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

451–460 of 485 posts

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#451

Post by tptacek »

djsumdog wrote: post #450
tptacek wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jones was at the riots . In fact, he claims to have paid for the rally that preceded it.

> Corrections & Amplifications The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones urged Trump supporters not to attack police and to move to the east side of the Capitol. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Mr. Jones urged rioters attacking the Capitol to move forward. (Corrected on Jan. 8) Buried at the very bottom of the Wall-Street Journal article. This is his side of the story, but it sounds like you've already m…

Alex Jones claims to have paid for the rally that preceded and instigated the riot, the one Donald Trump spoke at asking rallygoers to march on the Capitol. Candidly, I'm not interested in hair-splitting beyond that; my point is simply that Jones is closely aligned with the rioters, many of whom idolize him (as you can see on TDW). The idea that Jones is somehow in a radically different political cluster than the Q people and the Proud Boys people beggars belief; your evidence for that would have to be powerful, and would not be on "banned.video".

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#452

Post by cy_hauser »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #439
cy_hauser wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being smaller they can and should user human moderation. Twitter and Facebook have problems because of the huge number of posts. Parler is still small enough that then _can_ moderate.

Facebook is in a way better position financially to use human moderators than something like Parler is. Sure, Parler has orders of magnitude less volume. They also have orders of magnitude less money. Facebook can afford to hire 1,000 human moderators for every 1 human moderator Parler hires. This whole "Parler can be better than Facebook because they are smaller" argument is just as illogical as it sounds.

Where are you getting Parler can be better? Better than facebook at what?

Also, you don't thin smaller groups, companies, whatevers are easier to control?

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#453

Post by rtkwe »

zarkov99 wrote: post #438
rtkwe wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy means nothing if it isn't applied and a lot of what happened on Wednesday (and way worse) was planned in the open on Parler. Parler's moderation also principally consisted from what I've heard of community 'jury of peers' where a reported post was shown to ~5 other users who decided if it was a violation which is incredibly insufficient and basically guarantees the policy will not be enforced.

It wasn't applied instantly? Was there some specific deadline they did not meet? Because Twitter does not remove bad things instantly either.

There's been reporting that Amazon sent them some specific... Parlers (?) (IDK what the Tweet equivalent is over there) they said violated their contract or something and they weren't taken down. It's not about the speed either it's that their moderation system was completely half-assed. Keep in mind the kind of talk and planning that lead to Wednesday has been happening over there since the election and similar "hang the traitors" talk has been going on much longer basically since the site started.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#454

Post by wpietri »

cudgy wrote: post #300
wpietri wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

My NDAs constrain me from saying as much as much as I'd like, but it's a mistake to think that the key to fighting abuse is "algorithms". The heart of it is always human judgment. It starts at the executive level to set policy. That policy needs to be carefully socialized to users. The user need ways to report problems. And then you need trained staff to judge the reported content.

Algorithms can help, of course. But the problem is mainly a human one.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#455

Post by wpietri »

tanseydavid wrote: post #399
wpietri wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How does Twitter's market cap relative to Google or Facebook have anything at all to do with Antitrust law?

Antitrust law is about constraining companies with excess market power, especially ones that use it in anticompetitive ways. That's a legitimate concern for companies like Google and Facebook, who dominate their markets. Twitter's popular, but as far as market power goes, it's far too small to dominate social networking.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#456

Post by wpietri »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #294
wpietri wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks!

It depends on what one thinks the foundations of free speech are. For a long time, hate speech has been used to suppress particular groups. In practice, if people with social power can scare disfavored groups into staying quiet, free speech is harmed. Harmed more, in my opinion, than by hate speech restrictions.

In practice, any platform has to choose between hosting abusers and hosting their targets. They will only get one or the other. Given that choice, I would rather boot the abusers. To me the goal of free speech in a democracy is about a maximally informed populace so we make optimal decisions. To the extent that any group wants to convey information, they can do it without abuse. But allowing abuse, especially that targeted at particular groups, limits speech more deeply.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#457

Post by summerlight »

cudgy wrote: post #300
wpietri wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

Parler didn't even try to remove a very narrow, specific set of posts referred by AWS. I think if they did that, AWS probably had much harder time to justify booting Parler off from their platform.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#458

Post by erik_seaberg »

jeofken wrote: post #350
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…

I’d argue not to use law to dismantle big tech companies even if I disagree with their banning. Twitter, Facebook and Google’s social services (gmail and YouTube) are at their heights or just behind them. The cycle for when tech companies are devoured is coming to them. I’d wager something like PeerTube will take a big part of the void YT will leave behind, as the market for censorship-resistant video will grow along…

They aren’t past their peaks, they just demonstrated their power for all the incoming politicians. “Nice campaign you got here, be a shame if something happened to it.”

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#459

Post by dang »

lenkite wrote: post #411
meekmockmook wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I watched as people on Twitter and Facebook Live coordinated to torch one of my favorites neighborhoods in L.A. this summer. I saw looters tweet about breaking into a drug store in Sherman Oaks. You can't say it's just talk there. The damage to Melrose and DTLA had to have been in the tens of millions, if not more.

And the fellows that organise this and boast about it on Twitter will never, ever get banned.

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), regardless of which politics they're battling for. This is because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#460

Post by dang »

djsumdog wrote: post #450
tptacek wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jones was at the riots . In fact, he claims to have paid for the rally that preceded it.

> Corrections & Amplifications The conspiracy theorist Alex Jones urged Trump supporters not to attack police and to move to the east side of the Capitol. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said Mr. Jones urged rioters attacking the Capitol to move forward. (Corrected on Jan. 8) Buried at the very bottom of the Wall-Street Journal article. This is his side of the story, but it sounds like you've already m…

You've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle, and have been egregiously breaking the site guidelines with snark, name-calling, attacking others, and so on. This is against the site rules and we ban accounts that do it, regardless of which politics they're battling for.

I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN