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

521–530 of 652 posts

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

#521

Post by throwaway45349 »

iamdbtoo wrote: post #372
throwaway45349 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The capitol stuff was organised on Facebook, not Parler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25776225 What about the Summer violence from BLM? Dozens of people died, with Twitter being used as a communications hub to attack specific individuals.

To compare the two is to ignore so much context I can't imagine you're being anything other than disingenuous.

Why? Both are a disenfranchised voice complaining with violence. One might be more valid than the other, but that doesn't mean one is inherently better.

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

#522

Post by stale2002 »

takeda wrote: post #228
echelon wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So deplatforming by surprise is okay? Facebook and Twitter don't own their data centers. If the DCs responded to the same pressure about hosting illegal content, the social media giants would disappear too. Edit: the downvotes and rate limits are about to push me away from HN for good. This is ridiculous. My platform is anti-fascism. I'm tired of people on both sides trying to shut down the other side.

> Facebook and Twitter don't own their data centers. If the DCs responded to the same pressure about hosting illegal content, the social media giants would disappear too. Not true, they do have own data centers.

Alright, well I will fix the original claim.

Imagine if the power company, that provides the electricity for those data centers decided to stop working with them, tommorow.

Surely, you could recognize the issues with doing this? (Lets ignore common carrier laws for a moment, because it is not relevant to the main thrust of the argument, which is that this would be bad)

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

#523

Post by goatinaboat »

dragonwriter wrote: post #216
nickysielicki wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it’s only technically correct. This is one of the cases where technically correct is actually the best kind of correct, because it goes directly to Parler’s claim that Twitter is a similar situated entity hosted on AWS being treated differently. > They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that’s set to go…

if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone els

Twitter literally provides a soapbox for the leadership of Iran to call for the total destruction of Israel. It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen.

AWS cancelling Parler is purely about domestic US politics.

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

#524

Post by nitrogen »

ardy42 wrote: post #425
newacct583 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or for not liking the content being hosted? Parler was widely distributing violent content from major leaders (c.f. Lin Wood calling for Pence's execution) in a movement that reality showed was a real and not theoretical threat (c.f. the mob chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" in the rotunda). I really, genuinely, truly don't understand why people insist on understanding this only in the context of partisan censorship. Par…

> I really, genuinely, truly don't understand why people insist on understanding this only in the context of partisan censorship. It's motivated reasoning. It's how you can get to the conclusion that Amazon cutting ties with Parler is unacceptable. I don't necessarily think all people who follow this line came up with it spontaneously. I'm sure there's a lot of propaganda to this effect swirling in conservative media…

I don't necessarily think all people who follow this line came up with it spontaneously. I'm sure there's a lot of propaganda to this effect swirling in conservative media

Now that's motivated reasoning. You are choosing to dehumanize those who disagree with you, because that's more comfortable than acknowledging that they might have a legitimate grievance somewhere beneath all the ruckus around the election results.

It's logical to conclude that there will be blowback from a coordinated campaign to shut down the largest platform favored by "the other side".

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

#525

Post by alkonaut »

jki275 wrote: post #149
elldoubleyew wrote: post #113

I don't understand what's keeping the Parler team from just standing up their own servers in a garage somewhere. Its still an early stage platform, and its not like they were experiencing explosive growth as far as I understand. This seems like a perfect use case for a small home server. If they find a revenue stream then they can scale to renting some rack space somewhere. I know its not as easy as clicking a button…

I think you underestimate their size. They were a lot larger than a home server. As far as hosting, it can certainly be done privately, but it requires more work than cloud hosting, as gab learned when they went entirely internally hosted.

They had thousands of machines, but it's hard to imagine why that is. It would be very interesting to get a description of what their hardware is actually doing.

Considering how StackeOverflow ran on a small handful of machines to a pretty large scale (and still isn't excessive), I can't see how more than a few machines should be necessary to run a site that serves small texts, even among millions of users.

There is one caveat though and that's media. If media is transcoded, and/or if more than a small fraction of messages contain video - then the service might face using most of its resources towards that. But in that case , if I was running their ops I'd just disable media attachments while figuring out how to run the full service.

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

#526

Post by stale2002 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #435
whatshisface wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thinking about the law is a world away from thinking about politics. Companies should think about how to comply with regulations, but they should not be biting their nails over whether the candidate who's backing their chemical plant will give a speech about Marijuana decrimininalization that's convincing enough to secure him the position necessary to force the local regulatory body to change the acceptable limits on…

It sounds like you are suggesting that regulations should never change. Is that what you mean?

No. That is not what the other person said.

Did you accidently respond to the wrong comment?

What the person said was that a chemical manufacturing company should not be "biting their nails" over some random Marijuana decrimininalization speech, that a random candidate is making.

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

#527

Post by stale2002 »

filleduchaos wrote: post #430
cat199 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Not an American, but > NPR is right-leaning Yes. > bernie/AOC are 'centrist' Yes. Though I would describe Sanders as left-of-centre (apart from her stance on the environment, Ocasio-Cortez is quite the centrist). > am I correct in your assessment that basically just about only bolshevism counts as 'left'? No. There is an entire range of actual leftist politics and economics that Americans tend to utterly refuse to en…

[flagged]

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

#528

Post by watwut »

goatinaboat wrote: post #523
dragonwriter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it’s only technically correct. This is one of the cases where technically correct is actually the best kind of correct, because it goes directly to Parler’s claim that Twitter is a similar situated entity hosted on AWS being treated differently. > They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that’s set to go…

if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone els Twitter literally provides a soapbox for the leadership of Iran to call for the total destruction of Israel. It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen. AWS cancelling Parler is purely about domestic US politics.

> It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen.

Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence during that summer. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted.

The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie.

Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Literally only issue here is that you dont care about left wing radicals being censored, which is fine, but then you pretend it does not happen which is not fine.

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

#529

Post by [deleted] »

xoa wrote: post #54
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…

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#530

Post by stale2002 »

xoa wrote: post #134
umvi wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure?

> Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Try reading the whole paragraph (emphasis added): >particularly if they in some way are significantly making use of government power themselves ( limited spectrum allocation for cellular carriers for example Come on. > Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure? Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly…

> Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common

Sorry dude. You don't believe in free speech. You are contradicting yourself.

Post reply on HN