Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers • Hacker News Board

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

#631

Post by apple_innocent » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:48 AM UTC

georgyo wrote: post #601

apple_innocent wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the terms confidential. Can customers "compare notes" to see if they are getting less favourable terms than others.

They all include a NDA about the agreement itself. So yes, the terms are confidential. Even the fact that a particular that you may or may not have an agreement at all is confidential.

Are the terms of the NDA confidential.

With respect to the fact of the existence of an agreement being confidential information, usually an NDA will only apply to information that has not already become public through no fault of either party.

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

#632

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:50 AM UTC

stolen_biscuit wrote: post #330

A portion of your citizens were called to storm your nations capital by a President who refuses to accept the results of a democratic election. The very foundation of your democracy has been eroded. Do not pretend the people who are frightened of these actions are overreacting. Democracy is a fragile thing, and you have a portion of your population who attempted to take a hammer to it. Don't pretend this is a narrati…

They are trolling. Downvote and move on.

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

#633

Post by XorNot » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:50 AM UTC

zanmat0 wrote: post #572

sdenton4 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First: Perhaps you'd be willing to agree that this was an explicit attempt at a soft coup: The explicit goal was to disrupt congressional proceedings as part of a plan to overturn election results. Second: As others have observed, we got extremely lucky that the rioters didn't actually come in contact with any congress-people or the vice president. What do you think would have happened if, say the crowd has come in c…

>The explicit goal was to disrupt congressional proceedings as part of a plan to overturn election results. And then what? Once the mob was cleared out, they would have resumed. There's a chasm between disrupting proceedings and actually taking over a country. The latter also almost always involved having control of the military by the way.

If Donald Trump wasn't a pathetic coward, then the US was somewhere between 1 and 15 minutes away from a civil war on January 6.

It might've been a short civil war, but if Trump had gone out and marched with the protesters like they thought he would and told them to stay in the Capitol building, you would've immediately created a situation where government business is suspended and the commander in chief is at direct odds with the military's constitutional obligations.

There was, and has been, a soft coup ongoing since that day, since the president at the time refused to issue any direction to the military and situation only started to be resolved when Pence took defacto command of the executive without invoking the 25th amendment. That process has been ongoing since then.

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

#634

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:51 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #595

rayiner wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?

How about that one side stops peddling conspiracy theories and following every idiot that promises them what they want to hear in terms of gun rights, abortion and immigration. Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people. When one side consistently treats politics like winner-takes-all and lies out of their asses to get to power and to stay in power then the burden to compromise would be on them.

So the answer is, you want to win rather than heal political schisms. Which is a perfectly fine answer! But that's the approach the other side has taken also, and well here we are.

Politics isn't about rationality or facts or what one side thinks is "reasonable." Nobody approaches the Israel/Palestine conflict by asking "well who has the more rational argument here?" That would be silly. Politics is about power, and appeasing (or not) different factions.

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

#635

Post by rodgerd » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

thayne wrote: post #351

lisper wrote: post #11

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…

Consider this hypothetical: what if Trump had won and Biden supporters stormed the white house, and had organized using a primarily left-leaning social network. Would AWS and others, have responded the same way? My guess is no. That isn't to say that they wouldn't do anything, but I doubt the social network would be completely shut down with so little notice.

You wrote "hypothetical" but what you presented was an evidence-free strawman.

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

#636

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #540

rayiner wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m trying to figure out if anyone actually want to heal societal schisms? And the measure of that is what folks are willing to compromise on?

I don't agree. Healing societal schisms is about reestablishing a vision of politics where you argue by saying "here's why this is the best policy" or "here's why this is the most ethical policy", rather than "my movement is very strong and you'd better not get in our way". Making compromises is an important part of effective governance, but it won't by itself heal anything.

That sort of governance is a luxury for societies that have strong cultural ties and social bonds.

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

#637

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #556

throwaway894345 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't believe this needs to be said, but the fact it failed doesn't mean the danger wasn't real. The danger is unreal not because it failed, but because it was obviously going to fail. We're talking about a bunch of delusional LARPers. If some foreign intelligence unit tries and fails to overthrow your country's government, that's insurrection. If it's the doofus who stole the podium or the guy with face paint an…

> The danger is unreal not because it failed, but because it was obviously going to fail They came very close to having members in the hands of the mob; I think you very much overestimate what was required for this to succeed. Even if the mob itself was disavowed, simply getting a presiding officer more that would be more sympathetic to the President’s interests int he circumstances (which probably would have taken a…

It is making me very disappointed that all the good comments in this thread are downvoted and all the bad ones upvoted. Looking like end times for this community, to me. I don't want to participate in a community with a bunch of insurrection apologists.

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

#638

Post by ganoushoreilly » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:54 AM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #618

ganoushoreilly wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and it's fucking stupid they didn't have appropriate security given the nature of the day. The insurrection didn't start on that day. If the label is being applied, it started when police were assaulted, innocents were maimed and murdered, mass scale breakdowns of security and control were in play, and collectives attempted things as extraneous as declaring parts of the United States an Autonomous zone, a clear…

Fucking stupid? It seems at this point to be quite likely deliberate. Multiple requests for aid were refused, or ignored. The security at the Capitol was half the size as it was when a group of army veterans marched for disabled vets rights a few years ago. That's not fucking stupid, that's an entirely deliberate and reasoned choice.

That is the million dollar question. Why were there so few police present? (so far I've read that Congress didn't want the optics of armed guards). Why weren't more barricades up? There are a dozen plus failures here, throughout many offices.

Conspiracy theorists would say it was less security to allow for chaos, which in turn gives further justification to pushing legislation / controls that take away freedoms.

All of us will say that it's horrible and just like the rioters, looters, murderers and general agents of chaos of the past year, they made a deliberate and reasoned choice to be a part of the chaos.

What I don't like is that statement that all protestors were part of the incident. Just as all of the BLM protesters weren't a part of the riots, evidence shows the same is true for those that rallied.

The bottom line is based on votes, the U.S. is clearly split on perspectives and each side sees things in a near opposite viewpoint.

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

#639

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:54 AM UTC

jariel wrote: post #196

caseysoftware wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons You know the buttons/switches/etc to launch missiles (nuclear or not) are not at the Speaker's podium in the House, right? In fact, "taking over the seat of government" here was literally just that.. a physical seat. The US government applies authority in people via roles not via seating position…

"Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance" Sure it was. This is how a 'coup' works - the objective is not to 'take control of the country' by force, but of the political system. If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. Why do you think that Congress reconvened right after the violence and very quickly pushed through the vo…

> If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president.

If it just stopped the count, and Congress took no other relevant action thereafter, the Presidency and Vice Presidency would become vacant at noon on the 20th and Nancy Pelosi, by virtue of her office as Speaker of the House, would succeed to the Presidency.

But supposed the Congress (or a sufficient subset to deny a quorum in either House) were detained, and Grassley and Pelosi were killed. Then, when Trump's term expired, Trump loyalist Mike Pompeo (while cabinet members traditionally submit their resignation at a change in administration, they don't automatically leave office) would be next in line of succession with vacancies in the Speaker and President Pro Tem positions.

And, more likely the goal, what if Pence were killed (and probably Grassley, too) but then.Senators were released and a President Pro Tem amenable to exercising the arbitrary power Gohmert suggested the presiding officer would have in the electoral vote count were elected, and presided over the vote count as the Vice President was vacant?

(I do think any scenario results in “two Presidents”, I do think several result in “one President (in some cases of dubious legitimacy) who isn't Joe Biden, and (in several scenarios) is either Trump or a Trump loyalist."

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

#640

Post by nitrogen » Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 2:55 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #286

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limiting corporate speech in the name of protecting individual speech seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

Corporations aren't the only ones that advertise. Completely eliminating advertising would restrict speech for both corporations and individuals. Maybe I want to create a charity and am looking to raise awareness for a fundraising event I am having. Maybe my dog ran away and I want to get the word out about a monetary reward I am offering for helping to find them. Maybe I am a touring comedian and I want to advertise…

In all of those cases you can just say what you want to say, you don't need to pay for special treatment to put your message in front of an unwilling audience. Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.