Live data from Hacker News

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

cnbc.com

791–800 of 984 posts

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

#791
post #357

I don’t get all the anti free speech comments here. I rather live in a country with real free speech but no democracy than the reverse. You can’t have democracy without free speech.

You have freedom of speech in the US. You do not have freedom of speech on hacker news. Dang will boot you from this site in a heartbeat if you act a fool. You do not have freedom of speech without consequences at work. The company will send you packing before the end of the day if you try. You don't the the right to access anyones private platform. They can remove you for nearly any reason they want.

[deleted]

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

#792
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…

Free speech had always had limits. Maliciously yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room is an existential threat.

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

#793
post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for starters it's important to recognise that the expectation of a "post-government" career is itself a part of this problem. If we instead built long term competence within public institutions, including competitive remuneration and career development like training programmes, there wouldn't be a need to have a door between the private and public sector quite as much in the first place. The reward should be…

> If we instead built long term competence within public institutions, including competitive remuneration and career development like training programmes, there wouldn't be a need to have a door between the private and public sector quite as much in the first place... That sounds great in theory, but the problem is that many of these leadership roles if not elected directly are nominated by the president and therefor…

> That sounds great in theory, but the problem is that many of these leadership roles if not elected directly are nominated by the president and therefore they are political in nature and those politics can flow down through the organization.

That could be changed though. It's not how it works here in the UK. The ministers in charge of departments are political appointments, but we also have a substantial politically neutral civil service with lots of headroom for career advancement. (politically neutral to the point that you are not allowed to publically express your political opinions - posting them on social media could be a firing offence)

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

#794
post #10

The thing is, you're always going to dependent on someone in the mainstream economic world if you want to have a web presence in North America. Even if you run your own servers, you're at the mercy of your hosting provider, your ISP, your DNS registrar, and even browser level things like Google Safe Browsing. Any of these can be major points of failure. So yeah, not using AWS would avoid being dependent on AWS, but y…

Your last option is a tor hidden service which could only be shut down if the government is against you and even then it can be difficult.

I guess it does make your site inaccessible to regular users though.

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

#795

Here's how I might open a debate with right-leaning people about freedom of speech. If you sell a product, but make false claims about that product, then you are committing fraud. You have harmed someone (financially) with your speech, and contract laws rightly overrule freedom of speech here. So, if you believe in contract law, which is essential for free markets, then you must believe in limitations on speech... th…

Right-wing nut here.

It should only be fraud if you make false claims on the contract. False claims outside any contract shouldn't be considered fraud.

And yes, there can be limitations on freedom (including freedom of speech), but the burden of proof falls on the side arguing for the limitations. And the reason for limiting formal freedom (e.g. freedom to lie on a contract) should always be to increase "freedom" in practice (all the practical and legal arrangements that contract law makes possible).

I don't think there's a good reason for insurrectionist speech to be (legally) banned, because I don't think there's a good reason for any political speech to be banned, as horrible as it may be (nazism, keynesian economics, etc), because all political speech is ultimately violent speech. And banning one strand of political speech is morally the same thing as banning any other.

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

#796

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.

It's interesting that to the question:

> 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?

...you reply:

> 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.

...which involves no compromise on your part.

> Compromise = fact based middle ground between reasonable people.

Let's check...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise

compromise - verb compromised; compromising

1a : to come to agreement by mutual concession

b : to find or follow a way between extremes

see also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concession

> 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.

Perhaps, if this was an accurate description of reality.

But for the sake of discussion, let's say that this characterization is indeed correct - if you could influence Democratic party strategy, and behavior of their followers, would your recommendation be to stick with the same general approach of the last decade, including generous deployment of misleading rhetoric like:

> 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.

(Which also may run afoul of your "[fact based] middle ground between [reasonable people]" statement above.)

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

#797
post #257

That is the most depressing part for me - how easily American society is scared into giving up their freedom ideals. Turns out they don't have to be threatened with overwhelming force. They don't need to be threatened with death, starvation or torture. They don't need to be threatened by economic ruin or untold suffering. No, the richest and most safe civilization ever existed on the face of the planet is ready to gi…

> how easily American society is scared into giving up their freedom ideals. This has always been the great lie behind the American concept of "freedom". At some point, one group's freedom starts to impinge on on another group's freedon, and you have to decide who gets the freedom and who doesnt. Unrestricted freedom for everybody is a fallacy that sounds good on campaign posters but ends up with somebody's freedom b…

Private companies’ freedom to define how their platforms are used should depend on the “private company” growing out of its niche and becoming what’s basically a public utility, a railroad owning one of the very few means of information delivery. Then, I think, different regulations should apply. I don’t know how this is going to be implemented in real life though. We clearly see that Twitter and FAANG have power to shut down such attempts and even more so after entering a mutually beneficial symbiosis with certain political groups. It’s hard to see where this is going.

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

#798

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…

3 years ago a bunch of women with pink pussy hats stormed the Capitol and no one cared.

Don’t pretend people thought the democracy was going to end that day.

It is true that people are easily duped. The problem is that without democracy it is even easier, especially when media giants have similar interests and push the same narrative.

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

#799
post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This did happen, repeatedly, throughout his presidency. There's video evidence, it isn't difficult to find. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-vi...

Every single incident on that page involves a series of "protestors" who were forcibly ejected from a series of 2016 rallies after attempting to disrupt them, and in one case, involves a "protestor" getting removed by the secret service after trying to rush the stage. Snopes is here holding up the president saying he'd punch someone who rushed onto the stage as "encouraging violence at his rallies", which is such a w…

> That is not the same thing, not what we're talking about here, and it is not honest to equate them. People who disrupt rallies absolutely deserve to be removed from those rallies with appropriate force.

But saying that punching a peaceful rally attendee is "very, very appropriate" and the kind of action "we need a little bit more of" is not.

And asking police to be more violent when handling suspects is encouraging violence ("when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice.")

On Greg Gianforte, the Montana Governer who assaulted a reporter ("Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.")

Then he joked about shooting immigrants:

> In his remarks, he asked, “How do you stop these people?” A woman at the rally reportedly yelled “shoot them” in response. Trump then joked, “That’s only in the Panhandle, you can get away with that statement.”

Then there's the pattern of statements by trump that predict violence against the groups the attacks are aimed at:

- Trump calls Covid the "Chinese virus" and plays up its origin to stoke anti-Chinese sentiment. A random Asian family is attacked in a Texas Walmart because they're "infecting people with the coronavirus".

- Trump attacks "the Squad" (congresswomen AOC and co), they see an uptick in racist attacks and threats

- Trump says "Liberate Michigan" and criticizes the governor for her coronavirus lockdown. Months later, a group of militia members is uncovered with a conspiracy to kidnap and kill her.

- "You also had some very fine people on both sides."

- "Stand back and stand by"

etc.

He has a pattern of tacitly encouraging violence and then making halfhearted condemnations when the violence actually happens. It's why when so many people commit violence, they think Trump is asking them to.

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

#800

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.

The internet becomes more and more important each year. Before the internet had pictures it didn't matter if you got kicked off.

The main problem imo is that you simply can not get a website on the internet without using someone elses service, there are always more layer down that you can get kicked from until you reach the point where ISPs, and domain registers are blocking you.

The US needs to restore net neutrality to prevent these kinds of abuses from ISPs.

Post reply on HN