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

Parler CEO says he was fired by board

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 520 posts

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#361

Post by dazc »

newman314 wrote: post #253
jerrysievert wrote: post #80

> We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. this, from their "technical difficulties" notice, should have been enough for him to be fired on its own. requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping out damaging meta-data from media posts are three ways to not provide…

FWIW, I recently found out that AirBnB now requires government id to be shared as verification after not having logged into AirBnB since 2014. I tried to delete my account but the option is not available or may be hidden behind the forced verification requirement.

They will accept a fake id though, so long as it looks real enough. They are not a Govt agency and have no way of authenticating documents that they have no right to ask for.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#362

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #339
pmontra wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I send you a paper mail, you keep it and your descendants could read it in 2121. Of course you own it and they will own it. If I send you an email, same thing, if it survives for such a long time. Does Google/any ISP also own it? If I send you a SMS, same thing, I bet it won't survive. Does the phone company also own it? If I write you on a social network, do you and I own the message or does the social network ow…

> Of course you own it and they will own it. While the receiver of a letter on paper certainly owns the letter she doesn't own its contents. The copyright of the letter remains with the author. So you can frame the letter and hang it on your wall you violate the authors copyright if you publish it without authorization.

No idea why this is being downvoted, because it's correct. You can't publish letters without permission. This has been tested in court many times.

What you can do is sell the physical object. That belongs to you.

You can also burn it or destroy it - which is an interesting edge case.

This really comes down to different kinds of ownership. The whole point of copyright is that creative/cultural/intellectual property rights are a thing, analogous to tangible property but with a different set of legal and commercial rights and obligations.

Electronic media depend on context. ISP and telcos are usually considered common carriers so they don't own the copyright of emails or SMSs.

Social media networks either claim all copyright in full (bad news for you...) or have a specific license clause in the T&Cs which gives them reproduction rights.

Sometimes these are for specific limited purposes, and sometimes they're a blanket sign-away of all exploitation rights. (Bad news for you again.)

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#363

Post by BlackFly »

tolbish wrote: post #241
visarga wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it exactly the same with US? They would happily host any website critical of Russia's elite.

It is not exactly the same. Being critical of Biden will not get you deplatformed. Supporting insurrections will. Those are not similar. Please vocalize your argument if you disagree.

It is exactly the same:

Armed insurrections planned on Twitter/Facebook in the middle east (the Arab Spring): widely celebrated in the USA.

Armed insurrections planned on Parler/Gab in the USA: better shut those down completely.

The distinction between these two is precisely political, the view on the legitimacy of the conversation is premised on whether you view the government as legitimate or not.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#364

Post by Dirlewanger »

kortilla wrote: post #298
seattle_spring wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How dare they try to verify people before allowing them to stay in a complete stranger's home.

It’s not showing your ID that’s invasive, it’s the fact that this is now probably stored on a bunch of different systems and handled sloppily. There is no PCI standard for IDs. Just a super sensitive document loaded with PII that they’ll dump on S3 somewhere because it’s “required for business”. Don’t worry though, if you request to have it deleted I’m sure they’ll remove the link to the S3 url from their database. :…

Not Airbnb's fault, this is a failure of government and of the people for continuously voting in inept representatives.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#365

Post by throwaways885 »

johnisgood wrote: post #260
newman314 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I recently found out that AirBnB now requires government id to be shared as verification after not having logged into AirBnB since 2014. I tried to delete my account but the option is not available or may be hidden behind the forced verification requirement.

That is so typical. My experience with Discord: I need to login to my account to be able to delete it, except what if I cannot log into it?! At first they disabled it, then I e-mailed them requesting them to delete my account, but all they did was a soft-delete, of course. All of the private messages are still there, etc. Even if I were to delete my account myself, it would still leave all my messages intact. I guess…

Discord does support GDPR requests - might be worth giving that a shot.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#366

Post by jiveturkey »

jerrysievert wrote: post #80

> We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. this, from their "technical difficulties" notice, should have been enough for him to be fired on its own. requiring some users to provide government identification, building such weak security that anyone can read and archive private messages, and not stripping out damaging meta-data from media posts are three ways to not provide…

that’s naive. a statement like that is just marketing, as much as “we take your privacy/security very seriously” after an incident.

it has no or almost no connection to job performance of the C suite.

FWIW, I agree there is zero question that he needed to be sent packing immediately.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#367

Post by jiveturkey »

motohagiography wrote: post #62

Odd dynamic there as unfortunately, standing on principle means getting martyred, and the quote from the former CEO of, “Over the past few months, I’ve met constant resistance to my product vision, my strong belief in free speech and my view of how the Parler site should be managed” is not CEO level strategic. His investors and board hired him to win, not to pick a principled hill to die on. Martyrs are cheap and nob…

as always, spot on.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#368

Post by jiveturkey »

Fogest wrote: post #312
dannyw wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free legal speech usually stays online. It will be deplatformed from mobile stores, but even Cloudflare protects the reincarnation of TheDonald (patriots.win). Parler, OTOH, constantly had threats of harm to elected representatives, or just democrats in general.

Cloudflare even supports sites like thepiratebay if I recall correctly. It does make me respect them more and makes me happy to do business with them.

except when they don’t!!! they have banned legal but distasteful sites before.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#369

Post by Veen »

8note wrote: post #299
kyran_adept wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely curious if do you see someone with a sign saying "Kill X" and someone just talking on the internet about undemocratic power change differently? If you see them differently, then why? The acts they are talking about are both crimes. My assumption is that: 1. Not everyone on Parler committed crimes in the physical world - eg. storm the Capitol, so that means that talking about something is not enough to…

Very few to no Taliban members were involved in 9/11, but the US still invaded Afghanistan to kill as many Taliban members as possible. Americans arent very forgiving to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, and that applies to parler members just as well as taliban members

Except that Bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for many years prior to the attack, and the Taliban provided material supprt to al-Qaeda, including hosting training camps, which they refused to shut post-9/11.

Re: Parler CEO says he was fired by board

#370

Post by dragonwriter »

8note wrote: post #299
kyran_adept wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am genuinely curious if do you see someone with a sign saying "Kill X" and someone just talking on the internet about undemocratic power change differently? If you see them differently, then why? The acts they are talking about are both crimes. My assumption is that: 1. Not everyone on Parler committed crimes in the physical world - eg. storm the Capitol, so that means that talking about something is not enough to…

Very few to no Taliban members were involved in 9/11, but the US still invaded Afghanistan to kill as many Taliban members as possible. Americans arent very forgiving to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, and that applies to parler members just as well as taliban members

> the US still invaded Afghanistan to kill as many Taliban members as possible.

No, it didn’t.

It invaded Afghanistan because al-Qaida was based there and the Taliban was actively protecting them.

> Americans arent very forgiving to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers,

Very clearly true of Islamic terrorists who have targeted the US or Israel. Very much less true of other terrorists, especially racially White ones, and most especially racially White ones that aren’t Communist.

Post reply on HN