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

AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

e.customeriomail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#41

Post by dgellow »

stickfigure wrote: post #30

It's worth pointing out the offensive content cited in the document: * “Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates #chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and you will know it.” * “#JackDorsey ... you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Suckerturd [Zuckerberg].... It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember the photographs inside your hom…

For sure, that's horrible. But the hot question is: is Amazon the entity who should decide to shut it down?

I would personally prefer to have that decision be taken by a governmental agency or anything else managed by an elected person. Now, I'm not a US citizen, and I have zero trust in the current US administration, but in a "normal" context I would want to have at least some governmental overview of the shutdown process instead of delegating the full power to a private corporation.

Edit: In a "Trump" context, I really don't know... Really sad to see this country dying slowly.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#42

Post by gfodor »

NoOneNew wrote: post #14
newacct583 wrote: post #2

Editorialized title. Link is to the response Amazon filed yesterday to Parler's law suit. That said, yeah. I don't know why people are screaming so hard about censorship when the simple truth is that this was an attempt to retroactively apply moderation to a community that had verifiably gotten out of control, at a moment where it was clear that many of these threats were real and not just rhetoric.

According to this, both Twitter and Facebook use aws: https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws There have been a lot of livestreams and general calls of hate and violence on those social media sites from all political spectrums. Where are their bans? That's why theres an uproar. New York Times, A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanm…

The argument is Facebook and Twitter are doing a better job of moderating, and Parler isn't or is outright not moderating their content.

This may well be true. But the point is now we're arguing a very subjective standard, and the determiners of those standards aren't a judge or jury, but a few CEOs. The standard of "when is it justified to refuse to host an entire platform based upon the nature of how they moderate their worst content" is an incredibly complex question, with no objective answer, and how these company's answer it has a profound effect on freedom of speech, since deplatforming a site like Parler doesn't just censor the speech of those who ought to be censored (by any standard), but everyone else on the platform.

It's fairly obvious where this will lead, but I doubt we will correct it before it causes immense harm (not necessarily directly, but due to the blowback that will come from censorship without due process and tit-for-tat escalation.)

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#43

Post by orwin »

LatteLazy wrote: post #35
stickfigure wrote: post #30

It's worth pointing out the offensive content cited in the document: * “Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates #chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and you will know it.” * “#JackDorsey ... you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Suckerturd [Zuckerberg].... It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember the photographs inside your hom…

Wait, what did the NBA and NHL do?

They support racial equity, a lot of NBA and NFL player (don't know about NHL) supported their communities during Covid + BLM and paid bail/lawyer money in some states so people get their right to vote back. NBA stars were particularly active during the first lockdown.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#44

Post by yashap »

nromiun wrote: post #15

I am not on Twitter, but wasn't #HangMikePence trending a few days ago? Isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of the biggest social network is allowed to do the same thing?

Amazon’s main argument seems to be that they’ve been asking Parler to remove overt calls to violence since mid/late November, but Parler have refused. While Twitter does moderate this sort of thing, especially when asked to do so. I believe Twitter has been deleting #KillMikePence Tweets that are actually calling for violence, but haven’t been moderating Tweets that aren’t overt threats, like “OMG #KillMikePence was trending on Twitter”, or “Capitol rioters were chanting #KillMikePence” type Tweets.

If that’s all true, then to me it seems reasonable. I’d liken it to DCMA Takedowns - if you respond to them in a timely manner, and your site’s primary purpose isn’t sharing copyrighted content, you’re fine. You’re in trouble though if you refuse to take down the copyrighted content, despite receiving DCMA Takedowns.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#45

Post by fxleach »

NoOneNew wrote: post #14
newacct583 wrote: post #2

Editorialized title. Link is to the response Amazon filed yesterday to Parler's law suit. That said, yeah. I don't know why people are screaming so hard about censorship when the simple truth is that this was an attempt to retroactively apply moderation to a community that had verifiably gotten out of control, at a moment where it was clear that many of these threats were real and not just rhetoric.

According to this, both Twitter and Facebook use aws: https://www.contino.io/insights/whos-using-aws There have been a lot of livestreams and general calls of hate and violence on those social media sites from all political spectrums. Where are their bans? That's why theres an uproar. New York Times, A Genocide Incited on Facebook, With Posts From Myanmar’s Military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanm…

Twitter and Facebook both use their own data centers, with Twitter only recently (mid December 2020) announcing that they will be migrating to use some AWS. They also try to manage their content moderation as best they can and have policies and practices in place to remove content that violates their standards. Parler relies solely on AWS and has 0 content moderation. There are stark differences.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#46

Post by newacct583 »

tehjoker wrote: post #5
newacct583 wrote: post #2

Editorialized title. Link is to the response Amazon filed yesterday to Parler's law suit. That said, yeah. I don't know why people are screaming so hard about censorship when the simple truth is that this was an attempt to retroactively apply moderation to a community that had verifiably gotten out of control, at a moment where it was clear that many of these threats were real and not just rhetoric.

I'm not totally sure what to think, but aren't many violent acts planned on Facebook and Twitter? Wasn't the insurrection at the capitol? Yet, the big boys aren't paying the price, it's the competitor that suddenly got popular that wasn't able to be influenced by politicos.

> but aren't many violent acts planned on Facebook and Twitter?

Shouldn't anyone who plans a violent act on Facebook or Twitter (or Reddit, or HN, or wherever) be banned?

Note that both of those sites are ALSO in the process of desperately cleaning up their violent sub-communities. There's a somewhat humorous running gag right now of conservative thought leaders suddenly complaining that their follower counts are going down.

And as far as Parler specifically: it didn't "suddently get popular" in a vacuum. Parler absolutely was functioning as a kind of "ban evasion mechanism for Twitter". People who got tossed from Twitter (generally, yes, for violent rhetoric) would find a home there, and bring there followers. There was very little organic growth, it was effectively all cannibalized from Twitter.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#47

Post by JamesBarney »

gfodor wrote: post #3
newacct583 wrote: post #2

Editorialized title. Link is to the response Amazon filed yesterday to Parler's law suit. That said, yeah. I don't know why people are screaming so hard about censorship when the simple truth is that this was an attempt to retroactively apply moderation to a community that had verifiably gotten out of control, at a moment where it was clear that many of these threats were real and not just rhetoric.

There are two things that can be true at the same time: - Amazon was within its legal and ethical rights to do this, and ought to win any court cases, etc. - The aggregate situation of de-platforming of individuals and entire platforms from the Internet by a few unilateral decisions by corporations reveals a power structure we ought to not want (it has always been there, but now it's undeniably shown itself willing a…

> - The aggregate situation of de-platforming of individuals and entire platforms from the Internet by a few unilateral decisions by corporations reveals a power structure we ought to not want (it has always been there, but now it's undeniably shown itself willing and able to exercise its power when needed) since it will inevitably be abused given incentives and the lack of checks and balances on it.

When it's more than five separate organizations that all independently decide to deplatform is it still a unilateral decision? I also doubt these decisions were made unilaterally in the companies themselves.

In this specific circumstance do we need to regulate these businesses to keep them from removing content related to organizing a violent insurrection?

No one even removed this content until these groups literally stormed the capital chanting about hanging members of congress. I don't see the problem.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#48

Post by gfodor »

yashap wrote: post #44
nromiun wrote: post #15

I am not on Twitter, but wasn't #HangMikePence trending a few days ago? Isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of the biggest social network is allowed to do the same thing?

Amazon’s main argument seems to be that they’ve been asking Parler to remove overt calls to violence since mid/late November, but Parler have refused. While Twitter does moderate this sort of thing, especially when asked to do so. I believe Twitter has been deleting #KillMikePence Tweets that are actually calling for violence, but haven’t been moderating Tweets that aren’t overt threats, like “OMG #KillMikePence was…

DMCA takedowns are defined by the legal system. The system you are describing here is completely defined by these companies. They are in their right to do so, but we ought to ask the question if we should introduce a legal structure like the DMCA to standardize it from a legal standpoint. This would cut both ways: if they de-platformed people complying with the standard, they would be in the wrong. As it is right now, AWS can just arbitrarily decide the standard. The only incentive they have to make it a reasonable one is public outcry, which is not the kind of backstop you want when it comes to possibly harming fundamental freedoms.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#49

Post by newacct583 »

dgellow wrote: post #31
newacct583 wrote: post #2

Editorialized title. Link is to the response Amazon filed yesterday to Parler's law suit. That said, yeah. I don't know why people are screaming so hard about censorship when the simple truth is that this was an attempt to retroactively apply moderation to a community that had verifiably gotten out of control, at a moment where it was clear that many of these threats were real and not just rhetoric.

So, I'm not arguing one way or another, I just want to try out the following for the sake of discussion as I haven't seen it elsewhere: if we consider Amazon to be an infrastructure provider, and that by doing this they have a duty of neutrality, instead of shutting down Parler directly the approach would be to send a complain to a relevant federal authority (not sure which one that would be, maybe the FBI? please co…

> instead of shutting down Parler directly the approach would be to send a complain to a relevant federal authority (not sure which one that would be, maybe the FBI? please correct me) and let them do their investigation.

It has been suggested by many people that in fact the causality goes the other way. The reason for the near-simultaneous action against Parler from Twilio, Google, Apple and Amazon seems likely to have been a strong suggestion from Federal law enforcement about an imminent threat.

There's no evidence for that per se, but certainly the threat seems imminent.

Re: AWS repeatedly warned Parler about posts urging murder

#50

Post by gfodor »

JamesBarney wrote: post #47
gfodor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two things that can be true at the same time: - Amazon was within its legal and ethical rights to do this, and ought to win any court cases, etc. - The aggregate situation of de-platforming of individuals and entire platforms from the Internet by a few unilateral decisions by corporations reveals a power structure we ought to not want (it has always been there, but now it's undeniably shown itself willing a…

> - The aggregate situation of de-platforming of individuals and entire platforms from the Internet by a few unilateral decisions by corporations reveals a power structure we ought to not want (it has always been there, but now it's undeniably shown itself willing and able to exercise its power when needed) since it will inevitably be abused given incentives and the lack of checks and balances on it. When it's more t…

I'll admit the use of 'unilateral' here is probably poor, I don't know the proper one. These companies exert monopoly power in the markets they are in. Decisions made by companies which are monopolies are "unilateral-ist" because once a small number of them make a decision together (perhaps colluding) then it leaves no recourse for the person or group they are deciding against.

Mentioned elsewhere, the process we should all wants is one where if a company wants to nuke an entire speech platform like this due to illegal speech, they can get a judge to affirm the legality of the content and the negligence of those who are hosting it. With that in hand, their actions would be immune from criticism. Without it, we find ourselves here, where we basically have to trust them to make the right decision and not abuse their power. It's not what we should want, for the same reason that we should have wanted anti-trust laws in place to reduce the power of monopolists, despite the fact that monopolists were operating entirely legally and often ethically.

Post reply on HN