Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#41

Post by crooked-v » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #32

sparrish wrote: post #23

Amazon has a right to associate (or not associate) with whomever they want. This is a fundamental principle of freedom - something Parler should know, understand, and espouse. Why are they fighting? They should be applauding.

Free market for thee, but not for me.

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#42

Post by nostromo » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

It's worth noting how much soft power the political left in America has, despite being about 50% of voters.

Hollywood, Silicon Valley, academia, and the news media all lean left. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to do anything in these areas that might counter their preferences.

I think all this soft power actually hurts the left in America, because our country's default state is a bit of an echo-chamber. It's possible to go to university, watch movies, read the news everyday, and have no idea what the other half of the country is thinking or saying.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#43

Post by snoshy » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #14

klmadfejno wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues They booted Parler off for violence issues. One may personally disagree about where to draw that blurry line, but I think there's more than enough plausible deniability here. This is not the trigger of a grand slippery slope. If Amazon drops a company purely for non-violent political differences, by all means, lets raise those pitchforks.

Apparently mostly facebook was used, not parler.

This smacks of whataboutism to me. No doubt Facebook hosted large amounts of this activity, but it does not negate the fact that Parler did so as well. Amazon's court filing detailed hundreds of incidents that they had given Parler months to fix.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#44

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

The premise of Parler directly contravenes the AWS AUP, which demands that companies ensure their users comply with AWS's AUP and that companies kick users that don't. The whole point of Parler is to host Twitter users who violate Twitter's TOS, which is a cohort significantly comprised of people who are also violating AWS's TOS.

To believe that Parler would have been viable on AWS to begin with, they had to actively avoid reading the AWS terms of service. And, I mean, I'm sure they didn't, just like they apparently didn't authorize anonymous HTTP requests for their users assets. The whole effort seems clownish and performative.

In that light, I think I object to the notion of a "digital death sentence". They chose an incompatible provider for the services that they needed, and suffered the consequences. Gab, a service that is objectively far worse than Parler, appears to be doing just fine; in fact, they went through something similar to this after the Tree of Life shooting was planned on their service, and Parler had to have not paid any attention whatsoever to what happened to their most important competitor to have believed they had a chance on AWS.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#45

Post by ojnabieoot » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #3

I've been trying to come to grips with the societal impact of echo chambers, "hate" speech, and the obligations vs. rights of sites and hosting providers. So far, my take is that websites have less obligation than hosting. It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues - I am leaning more and more to the idea that colos, IaaS and ISPs should be considered common carriers, and that only a c…

I am very sympathetic to the idea that ISPs should be common carriers, but definitely not colos and platforms like AWS.

Let’s use an old-fashioned analogy. An ISP is like a post office, and people’s letters should not be meddled with (outside of violent threats or pursuant to a legal criminal investigation). In particular, ISPs are relevant to most individuals and ISPs (should) have respect for individual rights. But large platforms like AWS are more like large-scale mail printing and distribution, and is only really relevant to commercial enterprises. Such companies might choose to work with Sears to distribute catalogs, but decide not to work with Scientologists to distribute propaganda. They can be judicious in their choice of business partners without violating any individual rights - nobody has a right to any commercial partner they want. And in this case, AWS’s freedom of association rights (deciding not to do business with groups that aren’t federally protected, like the racist trolls who run Parler) are much more relevant here.

AWS refusing to do business with Parler is not the same thing as Comcast refusing to allow access to things written by Parler’s users. It is more like Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing refusing to put racist screeds in an ebook.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#46

Post by triceratops » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #42

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

It's worth noting how much soft power the political left in America has, despite being about 50% of voters. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, academia, and the news media all lean left. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to do anything in these areas that might counter their preferences. I think all this soft power actually hurts the left in America, because our country's default state is a bi…

It's worth noting how much actual political power the right in America has, despite being about 50% of voters.

The Senate and electoral college favor them massively. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to change any laws that might counter their preferences.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#47

Post by PragmaticPulp » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

> It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad.

Parler wasn't dropped for making Amazon look bad. Parler was dropped for repeatedly failing to address blatant terms of service violations.

AWS still hosts the National Enquirer, the magazine that literally tried to blackmail Jeff Bezos. AWS is hardly in the habit of removing sites that make them look bad.

Parler has gained a reputation for being some sort of free-speech platform, but it was anything but. They had heavy-handed moderation that routinely banned people and removed content for not agreeing with the popular sentiment. They made a deliberate choice to continue to leave explicit calls to violence on their website, and they were removed from AWS for it.

Twitter doesn't have perfect execution of their moderation across all of their tweets, obviously, but they are at least making a good faith effort to remove content that has explicit calls to violence.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#48

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

Threeve303 wrote: post #34

throwaway45349 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do believe that should've also been in their threat model - these guys should've acted like they were hosting The Pirate Bay 2 given the state of American politics. For instance, they could've had a low-traffic backup in read-only mode, or prevent new sign-ups. Or have an application layer switch to reduce outgoing bandwidth (HTML only) to squeeze into a coloc facility on short notice.

Engineering the site well to stay online might be beside the point now. Parler wanted to be taken down so that they could fight this legal battle, likely with an eye on Section 230. As an added bonus, they can frame the removal as persecution.

Clearly it's a battle they're likely to lose, but I wish them luck.

The only way forward in my view is to actually change laws. Anything short of that, is a fool's errand. All this is already settled law and has been litigated previously multiple times. You have to change the law in order to reclassify these entities if you want things to change.

What orgs like Parler keep doing right now is spitting into the wind.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#49

Post by throwaway45349 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

albinofrenchy wrote: post #27

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

Does twitter get away with hosting way worse content? Parler explicitly does not moderate calls both subtle and overt to violence -- much less just blatant propaganda. Pretty sure the reason parler gained traction is that twitter does.

If you saw the amount of left-wing content calling for the execution of politicians, calling for communist revolutions, you wouldn't be asking this question. Twitter is just as toxic as Parler, except one is left-wing and the other is right-wing.

If it was the left being censored I would be outraged on their behalf as well.

Edit: Not if, when the left gets censored by big tech, I will stand for freedom of speech with them, but I don't think many conservatives will be left to stand with us.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#50

Post by joshuamorton » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:39 PM UTC

travisoneill1 wrote: post #40

1. Democratic party threatens tech industry with heavy regulation because they don't censor to the degree that the Democrats want. 2. Democratic party takes over control of the government. 3. Major companies in the tech industry work together to boot a competitor, and political opponent of the Democratic party off the internet. At what point is this a legit first amendment issue? The government can't just pressure pr…

An alternative framing:

1. Republican party threatens teach industry with heavy regulation if they censor to the degree that the tech industry wishes to.

2. Republican party looses power.

3. Major companies in the tech industry do what they wanted to do the whole time.

At what point is (1) a first amendment issue? The government shouldn't pressure private companies to do things that violate those groups first amendment rights.