Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#611

Post by watwut » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 8:08 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #590

dragonwriter wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general class of rhetoric is not the issue. The complete failure to take action about specific, identified pieces of content when notified about it is the issue. Now

You are missing the point too. Why did someone decide for that specific case and not the numerous others by ex. Twitter that are still there. Picking on the little guy just because they are little seems to be a pretty questionable move.

> Why did someone decide for that specific case and not the numerous others by ex. Twitter that are still there.

1.) Twitter was not there and is not there yet. They will be there tho.

2.) Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted.

The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie.

Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Twitter does much more then that.

3.) Parler is not little guy, they have Mercer money.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#612

Post by watwut » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 8:11 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #593

TomSwirly wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Because you haven't yet punished all offenders, you can't punish any of them." Am I getting your argument right? Parler was the most gratuitous because: 1. They had a combination of very tight censorship of dissenting voices, and complete laissez-faire for violent and racist rhetoric as long as it was right wing. 2. It was used to organize a violent and very public revolution against the United States of America, wh…

It must be nice to be a mind reader. I don't care about Parler or crazy righ-wingers. I just care about the inconsistency with which these big platforms seems to be acting and so far I haven't seen anything provide a proper explanation for why Parler and not some of the other social networks out there.

There is explanation - both in this thread and in Amazons response to lawsuit which is public.

You don't care about fairness, you are just trying to convince people that there was inconsistency - by ignoring massive differences between how the two platforms operated. Parler was acting differently then Twitter.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#613

Post by jki275 » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #509

jki275 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have watched significant centrist websites go closed or semi-closed over the past two weeks, deleting or closing historical data, removing seo, disallowing public indexing, etc. So yes -- this is probably how it will go, it's already started.

Which sites? Without any specifics you are just adding meaningless anecdotes and/or FUD.

Your belief or disbelief of my comment has no bearing on reality.

I'm not interested in slaking your thirst for conservative blood to win fake internet points.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#614

Post by ed25519FUUU » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #583

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true with one important exception: you can not refuse business on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Refusing business based on political ideology is not only allowed but seems to be encouraged!

Do you really think refusing business based on someone's race is the same as refusing business based on someone's violent rhetoric?

No of course not. For starters one is illegal and one is not.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#615

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #604

stale2002 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That is not what the other person said. Did you accidently respond to the wrong comment? What the person said was that a chemical manufacturing company should not be "biting their nails" over some random Marijuana decrimininalization speech, that a random candidate is making.

At the end he was talking about changing the rules on effluents. I guess I just doing understand what he is trying to say.

Why should the rules on effluents be related to marijuana policy? They shouldn't be. Why are the rules on effluents related to marijuana policy? Because politics works according to public sentiment attached to individual leaders and their parties, and the leaders and parties bundle together large packages of unrelated policies. Hence a chemical plant owner becomes interested in issues that have absolutely nothing to do with his businesses, or even his business' externalities.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#616

Post by newfriend » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #403

newfriend wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> States are lines on a map. Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic. Dollars are just numbers in a database. Will you give me all your money? Or is it only certain "made-up" things that are important to you? > Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some…

> Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state? What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the pe…

> What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the people it governs?

The United States is a union of states. The people have representation at the federal level, and the state level.

> Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented?

No. The people of the state are the state, not the government of the state. Again, the state gets representation because we are a union of states. And local governments get representation at the state level. There are many concerns of a people, and we have people representing those concerns at different levels of government, from local to state to federal. Otherwise we could just have a single person represent everyone.

> Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance?

The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC). The EC is the House + Senate. So no, it's not an imbalance.

> Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.

I don't have a side. I vote for policies that I agree with, which has changed over time. Party support of certain issues has changed over time as well.

I am pretty tired, however, of people crying about foundational aspects of my country because they lost an election. I think the increasing concentration of power in the federal government is a bad idea.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#617

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

TomSwirly wrote: post #587

roenxi wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. I do suspect AWS was thinking that - which is why I'm not ruling out political bias. Even if that interpretation of the Capitol riot somehow, miraculously, turns out to be correct there hasn't been time to prove it with evidence. But, as chalst argues, there are interpretations where they were acting reasonably.

> What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. "This site we host was just used to plan a violent revolution. It's more trouble than it's worth, let's dump them." Is this what you mean by "bias"?

No, the bias is assuming that is true and acting on it without sufficient evidence.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#618

Post by chevill » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #544

chevill wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The document states that Parler agreed they had a massive backlog of reported content to review that "potentially promoted violence". Even Parler isn't making the claim here that they were doing a good job of moderating. They are arguing that it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it. There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about lots of things. There's plenty of reasons to dislike mainstream…

> it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it spoken as if there is just one cloud hosting provider in the world; it's parlers job to take care of their own security and resilience Let's say I call Jim's taxi every day, I am his client, and one day Jim refuses to serve me, can I sue him or should I just call another taxi?

Not sure what you're getting at here. I wasn't supporting Parler's lawsuit. I'm simply responding to the parent comment that was claiming that Parler has good moderation.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#619

Post by freedomben » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

Threeve303 wrote: post #34

throwaway45349 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do believe that should've also been in their threat model - these guys should've acted like they were hosting The Pirate Bay 2 given the state of American politics. For instance, they could've had a low-traffic backup in read-only mode, or prevent new sign-ups. Or have an application layer switch to reduce outgoing bandwidth (HTML only) to squeeze into a coloc facility on short notice.

Engineering the site well to stay online might be beside the point now. Parler wanted to be taken down so that they could fight this legal battle, likely with an eye on Section 230. As an added bonus, they can frame the removal as persecution.

I'm not doubting you, but do you have a source for:

> Parler wanted to be taken down so that they could fight this legal battle

?

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#620

Post by roenxi » Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #596

roenxi wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. I do suspect AWS was thinking that - which is why I'm not ruling out political bias. Even if that interpretation of the Capitol riot somehow, miraculously, turns out to be correct there hasn't been time to prove it with evidence. But, as chalst argues, there are interpretations where they were acting reasonably.

Yeah, you're going to find that most people are very much biased against enabling a violent coup on the government that is being really good to them. A coup that, if successful, has the potential to endanger their entire business, their wealth, and possibly their lives. BTW, "you're biased" is not, in and of itself, a reason to entirely shut down an argument as invalid.

The bias isn't in the response, it is in the faulty interpretation:

  A coup that, if successful, has the potential to endanger their entire business, their wealth, and possibly their lives.

Not only was this an unsupported at the time, but unless something really flashy happens it is only going to become more obviously wrong. 1 violent riot in 2021 compares not so badly to the widespread peaceful arson and looting in 2020 that was brushed off as routine political expression.

> BTW, "you're biased" is not, in and of itself, a reason to entirely shut down an argument as invalid.

No argument on that particular point, but it is a decent reason not to try and use a certain infrastructure provider for communication tools or artistic content. Most people are looking for a dumb pipe when they pick an infrastructure provider, not a back-seat moderator with a twitchy trigger finger.