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

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: undefined

#111

Post by jasonpeacock »

petrocrat wrote: post #65
umvi wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. Does renting Linode VMs or Digital Ocean droplets count? Because they can cut Parler off just as easily as Amazon. Do they literally have to buy physical servers and host them on their own property somewhere? But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off? How do they r…

ISPs should be a public utility. They would need to have a guarantee of protection from revocation of service due to speech as they will be a public entity at that point.

Yes, and then they will also need to be more transparent about pricing, and ensure equal access. Good things all around.

Sewer used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Water used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Natural gas used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Electricity used to be a luxury, now it's a utility.

It's time for network access to also be a utility.

Re: undefined

#113

Post by xvector »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #107
xvector wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that homosexuality has indeed been viewed as odious and immoral in the past, and platforms like Grindr would have been eliminated just as easily as Parler some time ago (on some bullshit TOS violations, no less). The real concern here is having Big Tech decide what you’re allowed to believe in. AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS, unless you want AWS to control what…

> AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS How ridiculous. Individuals need water, heat, and electricity to survive in the 21st century. I would argue they also need a cell phone and internet access. Individuals do not need cloud computing services. For-profit companies want AWS because they can use it to make money. This is not a good basis to form a utility.

Should Verizon be able to hang up your calls if they don’t like who you’re talking to?

Clearly, rights and needs extend beyond the basics of food, water, and shelter. Preventing corporations from dictating what information you’re allowed to access and who you’re allowed to talk to is as essential to a free world as anything else.

For better or worse, these “for profit companies” have become the de facto replacement of the town square, and if we cannot have free speech on these platforms then we cannot have free speech at all, practically speaking.

Re: undefined

#114

Post by chrobry »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #85

Absolutely yes. Morally, violent fascists have no place in society. This isn't a slippery slope. They're not coming for the Communists and Jews next. I have no sympathy for the poor, helpless Nazis being bullied by the big, bad liberals (as if the companies listed are even reliably liberal) when all they want to do is organize an overthrow or two of the US government. The big platforms have been obscenely deferent to…

You obviously don't know what Fascists are, and you obviously have no idea what was said and such.

I am willing to bet that you support Antifa, BLM, and other hate groups, simply because they vote the "right" way, and don't call them fascists.

Fascism has a meaning and it isn't "doodoo head" which is what pretty much most folks do. They call that which they dislike fascism.

Re: undefined

#115

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35

No, with caveats. Apple and Google, fine. That’s distribution. They have a lot of distribution power, but that’s an antitrust question. AWS pulling the plug is infrastructure being yanked, and that’s more concerning. It takes Parler off the web. That’s closer to silencing than removing an amplifier. Nobody should be forced to provide services to the likes of Parler. But cutting them off with hours’ notice is excessiv…

[deleted]

Re: undefined

#116

Post by dandanua »

Unreservedly no. It could become a nice reservation for haters. Now hate is gonna spread elsewhere.

The fear that haters will unite and do some damage is understandable. But silencing them completely is the wrong way.

The only right way to fight lies and madmans is spreading the enlightenment. Speaking the truth, making honest deeds, etc. Making a nicer counter-play. This is the way. Shutting your opponent off is a primitive way that will solve nothing.

Re: undefined

#117

Post by oji0hub »

dumbfounder wrote: post #38

I believe companies should have a right to have a terms of service and to act on those terms of service. They do it every day. Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. If Google took the step to block them with Chrome then I think I would have issue with that.

"companies should have a right to have a terms of service"

They do and that's clearly not the issue. This is coordinated.

Re: undefined

#118

Post by xvector »

jcliffio wrote: post #98
xvector wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all break Amazon/Apple/Google TOS pretty clearly and yet are still allowed to exist. Clearly, Parler has been singled out by Big Tech. I can’t be the only one here actually concerned about Big Tech being the ultimate arbiter of truth and information. AWS is effectively public infrastructure at this point and must be treated as such unless you want to careen into a corporate dystopia wher…

How are they an arbiter of truth? They host tens of thousands of sites that I'm sure they don't necessarily agree with but they're more than happy to take the money of. They singled this one out because they don't want the publicity of their platform being associated with a company that has no problem with users coordinating violent and deadly insurrections...

> How are they an arbiter of truth?

Because they ban politically inconvenient viewpoints.

> their platform being associated with a company that has no problem with users coordinating violent and deadly insurrections...

Does Twitter not host the leaders of terroristic regimes? Has Reddit not been implicated in murder of innocents? Does Facebook not routinely have calls to violence?

All major platforms have broken AWS TOS countless times, and much more often than Parler at that. It’s pretty clear that Parler is being singled out here, and that breaking the AWS TOS is a flimsy excuse at best.

Re: undefined

#119

Post by anigbrowl »

newfeatureok wrote: post #10

I have no particular comment about Parler specifically, but in the general case: Suppose you're a single-person startup of an app called "Speak!". Speak! is pretty niche, but one day, a group of the X-People are ostracized on all the popular forums: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Because Speak! is the only remaining bastion for the X-People all of them flock to Speak!. Let's say the X-People say things that aren't e…

If you want to operate a social network (and can spin up to arbitrary user loads thanks to the magic of containers and cloud services), then you need to consider the possibility that your site might get jacked by a set of very difficult users.

Unfair to smaller firms? Maybe, but the phrase 'don't bite off more than you can chew' comes to mind.

Re: undefined

#120

Post by oji0hub »

adrianmonk wrote: post #82

I voted "yes, with caveats". The caveat is that my agreement is based on my understanding that these bans are justified because of terms of service (TOS) violations. I'm pretty sure that Google Play, for example, has banned other apps in the past because of issues with "user-generated content" that was not sufficiently moderated. If tech firms are enforcing TOS and doing it in an even-handed way, then I'm OK with tha…

Twitter is toxic and that's still up. But they support the democrats, like Google. Big tech is becoming too powerful.
Post reply on HN