'm not the only one. You can downvote me and shame me all you want, but to get me to shut up about this apparently uncomfortable topic of The Truth, in high dimensions, you will have to get dang to ban me. Go ahead - push the report button on me. I suspect that day will come eventually, so might as well get it over with.
I gotta say, recent events have left me shaken to my core. I thought I believed in free speech, to the point where I started a company dedicated to providing privacy and communications products that were not subject to control by any central authority (that turns out to be very hard!) But watching the events of the past few years unfold I am no longer convinced that this would really make the world a better place. I…
Fascists on the left and right want you to doubt this.
What we saw on Capitol Hill was vile and atrocious, but it was a bunch of uneducated hillbillies that have been indoctrinated. They might have been afforded the chance to invade by Trump insiders, but they would never have toppled our government. In reality, they stood zero chance of threatening our democracy.
Big media and big tech are using this to show you that it's okay if they deplatform and take free speech away. Don't trust it. This is the real threat to democracy. Shutting off dissent. Promulgating only allowed thoughts. Cancelling.
The best way to reach these people and talk them down is by addressing them in a non-violent manner and meeting their needs. The boom years are over, and our economy only works for the top earners. Everyone is unhappy. Left, right, north, south, urban, rural. We are under attack from foreign and domestic powers seeking to divide and polarize the electorate and take advantage of it. The chaos makes it easy for them to distract and compel.
The fix is the hard path. Addressing systemic inequalities, reaching across the aisle, addressing income disparities, and educating our nation's children.
Free speech is one of the things that makes our nation great. Not because it permits hate, but in spite of it. Because it enables love.
I dislike Parler as much as you do, but what's happening right now should shake you to the very core.
I've been on the Internet since before it had pictures. Hosts have always had this power. It's not new. It's not free speech. You pay for a service, you adhere to their rules. You break their rules, you get booted. This argument is a dog whistle defense of terrorism.
Not according to a growing number of EU leaders. If you think the internet from the 90s compares like anything we have today, you are wrong. FB is actively being used to plan genocide in Myanmar, when will Apple ban them?
Perhaps lead a vocal protest against Facebook, spread it far enough, and if it gains enough traction maybe Facebook themselves will do it. They could do it at any point and be well within their rights. Same with Apple.
I think that the overarching issue that many are missing is that our corporations are acting as our representative bodies -- we're speaking with our money as consumers -- because our political bodies are corrupt and no longer representing us directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to play the Devil's advocate here: Now, Amazon had given notice to Parler that they want some moderation that is automated... What are the specs for that? What would satisfy Amazon? Can it be delivered within that timeframe setting aside whatever else is going on? These are real concerns for a company going forward. I guess many do not state because of the political ramifications of this particular case, but it…
> Now, Amazon had given notice to Parler that they want some moderation that is automated... What are the specs for that? What would satisfy Amazon? Can it be delivered within that timeframe setting aside whatever else is going on? What makes you think Parler is interested in complying with the terms of the contract at all? The only benefit of Parler over Twitter or Facebook is the fact that you can say things which…
Suppose someone posts a recipe for making marijuana brownies.
Will you moderate that post?
If you did not moderate that post, does Amazon AWS have a right to terminate your account for allowing your users to promote illegal behavior?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim is falsifiable. Yours isnt, but may be true.
> Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that he called on people to storm the capitol. Doing so with coded language where his audience would understand his true meaning while he could maintain superficial deniability if the uprising failed would still be such a call.
If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will hold them to that standard.
I gotta say, recent events have left me shaken to my core. I thought I believed in free speech, to the point where I started a company dedicated to providing privacy and communications products that were not subject to control by any central authority (that turns out to be very hard!) But watching the events of the past few years unfold I am no longer convinced that this would really make the world a better place. I…
For WW1, it was clear to at least some involved that the war was the twins of extreme nationalism and imperialism coming home to roost. We judge these factors very harshly in hindsight because of the devastation WW1 caused. For the Cold War, we avoided complete nuclear Armageddon in the Cuban Missile Crisis only because of a few sets of steady hands. Since WW3 didn't happen, I think we judge the root social issues of the Cold War less harshly. Both situations were obvious powder kegs to their particapants, but one was lit and the other was not.
I think it is clear that our present age's powder keg is being filled by the near cost-free and instantaneous point-to-point communication enabled by the Internet. The ratcheting societal polarization, erosion of trust in traditional sources of authority and institutions, and the metastasizing of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are all products of self-reinforcing filter-bubbles and people becoming untethered to their real life communities. Like with the Cold War, we may get lucky, but like WW1 we also may not. Should we abandon the ideal of free speech to try and mitigate a future major crisis? Or will we make it out the other side as circumstances change?
Sorry, no takeaway from me, but I think that's the situation were in. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, but that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that he called on people to storm the capitol. Doing so with coded language where his audience would understand his true meaning while he could maintain superficial deniability if the uprising failed would still be such a call.
There is a difference between saying it was a call, and saying you believe it was a call. There is evidence to the contrary, so we at best cannot be sure without some kind of due process. People are free to believe what they want, of course. If someone is going to claim they are not trumpeting a narrative and are making fact based claims, and not opinions based on their interpretation of words and events, then I will…
No, there isn’t. Like, literally, the utterance “X is true” cannot mean anything other than “I believe that X is true and believe that belief to be justified”. All statements are statements of belief, and all fact claims are based on interpretation of events (and the utterance of words are, themselves, events.)