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

411–420 of 652 posts

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

#411

Post by triceratops »

fjabre wrote: post #297
takeda wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had to lose by 7 million votes to actually lose, I would say they have quite advantage. As another user said: "The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 Democrats represent 41 million more people than the 50 Republicans"

We are a representative democracy for a reason. It was designed that way. You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing. The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.

> We are a representative democracy

And the argument is that this democracy isn't sufficiently "representative", since it doesn't represent everyone equally. Indeed that's an explicit non-goal.

> You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.

But you can agree that the rules of the game are rigged against one side. You don't get to deny that just because you're winning.

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

#412

Post by fjabre »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #328
fjabre wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are a representative democracy for a reason. It was designed that way. You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing. The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.

"representative democracy" does not require the structure of the US senate, nor state districting policies, nor the electoral college. There are many other representative democracies that do not have any of these "features". Also, I thought a reply ago, you stated that the left was winning , not losing.

The left is winning. I lean left on a lot of issues. I have no issue with this. I also believe that they cheated. I don't need evidence. Their motive was highly incentivized. The cost too great. The dems definitely cheated. That's what I believe. But so did the other side.

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

#413

Post by fjabre »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #326
fjabre wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has more electors than Vermont.

You're still missing the point. The lowest number of electors a state can have is three. Mathematically, this biases the EC in favor of low population states. The same approach (all states having two senators) biases the Senate in favor of low population states. This appears to have been intentional on the part of the founders, but that doesn't make it right. [ EDIT: s/two/three/ ]

Yes it was designed for this purpose. That's what I'm saying.

So big states couldn't bully around small ones.

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

#414

Post by thepace »

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…

Cloud platforms like AWS, Azure and GCP, are now the de-facto operating systems for web apps and services. Section 230 also provides them immunity from the content that gets hosted in those platforms. I find it unfortunate that we are in this situation where the platform providers are also playing the police. They should stick to being a platform and policing side of this should be left to the law enforcement.

What will we feel if Microsoft and Apple start deciding what kind of contents can be generated and saved in their operating systems? It feels like time is ripe for a cloud provider that simply provides a platform.

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

#415

Post by fjabre »

maxerickson wrote: post #349
fjabre wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. The left now has the Senate and the Presidency. The electoral college does not matter. They go the way their states go as was made quite clear in the last election. EDIT: Of course it matters how the voting system was designed. The EC votes the way their State votes. The forefathers intended for states to have some say in the matter. We are a representative democracy. That is how the system was designe…

Yes, we should change the system. It was a compromise that is now well outdated.

Appreciate your honesty even if I disagree. I like the way it is setup. It stops the big states from pushing around the little ones too much.

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

#416

Post by triceratops »

fjabre wrote: post #413
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still missing the point. The lowest number of electors a state can have is three. Mathematically, this biases the EC in favor of low population states. The same approach (all states having two senators) biases the Senate in favor of low population states. This appears to have been intentional on the part of the founders, but that doesn't make it right. [ EDIT: s/two/three/ ]

Yes it was designed for this purpose. That's what I'm saying. So big states couldn't bully around small ones.

I guess it's better for small states to bully around big ones instead?

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

#417

Post by ben509 »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #385
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…

Amazon did not give Parler time to remedy the issue, which was in the contract. And is now trying to blur the line between a suspension and termination. Robert Barnes, on the Parler lawsuit https://youtu.be/pAFZw7fGY4A Viva Frey, a lawyer did a breakdown on the lawsuit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFp5E7akgy8 Robert Barnes, On section 230, and the tech lawsuits https://youtu.be/rD-Zb0nTJw0 Their take on it is tha…

Barnes and Frey didn't read the contract closely.

Uncivil Law is a friend of theirs and he goes over the contract here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhWDKx9myI0&t=6187s

He's a conservative lawyer, so he doesn't have a political bias against Parler. They just don't have a case. I think Parler's lawyers misread the contract and thought the 30-day notice applied to termination for cause.

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

#418

Post by xxpor »

fjabre wrote: post #409
xxpor wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

623,989/3 = 207996.333333 39,510,000/55 = 718363.636364

So what? That's the point.

You might have had a minimal argument pre-17th Amendment, but that's not how the world works any more.

In addition, there's 0 reason for the house to be as malapportioned as it is. 435 house members isn't written in the constitution.

Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer.

People like to pretend the founders were deities and the constitution is handed down from god. But they weren't and it wasn't. A lot of their ideas were really stupid. I mean JFC, we couldn't even get through 3 elections before they had to redo it.

Vermont has a lot more in common these days with California than it does North Dakota. The EC and Senate are outmoded relics from a stupider time that should be abolished.

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

#419

Post by SantalBlush »

boringg wrote: post #131
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…

I think they probably know they have no case but are trying to fan the flames of the culture war to generate support and keep their name in the media until they find other hosting services.

This seems likely. They bring a weak case, and when it gets thrown out, they can say that further proves their victimhood.

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

#420

Post by zamalek »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #142
zamalek wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They booted Parler off for violence issues. It baffles me how often violence issues become conflated with speech issues. You are absolutely correct, this is a violence issue. America has likely the most free speech protections in the world, but fighting words (violence) are not protected. There is a huge amount of precdent to support Amazon's actions here, dating back decades. Furthermore, just because Facebook did…

Because violence to advance a cause the powers agree with is suddenly protected under free speech all the same. Many have pointed out that the storming of the capitol was not too dissimilar to many of the b.l.m. riots which were also often coördinated and featured chants of killing police officers. And it very much seems that whichever side one be on very much dictates how both are treated with both sides claiming t…

I live not far from Capitol Hill in Seattle, so the worst was pretty close to me.

I grok free speech. You can't outlaw some speech that is considered immoral because that speech may equate to the future moral high ground. Gay rights, as one example, would never have happened were there a moral gatekeeper on speech. I deeply understand this.

There's a difference. Firstly, much of what you attribute (or what was attributed to BLM by right-wing propaganda) was in fact the anarchist faction and their leader in Seattle (in addition to the police). The anarchist faction (and Nazis at other times) always cause a shitshow during Seattle protests, irrespective of the specific protest. CHAZ/CHOP was truly bizarre, but it was inherently peaceful. People were growing cabbages. This story rings true across America in varying ways and, while there is no doubt that some BLM protesters were violent:

* BLM never committed sedition by invading the federal capitol.

* BLM was protesting against the very perpetrators of the violence and casualties that occurred during the protests: the police and right-wing extremists.

* BLM attempted protest peacefully for the expansion of rights. MAGA violently rioted for the limitation of rights.

The violence during the BLM protests is proof of the BLM claims.

> the tolerance for violence is quite a bit lower when it concern an ideology one does not agree with.

The police literally stood aside for the MAGA seditionists, but opened fire on peaceful BLM protestors due to the threat of a pink umbrella. Yes, this is very true, but likely not in the way you mean to suggest.

And racist speech is protected and has been protected by the American Supreme Court on multiple occasions (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). Racist violence is not protected and nor is BLM violence.

Post reply on HN