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

Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#641

Post by courtf »

oliv__ wrote: post #628

I'm having a real hard time understanding how all the comments in the thread are in favor of this. I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship? "First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wasn't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me"

Because no one is "coming" for you friend. You sound deranged.

If you really need a place to scream about killing leftists, go to the park. The homeless vets will probably yell at you to shut up but I promise Amazon won't try to deplatform you.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#643

Post by chr1 »

And several years ago when Putin was trying to ban Telegram Amazon was the one providing servers and ips to prevent it.

So the only way to be safe from censorship is to use services hosted in an unfriendly/uninterested country. Maybe they need to open accounts in Russian vk social network instead of Parler:)

Jokes aside this is one of the reasons why it is important to have multiple truly independent countries, because if you have just one government for whole earth, then someone like Snowden will not have any safe place.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#644

Post by paulddraper »

Cookingboy wrote: post #627

Good. If corporations are people then they absolutely should have the right to exercise whatever free speech they want to. Nobody is preventing those deplorables to say whatever the hell they want, but also nobody is obliged to provide services and platform to those people to spread those toxic messages. According to /r/conservative the entire tech industry is ran by leftists, and leftists are stupid, unemployed lose…

Exactly. They've been saying stuff like

"Burn it down, burn it all down "

"If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f*cking thing down."

Unconscionable.

AWS has terms of services and if you violate them, you can expect them to follow them.

And it makes total sense that they would do it with plenty of warning like 24 hours after hosting then for years.

You just can't criticize a business like AWS for doing that.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#645

Post by bra-ket »

mullingitover wrote: post #633

This of course brings up the highly controversial issue of whether you should optimize your architecture for multicloud or go all-in on one provider. Edit: I would recommend Corey Quinn's thread for more background, but tl;dr it's hard to get kicked off AWS and it's not happening due to political slant https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1348130385411018752

I think the best plan of action is creating a new decentralized free speech platform, as resilient as a cockroach, blockchain or scihub.

I’ve sent a message to sama & pg asking to add this to the YC list of ‘requests for startups’. I hope they hear.

For those lurking, this is a tremendous opportunity and real need as you have half the country desperate to let their voice be heard while being aggressively silenced and de-platformed for political reasons.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#646

Post by jaredsohn »

mullingitover wrote: post #633

This of course brings up the highly controversial issue of whether you should optimize your architecture for multicloud or go all-in on one provider. Edit: I would recommend Corey Quinn's thread for more background, but tl;dr it's hard to get kicked off AWS and it's not happening due to political slant https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1348130385411018752

Parler should have known this was a risk going in. Being able to switch cloud providers is important if there is potential for controversy for your service.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#647

Post by paxys »

oliv__ wrote: post #628

I'm having a real hard time understanding how all the comments in the thread are in favor of this. I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship? "First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wasn't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me"

There are threads on Parler right now (well, were before the service was taken down I guess) where people are discussing names and addresses of Twitter employees and planning kidnappings. You really think taking that down is censorship?

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#648

Post by dmourati »

mullingitover wrote: post #633

This of course brings up the highly controversial issue of whether you should optimize your architecture for multicloud or go all-in on one provider. Edit: I would recommend Corey Quinn's thread for more background, but tl;dr it's hard to get kicked off AWS and it's not happening due to political slant https://twitter.com/QuinnyPig/status/1348130385411018752

Not really. There is a difference between multicloud and cloud agnostic.

Re: Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

#650

Post by onion2k »

oliv__ wrote: post #628

I'm having a real hard time understanding how all the comments in the thread are in favor of this. I mean, even if you disagree with the idea of Parler, how can one willingly support this kind of censorship? "First they came for the XYZ and I didn't care because I wasn't XYZ, then they came for the ..., and then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me"

It isn't censorship. No one is telling Parler they're not free to do what they want. AWS is telling Parler they don't want them as a customer. That is not censorship. Whether a business should be able to refuse a customer is an interesting question. People on the political right have historically believed they should (refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is often cited as a case of such freedom).

There is also an argument that AWS is now so big and important that they should be treated like a utility, and then refusing customers is something that they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to do. I'm not sure how I feel about that argument though.

Post reply on HN