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

Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#41

Post by chasing »

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 sort) need moderation. Certain people have turned this fact on its head and want you to believe that "completely free speech" and "healthy communities" are compatible because they want to overrun healthy channels with their garbage.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#42

Post by enriquec »

valuearb wrote: post #34
derision wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about calling for the eradication of Jews? https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784 Twitter doesn't seem to have any issue with this content

That’s not what that tweet says. So you admit your argument carries little weight without sensationalizing it?

The tweet says: "#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen."

Do you think that is not as bad as what Trump has said?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#44

Post by mozillalives »

All I’m going to say is that I’m all for free speech and setting fair rules for everyone to play by (ie regulation), but looking at the examples provided in the buzzfeed articles this is beyond simple free speech. I hear a lot of people saying this is just another example of the left trying to shut down free speech but there are clear threats being made on the platform. If Parler doesn’t want to do any content regulation then fine (though this should be any easy place to draw the line), but I can’t blame Amazon for saying “we don’t want that here”.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#45

Post by notsureaboutpg »

chasing wrote: 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…

The NYT lied to the American public to whip them up into supporting the Iraq War, which led to the deaths of millions of people (many of them innocent).

Why won't AWS, Google, and Apple collectively ban them? Their open calls for violence were far more consequential and severe and serious than anything on Parler

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#46

Post by Jtsummers »

hammock wrote: post #22
valvar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's quite strange, but I'm guessing it's mostly due to media disinformation about section 230. People who are actually informed and in favour of free speech and opposed to megacorp oligopolies are strongly opposing changing section 230. Rather, they advocate breaking up the megacorps or making them utilities.

I've heard this before, and I'm so confused by section 230. Where can I read some reliable info on it?

In addition to NikolaeVarius' link, here's the law itself:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

It's a quick read, it's not long, and it's actually reasonably clear what it does and does not do.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#48

Post by eejit_compiler »

CivBase wrote: post #21
eejit_compiler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and I think it's because Parler is best known for hosting violent, far-right content, that is linked to the recent insurrection at the Capitol Building. Whereas the other services you cite are much more generic in their clientele. So based on this, Amazon made a business decision to deny service to Parler, due to the adverse publicity (and perhaps, potential legal liability) generated for them by hosting this…

Then maybe AWS should just come out and say "We disabled our services for Parler because it's very unpopular and we don't want to be associated with it."

They pretty much already did. In corporate PR terms, "it contravened our Terms of Service" is essentially synonymous with "we don't want to be associated with it".

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#49

Post by moate »

itsoktocry wrote: post #35
moate wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more analogous to a single server host refusing to host a site, while the material components (actual physical servers) are still readily available if likely outside the financial range for a site at their size (tbh though, I have no idea what sort of server needs this site would actual have). Parler could still go out and build their own servers. The fact that this is a project driven by "free speech enthusiast…

> Parler could still go out and build their own servers. Yes, and as someone on Twitter pointed out, as a customer also denied service, Rosa Parks could have gone out and started her own bus line (likely outside her financial range though). The argument to "do it yourself" is silly. Europe sees it. The ACLU sees it. Why can't you? For the record: I think these platforms should be responsible for what they host.

One major difference: Rosa Parks was an individual attempting to use a private service. Parler is a business attempting to use a private service to do business. Rosa Parks getting kicked off for being black is one thing, but what if she was on the same bus trying to sell candy bars? Weirdly, that's still a reason you can get kicked off a bus.

I mean the question of the era is what "rights" do we have online.

Do I have the "right" to have my site hosted by a private company, or is that a service? Do platforms have a "requirement" to act as neutrally as possible, or is it just better for business?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#50

Post by [deleted] »

partiallypro wrote: post #15
CivBase wrote: post #2

I don't know which social media platforms use AWS to any critical extent, but I can't imagine them ejecting a big name like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc over "finding dozens of posts on the service which it said encouraged violence".

I would be near willing to bet that more of the Capitol Hill events were planned on private Facebook groups, chats, etc than on Parler. Signal is a chat app that is secure and group chats are big in planning... So are they going to ban Signal? Conspiracy theories are rampant on WeChat and even over text messages.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN