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

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

#161

Post by bazooka_penguin » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

jorblumesea wrote: post #28

scohesc wrote: post #4

Parlers goal of being the alternate free speech platform is horrendously thought out. The same companies and that they are trying to remove influence from (Silicon Valley - amazon, twitter, facebook, etc.) are the same companies that they're doing business with. Gab is ridiculous and I get a very religious "holier than thou" (lol) vibe from them. Their founder(s) are very puritanical and will likely not survive the n…

Good points but I'd go a bit farther and say that the same companies they are trying to remove influence from are the same companies they [parler] are becoming or will become . The idea that parler or gab is somehow "freer" or less censored than any other site seems untrue. They are more tolerant of a certain political identity and less tolerant of another one. It's just replacing their boogiemen with one of their ow…

Somewhat agree. These are ultimately politically reactionary platforms. Not making a value judgment, but they're clearly geared at winning over conservatives to their platforms and are intended to be platforms for right wingers. That may mean tolerating everyone else while they're growing and trying to gain clout but I can see that changing quickly once they have power.

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

#162

Post by mercurialshark » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

mercurialshark wrote: post #55

snoshy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seemed apparent right when the case was filed that Parler didn't have a leg to stand on. It was partly a play for publicity that plays well into their customer demographics, and a dying gasp of trying to seek some kind of injunctive help from the administration, no matter how impossible it seemed. Judging by how weak their infrastructure was in the first place, getting any kind of resilient hosting in place after…

Tech attorney here (with no relation to this specific matter). I wouldn't say they don't have a leg to stand on. I think it will prove to be very interesting.

Without addressing the specifics of the TRO (which is simply an early stage request for injunctive relief, asking the court to compel AWS to reinstate services pending litigation):

Packinghan v North Carolina (2017) - Access to social media and digital infrastructure cannot be prohibited by the state.

Marsh v Alabama (1946) - Constitutional protections of 1st and 14th amendments applicable within confines of “town” owned by a private entity.

Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning a digit company owned town. If data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure and a private organization provides those services, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town.

As Justice Ginsburg said during oral argument regarding private digital networks, “the point is that these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”

And as Justice Kagan stated during Packinghan oral argument, "whether it’s political community, whether it’s religious community... these sites have become embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights.”

Moreover, AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel. A party does not need to have majority market share to function in coordination with other dominate players in order to form a cartel that can manipulate the market.

Also, they may or may not have provided sufficient notice (a contract issue).

Either way, it's definitely relevant to industry and likely to be litigated on appeal following the trial court's ruling (whatever it is).

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

#163

Post by bob33212 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM UTC

dhimes wrote: post #95

xoa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues I'm sorry for the caps but you and a host of others are forgetting something repeatedly and it's getting fairly annoying: AMAZON HAS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TOO. Just as Parler does, and you do, and I do, and Twitter does, and the various owners and employees of these organizations do, and on and on. It's Free Speech all the way down. And a funda…

More than free speech, they have Free Market Rights. Ironically, those bitching about them removing Parler are usually the strongest supporters of the Free Market.

Exactly. Where were they when Christian Bakers didn't want to sell cakes for gay weddings?

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

#164

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 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.

[deleted]

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

#165

Post by ed25519FUUU » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

All politics aside, I was more sympathetic to the "build your own alternative" argument regarding the general deplatforming trend of the last few years.

Now I'm not nearly as sympathetic to that argument. Having POTUS45 removed from twitter was basically the chance in a lifetime for Parler, and in that critical 48 hours their hosting provider pulled the rug out from them and their app was removed from BOTH app stores (I have a hard time believing there wasn't some form of coordination here). It seems especially sinister to me, but maybe that's because I'm viewing it outside of a political lens.

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

#166

Post by echelon » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

vlunkr wrote: post #130

echelon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we had a fully P2P and distributed architecture for information exchange, this wouldn't be a problem. As it stands, we choose centralized websites and platforms to be how we exchange information. They're an essential ingredient in the "common carrier" recipe. How can your parents share messages without Comcast + Facebook?

We choose to use centralize platforms out of convenience, but if Facebook magically disappeared, people would immediately move to one of the many alternatives.

That's not a counter argument to what I've said. It's a platitude that I think everyone agrees on.

You don't even need to conjure "magical disappearance". Social networks often come and go as fads. YikYak, Snapchat, TikTok.

The thesis of what I said is that P2P mechanics are largely invariant of and shielded from business decisions, social mores, etc.

We should consider building more P2P things.

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

#167

Post by benburleson » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:59 PM UTC

scohesc wrote: post #4

Parlers goal of being the alternate free speech platform is horrendously thought out. The same companies and that they are trying to remove influence from (Silicon Valley - amazon, twitter, facebook, etc.) are the same companies that they're doing business with. Gab is ridiculous and I get a very religious "holier than thou" (lol) vibe from them. Their founder(s) are very puritanical and will likely not survive the n…

It wasn't even that their goal was to be a "free speech platform," they existed specifically as a platform for radical conservatives (only).

If they cared about free speech, they wouldn't have aligned with any specific ideology.

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

#168

Post by warkdarrior » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:59 PM UTC

scohesc wrote: post #4

Parlers goal of being the alternate free speech platform is horrendously thought out. The same companies and that they are trying to remove influence from (Silicon Valley - amazon, twitter, facebook, etc.) are the same companies that they're doing business with. Gab is ridiculous and I get a very religious "holier than thou" (lol) vibe from them. Their founder(s) are very puritanical and will likely not survive the n…

> The true future of free speech is through federated platforms/services similar to how email servers were back 20-25 years ago.

Isn't the whole problem for Parler that no major providers will host their servers? How would federation help? You need a full P2P layer, fully decentralized, routed over Tor to prevent blocking by ISPs.

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

#169

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:59 PM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #138

tptacek wrote: post #2

Here's the denial of the TRO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg... Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose. I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believ…

IANAL and I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusion, but I do think the case is more interesting than just AWS booting a malicious customer (with regards to their TOS). > there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it's only technically correct. They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that'…

> Why does this matter? Legally, I don't think it does. I don't see any good reason why AWS shouldn't be allowed to selectively enforce their ToS.

Well, first off, it's not necessarily the case that AWS's contract with Twitter is the same as AWS's contract with Parler.

But more importantly, whether or not a company chooses to enforce violations of contracts with third parties has no bearing on whether it can enforce violation of contract against you. The best you can argue is I think equitable estoppel: by not enforcing it on others, maybe they gave you a reasonable impression that your conduct wasn't violating. But AWS has a clause that says effectively "we don't waive any rights by not enforcing terms against you", and furthermore, AWS and Parler were already in communication about Parler's issues complying with the terms, which destroys any equitable estoppel claim.

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

#170

Post by NathanKP » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:59 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…

My personal opinion: I don't think Parler is about political left vs political right. There are plenty of folks on the political right who also don't want to be associated with QAnon, insurrection, death threats, and the other stuff that went on in the Parler posts. Don't fall into the trap of boxing this just into 50% vs 50%.

The reality of the US is: 33.7% of Americans didn't even vote in 2020, 34% voted "left", 31% voted "right" (the rest of the votes went to third party candidates). Those who voted on the right are further subdivided into even smaller groups. One of those smaller groups on the political right side includes extremists who attacked the capitol.

Distaste for Parler, due to the actions of some of those extremists who were using it actually crossed political boundaries: folks who didn't vote, folks on the "left" and even folks on the "right". The shunning of Parler isn't about "soft power" on the left its about the fact that a small group of people managed to do something so reprehensible that a LOT more than just 50% of people felt that association with them was tainting.