Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#61

Post by skrowl » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #54

dumbfounder wrote: post #38

I believe companies should have a right to have a terms of service and to act on those terms of service. They do it every day. Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. If Google took the step to block them with Chrome then I think I would have issue with that.

> Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. Does renting Linode VMs or Digital Ocean droplets count? Because they can cut Parler off just as easily as Amazon. Do they literally have to buy physical servers and host them on their own property somewhere? But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off? How do they r…

What's you're describing is exactly what Gab did. Then the cancel crowd went after their payment providers and upstream internet providers.

Even if you own your own datacenter, you still need peering and a way to accept payment.

Re: undefined

#62

Post by joecot » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #9

yes, with caveats. my opinion on these kinds of topics is always the same. do I object that amazon, apple, and google have kicked hateful content off of their own properties? no. do I object that getting blacklisted by a few large tech companies is effectively getting kicked off the entire internet? very much yes.

The walled garden app stores are a problem, and it's a problem Progressive Web Apps can solve -- Google and Apple should be required to make PWAs easier to use and more accessible for non technical people. But it is possible to use Parler's PWA, and it's been a bit hilarious watching folks try to explain to each other how to use it.

But there are plenty of other places for Parler to host, register domains, etc. There are at least dozens of hosting companies that can do cloud hosting at the scale they need (which isn't exactly huge despite the hype), there are hundreds more that could be used in tandem to cover their needs. Either Parler's inability to handle these moves is a result of them being incapable or unwilling to take slightly more effort in hosting than launching Amazon or Google server instances with a click, or there's an unprecedented amount of unity in companies against Parler. The Gab is still up, Pirate Bay is still up, 8Chan still finds its way onto the internet.

The internet is still decentralized. It's the super easy hosting part of the internet that is centralized. It's the hosting that's big enough they don't notice or have any questions about what they're hosting. Parler ran out of hosting companies they could quietly hide inside without someone noticing what they're doing, and in order to find hosting again, they'll have to have an actual conversation with a vendor that sees what Parler is doing and is OK with being a part of it.

Re: undefined

#63

Post by xvector » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:47 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #54

dumbfounder wrote: post #38

I believe companies should have a right to have a terms of service and to act on those terms of service. They do it every day. Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. If Google took the step to block them with Chrome then I think I would have issue with that.

> Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. Does renting Linode VMs or Digital Ocean droplets count? Because they can cut Parler off just as easily as Amazon. Do they literally have to buy physical servers and host them on their own property somewhere? But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off? How do they r…

> Basically, I'm asking how you can realistically "self host" without going through a private corporation that might decide to cut you off at some level in the stack?

You can’t, and that is the problem with allowing Big Tech to be the arbiter of truth.

Re: undefined

#64

Post by kemonocode » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

Yes, with caveats. Parler weren't the martyrs of free speech they to paint themselves as, given the platform was actually pretty restricted with what kind of speech was tolerated and you could argue many of the things hosted there weren't free speech and they didn't do their due diligence to moderate their platform.

However, just as it happened with WikiLeaks, it just sets an ugly precedent and it shows to which extent all of the internet's content is effectively beholden to just a few entities. If they want you out, there's little you can do about it, no ifs or buts.

Re: undefined

#65

Post by petrocrat » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:48 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #54

dumbfounder wrote: post #38

I believe companies should have a right to have a terms of service and to act on those terms of service. They do it every day. Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. If Google took the step to block them with Chrome then I think I would have issue with that.

> Parler can still buy some servers and host a website and use mobile web. Does renting Linode VMs or Digital Ocean droplets count? Because they can cut Parler off just as easily as Amazon. Do they literally have to buy physical servers and host them on their own property somewhere? But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off? How do they r…

ISPs should be a public utility. They would need to have a guarantee of protection from revocation of service due to speech as they will be a public entity at that point.

Re: undefined

#66

Post by umvi » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

ojnabieoot wrote: post #60

Unreservedly yes: a) Parler is hardly being “kicked off the entire internet.” They are being severely ostracized and being denied service by major online companies. This would happen to me in my city’s various bars if I developed a reputation as a violent drunk - it is not a violation of any fundamental liberties. Regardless, the idea that Parler can’t exist without AWS is ridiculous - what is true is that maybe you…

> In general people should be aware of the risks of offsourcing to the cloud... especially when your business model is odious and immoral.

I could imagine a future where religion makes a massive resurgence and homosexuality is deemed "odious and immoral". So then Grindr and friends should all be able to be kicked off of their cloud hosting and forced to self-host... right?

Re: undefined

#67

Post by JIBitator » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

No. Leftists love the argument of "they are private companies, they have the right to refuse customers". But Google and Apple are monopolies.

And AWS may not be a monopoly, but we know very well that if Parler moves to another big Cloud provider they will also cut them off. Sure, they can host their own servers. But it's anti-competitive practice, all the modern devops tooling that facilitates the work of engineers is based on knowing that you will use a cloud platform like AWS.

This debate is pretty puerile anyway, anyone with a brain knows that the gradually worsening censorship of Western countries is wrong and that it's becoming more and more totalitarian day by day.

Re: undefined

#68

Post by shiburizu » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

newfeatureok wrote: post #26

spankalee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't "things that aren't exactly popular". This is organizing an insurrection against the government and advocating for violence against groups and individuals.

I understand, but that doesn't really have to do with the point I'm trying to make. Even if you use "organizing an insurrection against the government" as your baseline - is a single post on Facebook/Twitter enough to justify banning? Obviously not - the question is what metrics are acceptable given a certain level of capability by the forum/company. Only so much moderation is possible given a certain amount of moder…

Whatever metric you need to hit to be linked to a group of people who rioted in the capitol building of a superpower state I presume.

Re: undefined

#69

Post by pengo » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

No. If there are valid reasons to block Parler they've been evident since its inception, and should have been acted on long ago. Blocking Parler right now is political expediency.

Re: undefined

#70

Post by skrowl » Mon, Jan 11, 2021, 6:50 PM UTC

spankalee wrote: post #8

benjohnson wrote: post #4

I’m unreservedly no. However I have sympathy for those that made this decision: The federal government is under control of one party now - they know that Clipper Chip 2.0 is a possibility.

And the fact that there are unmoderated calls to violence and to overthrow our government had nothing to do with it?

This didn't actually happen on Parler.

Calls to violence are against their ToS and bannable. The scary screenshots you saw were self posted and screenshotted before they could be reported and taken down. You could do the same thing on Twitter / Reddit / etc.