Live data from Hacker News

Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

bbc.co.uk

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#251

This only proves that the Big Tech companies need to be regulated and that Section 230 should be repealed. Break their power! Parler should sue them for billions. The federal gov't should also sue them for antitrust violations.

> Parler should sue them for billions

Parler should sue AWS for billions when AWS asked Parler to build a process that reduced violent content and Parler refused?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#252
post #41

Parler wasn't some innocent social media site that happened to have some disgusting content on it. The disgusting content was literally its reason for existing, despite all of the bland "we're just a free speech site" stuff. And I have yet to hear anyone discuss how "anything goes" and social media do not mix. It's much easier to turn a community toxic than it is to keep it healthy, and healthy communities (of any so…

A lot of this is true, but I believe. I'm guessing you aren't from the USA, but here, "disgusting content" is completely covered under the concept of freedom of speech. Our Supreme Court has already ruled that there's no Constitutional idea of "hate speech". The concept of freedom of speech is here to protect things that other people think are despicable.

This whole deplatforming thing will have vast unintended consequences. It will hit people like you, because these movements always eat there own.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You don't see a difference between what was occurring on Parler vs the New York Times writing an op-ed? You're intentionally conflating reasonable discourse vs facilitating a violent mob. Do I agree with that particular NY Times op-ed? No, but publishing is a reasonable way to share your views in a way Parler was literally being used to coordinate an attack on US politicians that has lead to the death of 5 people. We…

> You're intentionally conflating reasonable discourse vs facilitating a violent mob

I know you think "facilitating a violent mob" applies more to Parler than the New York Times piece...but I'm going to disagree. Parler was anything but 'reasonable', but The New York Times (or individuals thereof) creating propaganda to lead a nation to war...can be described as facilitating a violent mob.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#254

This only proves that the Big Tech companies need to be regulated and that Section 230 should be repealed. Break their power! Parler should sue them for billions. The federal gov't should also sue them for antitrust violations.

Repealing Section 230 would have no impact on this. In fact, if Section 230 was repealed than Parler would be exposed to liability for the violent coup content users posted on it and be sued.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#255
post #147
post #41

Parler wasn't some innocent social media site that happened to have some disgusting content on it. The disgusting content was literally its reason for existing, despite all of the bland "we're just a free speech site" stuff. And I have yet to hear anyone discuss how "anything goes" and social media do not mix. It's much easier to turn a community toxic than it is to keep it healthy, and healthy communities (of any so…

> Parler wasn't some innocent social media site that happened > to have some disgusting content on it. You can't state that as fact. The platform itself was not inherently about spreading objectionable material. It was about being more free than Twitter. > And I have yet to hear anyone discuss how "anything goes" > and social media do not mix. As with all free speech, it had legal limits, such as threats of violence.…

I saw multiple posts & comments at the end of December with people literally calling for the murder of members of Congress on Jan 6th. I reported them when I noticed. I checked back after the Capitol Riots and the posts were still there. If they had any moderation it was not at all effective even for the most obviously unacceptable content.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#256

Does anyone else think it's suspicious that they built everything on AWS? I mean, if you know you're going to take heat for your content being less moderated, wouldn't you diversify your infrastructure? I wonder if someone wanted this to happen, in order to increase support for certain legislative action?

I believe the person who started it was a former AWS engineer. Use what you know.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#257

Does anyone else think it's suspicious that they built everything on AWS? I mean, if you know you're going to take heat for your content being less moderated, wouldn't you diversify your infrastructure? I wonder if someone wanted this to happen, in order to increase support for certain legislative action?

I'm pretty mindblown that after seeing what happened to 4chan/8chan, they didn't forsee this day coming. My theory is that Parler _wanted_ this to happen, so they could raise a stink / file a court case. The founder is a major ideologue and this whole thing might be better for business than if AWS had left them alone.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#259

This vicious lethal (effectively kills Parler) action by Amazon - driven by a mob of woke employees - will cause long term damage to AWS. I had plans to use AWS for a potentially huge SAAS business, even though it is not likely to be contentious, just the thought of them being able to destroy everything overnight, without due process, without recourse - sends chills down my spine. I cannot now imagine, being able to…

I'm sure they'll survive. This is probably part of a calculation they have to ingratiate themselves with a group that can give them an order of magnitude more GovCloud business than you can public cloud.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if all the bakers in town refuse to bake you a cake, should you be able to force one to? Seriously, when there are dozens of options and none of them want your business, shouldn't that give you pause? If all the insurance agencies refuse to insure your ship because they think it will sink, wouldn't it be prudent to double check your blueprints/construction ?

It's not that none of the other options want their business (though I have no doubt that Google and probably Microsoft would also exclude them). It's that you can't just switch platforms within days, while you could go order another cake since there's almost no time commitment to requesting a cake.

That is a mistake of getting a very ad-hoc contract and then doing something that creates a lot of risk of negative consequences (i.e. supporting the overthrow of a democracy).

Honestly, this feels to me like just the best sort of stuff that private companies, and a world that relies on them does: Everyone likes but doesn't need those services. There's a lot of companies competing and the offering is great. If someone is such a pain in the butt that no one wants to do business with them, they have a hard time but still can if they want to go it alone and build it all themselves.

These are light "highlights how well it works" stories to me.

Post reply on HN