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

391–400 of 652 posts

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

#391

Post by cma »

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.

But what percentage of Facebook activity was used for it within getting moderated vs what percentage of parler activity?

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

#392

Post by bob33212 »

rodgerd wrote: post #339
bob33212 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two separate issues: 1. Is it good that a few people at a few large companies can decide what is and isn't acceptable speech in America. 2. Do media companies have the right to end business relationships with companies who they feel violate their contracts and Terms of Service. The obvious answer to #2 is yes. Otherwise you would be forcing Fox News to run adds calling all Fox News viewers racists, and forc…

> 1. Is it good that a few people at a few large companies can decide what is and isn't acceptable speech in America. Sure, but that's not like it's a new issue. And while I'm not suggesting you personally are raising it in bad faith, it's quite striking how much of the discourse - and I use that word in the broadest possible sense - on HN has appeared only after a pro-facist social media site lost its hosting, from…

I think you are conflating multiple groups. There is a group of people tired of woke culture invading their workspace. There is another group of people who are in a Pro-Trump bubble and believe that the election was stolen. There is another group of "libertarian / free speech" ideologues. There is another group who are surprised that a US President who had just received 74 million votes was "silenced" by big tech.

My guess is that most of the concern you see on HN is from people in the last group that are afraid of what it means for society if a President can be cancelled. Personally, I think that their concern is overblown because Trump wasn't silenced he is just too lazy to take the time to come up with another messaging plan. I assume he is still on Twitter under a fake name hurling insults out at everyone.

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

#393

Post by crb002 »

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…

Parler will win in discovery that AWS allowed far more content on Twitter etc without breaching contract - and that staff worked overtime to remove everything AWS had issue with. This was 100% about protecting the Twitter advertising revenue stream to AWS.

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

#394

Post by TeeMassive »

> U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein sided with Amazon, which argued that Parler would not take down posts threatening public safety even in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Capitol and that it is within Amazon's rights to punish the company over its refusal.

The problem with that is that the Capitol protests and riot were organized on Facebook and Twitter while Parler doesn't have events nor anything kind of organizing was found in the leak.

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

#395

Post by bleah1000 »

TylerE wrote: post #343
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…

Amazon had been warning parlor about their content and lack of moderation for months.

That is not what the contract says (at least from the current lawsuit). Amazon has to formally give a notice that gives them 30 days. Amazon telling Parler that they are violating is not in accordance what most people believe the contract says.

Now it's possible that the contract has some other wording, or that Amazon will argue that they didn't need to be as formal as Parler thinks. But as this goes through the courts, we will find out more.

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

#396

Post by robin21 »

I wonder if we will get to a point where services will run background checks on the companies that come on their platforms to make sure they adhere to their ideological viewpoints. Or blacklists will be created barring certain companies from doing business with a group of companies all at once. Like a reverse boycott kind of thing - I’m sure there is a good term for it.

The capitalistic profit incentive has largely prevented this kind of behavior up until now but with left leaning oligopolies it starts to edge towards a market failure.

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

#397

Post by manicdee »

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'…

Twitter and Parler are not comparable offerings. The only similarity is being in the vague space of “social media” or “microblogging”.

After that there is a major divergence between the type of content they host, moderation processes, and documented outcomes of moderation (eg: people espousing left-wing views being banned from Parler) that show the real difference between the two products and why one was booted and the other wasn’t.

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

#398

Post by amanaplanacanal »

toast0 wrote: post #353
mercurialshark wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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” o…

You may want to add Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) providing a right to first ammendment speech on private property. Although follow on cases have narrowed the prescedent quite a bit.

That’s not what the decision said, you have misread it. It was not the first amendment, but rather the California constitution that required allowing the speech.

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

#399

Post by Consultant32452 »

myownpetard wrote: post #271
Consultant32452 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like if some religious nut has to make a gay wedding cake then Amazon has to serve websites for their political enemies. This is a moral statement and not a legal one.

You don't think there is a moral difference in changing how we interact with someone based upon their behavior vs. changing how we interact with someone based upon an intrinsic property of who they are? Those seem like fundamentally different moral scenarios.

Marriage is not an intrinsic property.

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

#400

Post by tptacek »

bleah1000 wrote: post #395
TylerE wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon had been warning parlor about their content and lack of moderation for months.

That is not what the contract says (at least from the current lawsuit). Amazon has to formally give a notice that gives them 30 days. Amazon telling Parler that they are violating is not in accordance what most people believe the contract says. Now it's possible that the contract has some other wording, or that Amazon will argue that they didn't need to be as formal as Parler thinks. But as this goes through the cour…

You don't have to guess about this. The judge cites the AWS terms in the ruling. AWS was not required to give any notice under the circumstances.
Post reply on HN