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

651–652 of 652 posts

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

#651

Post by jki275 »

triceratops wrote: post #641
jki275 wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states. If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.

States != people. People have to vote directly in order for it to be considered a referendum.

It's a referendum of the states, as was agreed to by the states when the union was formed.

It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.

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

#652

Post by someguydave »

curryst wrote: post #645
someguydave wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people have posted similar or worse things on Twitter without moderation by Twitter or much shame to Twitter's upstream service providers. Also, can you draw a direct causal line between AWS hosted Parler posts and actual violence that took place on Jan 6th?

I actually agreed with you until I read the order. It's about public good. Parler is arguing that Amazon is part of a cartel and that that's harmful to public, so the injunction restores fairness to the market. The judge finds that meritless because they have no evidence that the cartel exists, and so the injunction does nothing for the public good. I'm certain the factual errors about AWS hosting Twitter's feed didn…

>it seems more likely than not that at least one person there was influenced by Parler.

I think that the real, concrete harm done to Parler's by their instant removal from Amazon is definitely not balanced by whatever "harm" in some Parler client's head before 6 Jan. I don't think it's a close call, and it is scary that federal judges are willing to make such a judgement.

The standard here seems to be that any unsubstantiated theoretical harm from user-uploaded content can be used as a basis to instantly kill any AWS client's business, if Amazon suddenly feels like doing so.

Post reply on HN