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

Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 485 posts

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#291

Post by djsumdog »

gameswithgo wrote: post #186
matz1 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not broken up but the point is something need to be done to reduce the power of these company. They are simply too powerful. Maybe some policy to make it easy for some new company/startup to disturb/compete ?

Are they more powerful than the big oil companies? the big 3 financial companies? the military industrial complex?

So because we already have big corrurpt megacorps in other industries, it's okay to have the same in Big Tech?

Big Tech and Media is not where we make our stand because all the other evil mega-corps are doing it too?

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#292

Post by sour-taste »

dboreham wrote: post #230
bigtones wrote: post #94

1). AWS can suspend service for any customer immediately upon giving that customer notice. They do not have to provide a "remediation period" or give the customer any grace time at all. Every customer agrees to this as part of the AWS Customer Agreement 2). AWS can terminate an account immediately if they deem you in violation of their policies instead of a suspension - as was the case with Parler. It's all in the AW…

Surely they're observing best practice cloud process and can therefore just spin up the service in another provider pronto?

If another provider will host them. Also, with a big enough service even if you are doing everything right in terms of cloud interoperability, just moving everything from one cloud to another can be a massive logistical challenge.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#293

Post by simonbarker87 »

jamie_ca wrote: post #273
meekrohprocess wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with targeting ads based on subject matter? TV channels and magazines know how this works. If the page is about fashion, sell ad space to clothing companies. If the page is about travel, sell it to hospitality companies and tourism boards. If the page is about politics or finance, sell it to people making catheters and stair lifts. It's much less creepy than trying to spy on everybody who reads the page,…

Ads based on the subject matter isn't the problem. "Targeted algorithmic advertising" in this context is building a profile of the viewer, and running ads based on that profile. At its simplest, it's the ad network deciding that you were recently seen visting toyota.com, so it'll show you 4 ads over the next hour for Toyota vehicles, to help cement that association. At its worst, it builds up an individualized profil…

Ah yes, re-targeting is where the real conversion comes. The brand/message with the biggest budget is suddenly everywhere you look

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#294

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

wpietri wrote: post #140
meekmockmook wrote: post #17

I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…

Twitter and Facebook have extensive systems for keeping the various horrors in check. They are not as good as I think they should be. But they're miles better than what Parler had, which was more of a fig leaf. (Full disclosure, I use to run an anti-abuse engineering team at Twitter. Now I'm at the ADL building the Online Hate Index.) I will note that whatever antitrust beefs people have with Big Tech, Twitter isn't…

I will admit that I dislike the projects you are working on since nebulous 'hate speech' has been undermining US foundations of free speech, but I appreciate the level headed argument.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#295

Post by cygx »

nullc wrote: post #213
tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon cited a long string of specific violent posts that they themselves reported to Parler and that Parler didn't remove.

So, Parler perjured themselves in the linked complaint when they stated that every example cited by amazon was removed?

For reference, this is Parler's claim:

> AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false—because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame Parler nonetheless. And because of AWS false claims, leaked to the public, Parler has not only lost current and future customers, but Parler has also been unable to find an alternative web hosting company. In short, AWS false claims have made Parler a pariah.

My take will depend on the timeline: If Amazon indeed asked Parler to remove the content weeks ago (as stated in the letter), but Parler only did so "over the last few days" (ie after the shit had hit the fan?), then, I'd argue Amazon does have a point...

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#296

Post by moate »

jcranmer wrote: post #240

IANAL, but I already see one massive issue with the lawsuit: Count 1 is a claim against the Sherman Antitrust Act. By their own citation (see claim 31), they need to allege specific facts that would conclude (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition. There's no facts that allege (2). Actually, I suspect they also need to…

This whole filing reads like "QQ, TWITTER HURT ME, MUH USERS!!!!1!!1!"

It is...not a good complaint. They should be focusing a LOT more on breach of contract. Unless, you know, AWS didn't actually do that per the terms.

For anyone reading this, Tort law (which is what this is) boils down to this basic idea: Was there a legal agreement between two parties, and did the violation of that agreement cause damage to one of the parties. From what I've seen (IDK the specifics of Parler's contract with AWS, and I'm just guessing based on general understanding of how good a ToS from a mega-corp like Amazon is) the answer is yes there are damages, but they seem unlikely to stem from the violation of the terms of a contract.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#297

Post by user-the-name »

COGlory wrote: post #227
ahiknsr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the same Glenn Greenwald who said Authoritarianism in US has nothing do with Trump? [1] [1] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-threat-of-authoritarian...

Either Greenwald is correct, or he isn't. His opinion on non-factual things should have no bearing on that.

He isn't correct.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#298

Post by root_axis »

drocer88 wrote: post #60
tharne wrote: post #29

Run your own metal.

Won't the fencepost move to the service provider blocking the box somebody owns? Does the net neutrality repeal apply here?

It's pretty ironic that conservatives destroyed net neutrality when that would have been the final backstop to ensure that they were able to keep their servers connected to the internet. Frankly, I'll be happy to see the return of net neutrality even if it comes from a place of political dishonesty.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#299

Post by nullc »

afavour wrote: post #258
camhart wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunter Biden is under investigation. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/09/poli... Update: replaced link with a more relevant one

Yes, Hunter Biden is under investigation. But the investigation Glenn wrote about was separate, and a transparent fraud.

If the allegations about hunters laptop were transparently fraudulent, why do the gmail originated messages pass DKIM validation?

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#300

Post by cudgy »

wpietri wrote: post #140
meekmockmook wrote: post #17

I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…

Twitter and Facebook have extensive systems for keeping the various horrors in check. They are not as good as I think they should be. But they're miles better than what Parler had, which was more of a fig leaf. (Full disclosure, I use to run an anti-abuse engineering team at Twitter. Now I'm at the ADL building the Online Hate Index.) I will note that whatever antitrust beefs people have with Big Tech, Twitter isn't…

“Twitter and Facebook have extensive systems for keeping the various horrors in check. They are not as good as I think they should be. But they're miles better than what Parler had, which was more of a fig leaf.”

If Twitter and Facebook (being multibillion dollar companies with a decade or more to build these algorithms) haven’t solve this problem yet, how can any upstart possibly compete with them? They’d be shut down as soon as users started posting content on their fledgling services.

Post reply on HN