Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 652 posts

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

#311

Post by DonHopkins »

throwaway45349 wrote: post #107
tptacek wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I get it, companies do not legally have to provide these services to right-wing groups persecuted off of Twitter. I'm saying that it's _morally_ wrong to deplatform. Not necessarily because I enjoy having this speech hosted, but because isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence. As I said in my other comment, when the disenfranchised c…

It's also _morally_ wrong to plot violent insurrections and publish death threats, and if that's what you're doing, then "deplorable" is an apt description of you.

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

#313

Post by wtfiswiththis »

throwaway45349 wrote: post #236
mewse wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence. Can you provide references that back up this claim? Bear in mind that the deplatforming began after January 6th of this year, so any escalating violence which may have occurred on or before that point is not evidence of your claim. And after the events of the 6th I imagine it’d be difficult…

The deplatforming has been going on for years, since at least 2016 when Trump was elected in the first place. In Twitter's case[0] they went after smaller users (edgy "russian bots") until ~2018, when they really ramped things up. This even hit left wing (anti-establishment) activists[1]. One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online[2…

[dead]

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

#314

Post by jariel »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #286
jariel wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the insurrection on capitol hill provides the cover of legitimacy for people to act in a manner that also may be very inconsistent and politicized. Jeff Bezos owns news publications, he has a worldview and likes to flaunt it to some extent, moreover, these systems are prone to the possibility of arbitrary, and often political decisions. Note that historically, rich dudes bought newspapers to attack their poli…

A few months ago, Emmanuel Macron's government deported hundreds of people and closed at least a dozen mosques for extremism. So it's pretty hard to view his statement as a general endorsement of free speech, rather than a dispute about who gets to decide to restrict it. (That's not to say their position is unreasonable ; I just don't agree with their implicit assumption that the government can be better trusted to u…

???

If there are people, plotting violence, even from a Mosque, then you ask them to leave or arrest them, right? That's legit.

Just like if people are attacking Capitol Hill, or even plotting to - you arrest them.

Why? Because it's lawless. Not because 'We don't agree with them'.

Thankfully, there will be laws that have to be adhered to. Courts. Constitutions.

With Jack Dorsey, there's none of that, it's whatever he feels on that day.

It's a little absurd to suggest that totally arbitrary individuals should have the right to arbitrarily control discourse - over the regulations (hopefully few and far between) applied by elected governments, overseen by courts, the constitution etc..

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

#315

Post by [deleted] »

zaltekk wrote: post #294
barbacoa wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believe that Amazon's lawyers are so stupid that they set out a TOS for the world's largest hosting provider that didn't give AWS the right to boot customers, which is something AWS --- really, every hosting provider --- has to do all the time. They haven't released the actual contract itself but from what Parler said in their lawsuit, they had a clause in their contract…

The contract is the standard Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy to which it refers. As mentioned above, they don’t have to give you 30 days before suspending for violating the AUP.

[deleted]

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

#316

Post by snoshy »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #309
duskwuff wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Parler actively avoided making technical decisions which would tie them to AWS. Their problems coming back online have primarily been because most major hosting providers have refused to take their business (and possibly also as a result of their ridiculous hardware requirements, cf. https://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/1350612426115452935 ).

why are they not looking to colocate instead?

Probably because their workloads haven't stabilized at any meaningful threshold. You can only justify the capital expenditure if you know you can amortize it over time. Hard to do for a startup whose existence is being threatened. They are also a political hot potato, and would need the colo provider to agree to take them on and withstand the public pressure, which I doubt most would want.

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

#317

Post by cat199 »

maxsilver wrote: post #227
andrekandre wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not to take away from your point and be too pedantic, but i think maybe left and liberal are being conflated? actual bonafide leftists have very little real political power in ths u.s afaik...

Yeah, as far as I can tell, America doesn't have any meaningful left-wing politics of any kind. There's not a single left politician elected to any federal office anywhere in the nation, for example. Hollywood (the industry funded by the US Military to put pro-military-industrial-state advertisements into movies) is not "left leaning" in any meaningful way. "News Media" all lean either slight-right (MSNBC, NPR) to ha…

> But I'm not aware of even a single left-leaning politician in any federal elected office. For example, no elected federal politician is advocating for the nationalization of all private corporations, or elimination of all for-profit entities, or for a complete cap on individual wealth, or for giving Hawaii back to the aboriginal Hawaiians, or anything like that,

so, given this, that NPR is right-leaning, and bernie/AOC are 'centrist', am I correct in your assessment that basically just about only bolshevism counts as 'left'?

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

#318

Post by sjwright »

newfriend wrote: post #274
triceratops wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US is not a direct democracy, it is a representative republic. I'm aware of that. And that structure favors one side more than another. This is not a controversial statement - the numbers (y'know, facts and logic) back that up. States are lines on a map. In the current setup they have more influence than the actual people living in those states. Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate rep…

> States are lines on a map. Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic. Dollars are just numbers in a database. Will you give me all your money? Or is it only certain "made-up" things that are important to you? > Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some…

> , it just shows a childish attitude

So that you can understand how your contribution is being consumed by others: when I came to that sentence fragment I stopped reading and down-voted your post. The remainder of your contribution might have been insightful... but I'll never know.

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

#319

Post by DonHopkins »

kyrra wrote: post #192
minikites wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leads you to believe the Parler CEO is a reliable narrator?

100% agree, he has a reason to paint a certain narrative. (I added my edit before you replied I think). Either way, without knowing the full picture from both sides (like a court case going through discovering to fully put out the communciations between Amazon and Parler), we don't know the answer. We see that Amazon canceled Parler with little external communication. And we see what Parler is saying. Amazon could sh…

Since he cultivates and tolerates a customer base of Trump supporters, Q-Anon followers, virulent racists, gun nuts, virginal misogynists, frustrated incels, white supremacists, violent seditionists, death threateners, and Twitter rejects, then what reason do you have to believe that he doesn't lie as freely and easily and file as frivolous lawsuits as Trump himself does? What has he ever done to earn so much benefit of the doubt that you're heaping on him, against all the hard evidence we can already see with our own eyes?

Parler Users Breached Deep Inside U.S. Capitol Building, GPS Data Shows

https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-ca...

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

#320

Post by takeda »

Igelau wrote: post #305
notahacker wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wedding cake makers ultimately won. And only found themselves in court because of legislation protecting against refusal of service on the grounds of sexual orientation: nobody could have raised legal objections if they declined to make a cake that said 'God Is Dead', 'Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll' or 'Vote For Pedro' Nobody is forced to make a wedding cake with a long stream of racist invective like one of the e…

That whole thing was weird. I guess if you're a creative professional, be it an artist, designer, or cake decorator, there's going to be some degree of soul-selling you'd be expected to do where you make a decent effort on a project where you'd rather not. But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not tha…

> But forcing people to make cakes they feel morally icky about sounds like a guaranteed way to get some really ugly, half-assed cakes. Whether we like it or not that they feel that way doesn't seem to matter because an ugly cake that validates me is still an ugly cake.

I don't know the details of the case but I think there is a clear line between refusing to do usual service because somebody is from a protected group. Like a ordinary wedding cake only because the person ordering is gay.

vs

Refusing to create a wedding cake because it is offensive. Like customer asking for a cake in a shape of penis or something offending the artist.

Post reply on HN