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

Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 652 posts

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

#641

Post by triceratops »

jki275 wrote: post #636
triceratops wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.

Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states. If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.

States != people. People have to vote directly in order for it to be considered a referendum.

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

#642

Post by triceratops »

fjabre wrote: post #633
triceratops wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? "We are a representative democracy" is some Orwellian doublespeak. It leaves out "But some people are more represented than others."

You bring up Orwell. Both sides can get to extremism pretty easily. Both conservatives and liberals easily become dictators. Power corrupts everyone. This has nothing to do with Orwell. Im not sure why you bring him up. The forefathers designed the system this way. I agree with the way it was designed. It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots. I agree with the forefathers. You do…

> Im not sure why you bring him up.

Because saying "it's a representative democracy" is doublespeak. If you have one person representing tens of millions and another person representing a small city (~150k people), and they have the same vote, it's not meaningfully "representative". Saying "it's a representative democracy" doesn't tell you anything about the fairness of the system.

> I agree with the way it was designed.

Because it favors you. It would be a bad system even if it was the other way around (i.e. it favored the other side).

> It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.

I'm still to hear a good argument for why it's better for small states to call shots instead.

> I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.

I'm fine with that. They were as fallible as anyone else and could not have foreseen that their system might have flaws. There's no need to deify them and think that everything they did was right.

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

#643

Post by teddyh »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #451
belorn wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there existed a single paper mill company that held 95% of the market, and they decided to refuse selling paper to a news paper, then I would consider that a problem. It might not look like censorship, but the practical effect is very much similar. In theory a news paper could go out and buy land, grow trees, cut them down, and mill them into sawdust, and chemically treat that sawdust in order to turn it into pape…

If AWS has only 35% of that market, shouldn’t Parler have no problem moving to another platform? If they can’t find another platform willing to host them, I’d say the problem is Parler, not AWS.

Do any of those other platforms use any AWS services themselves? If they do, or want to have the option in the future, they might cooperate in the shunning of Parler just to avoid being shunned themselves.

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

#645

Post by curryst »

someguydave wrote: post #494
jcranmer wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The harm to AWS is in "interfer[ing] with AWS’s ability to prevent its services from being used to promote—and, as the events of January 6, 2021 have demonstrated, even cause—violence." I wouldn't call that a laughable claim...

Plenty of people have posted similar or worse things on Twitter without moderation by Twitter or much shame to Twitter's upstream service providers. Also, can you draw a direct causal line between AWS hosted Parler posts and actual violence that took place on Jan 6th?

I actually agreed with you until I read the order. It's about public good. Parler is arguing that Amazon is part of a cartel and that that's harmful to public, so the injunction restores fairness to the market. The judge finds that meritless because they have no evidence that the cartel exists, and so the injunction does nothing for the public good. I'm certain the factual errors about AWS hosting Twitter's feed didn't help.

Amazon argues that Parler had a role in the insurrection, so banning them is in the public good. Given the amount of content from the insurrection on Parler, it seems more likely than not that at least one person there was influenced by Parler. There is no requirement that absolute proof be shown, the judge is weighing probabilities here. It also helps Amazon that injunctive reliefs are considered an extraordinary measure, so Amazon wins by default unless Parler can reach a significant bar.

This was a moonshot, and Parler knew it. They're asking for a strong legal response based on a pretty flimsy case. Even if what they are saying is true (which I strongly doubt, but what if), they simply don't have the evidence they need to get this relief.

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

#646

Post by curryst »

boringg wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #2

Here's the denial of the TRO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg... Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose. I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believ…

I think they probably know they have no case but are trying to fan the flames of the culture war to generate support and keep their name in the media until they find other hosting services.

> keep their name in the media until they find other hosting services.

This is the winner right here. It's a rather brilliant play, it keeps reminding their users that they exist. If they can find new hosting before they run out of ways to get in the headlines, they stand a good chance of keeping many of their users.

I would expect to see another wild filing after discovery. They'll find a quote from low-level employees from Amazon and Twitter talking to each other, inflate their credentials so they seem like they have authority, and then make a Sherman Act claim out of it.

I'm curious what lawyer would be willing to file these. The judge even takes the time to point out the places where Parler undermines their own case. This seems like it's just sacrificing your legal career; who would hire you after showing up in court and arguing this with a straight face?

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

#647

Post by curryst »

perlgeek wrote: post #207
tptacek wrote: post #2

Here's the denial of the TRO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg... Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose. I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believ…

A bit off-topic, but after reading this and a few other court decisions (for example in the context of contesting election results), it strikes me that they are pretty well-written. They provide context for a lay audience, and while their language isn't simple, it is understandable to a non-native speaker like me. Is this usual? or is it that for such cases with high publicity, the courts select judges that are know…

That's fairly normal. It depends on the judge to a degree, as each has their own writing style, but most tend to write fairly clearly like this. I dated a court clerk and asked about the writing style, and was told that they write that way because the parties have a right to understand the court's opinion. Most judges take that to mean that they should write in a manner that a layperson can understand fairly well, because there are members of both parties that are not lawyers, and their case may end up being cited by a pro se plaintiff or defendant (i.e. they are not represented by a lawyer).

> the courts select judges that are know as good writers?

These aren't generally written solely by the judge. The judge's clerk will often draft some or all of it, which the judge can then edit or sign off on. The judge may also consult it with other people or judge's if they want or need to.

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

#648

Post by Pfhreak »

jki275 wrote: post #613
Pfhreak wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read up on the Fundamental Attribution Error and reread my post. I'm not coming after you in the way you think. I just said that your post was low signal. I neither said nor implied that I believe or disbelieve you. It's not a matter of belief at all, frankly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

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

#649

Post by someguydave »

dragonwriter wrote: post #511
someguydave wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 230 is a valuable grant of liability protection, and thus morally obligates platforms to act as a public forum. At the very least, moderation decisions should be written down and reviewable by a third party. The law should be reformed to reflect that.

> Section 230 is a valuable grant of liability protection, and thus morally obligates platforms to act as a public forum. That makes no sense, since the entire, explicit purpose of Section 230 was to free platforms from preexisting disincentives si that they could be free to “restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent…

That's why section 230 needs to be re-written. I'm fine with moderation, and I'm fine with sites that publish user-generated content defining their own content rules. What I'm not fine with are rules that are unevenly enforced in order to play favorites. I would reform section 230 so say that you must post the site's user-generated content rules, and you must post a moderation log. The moderation log would consist of the list of moderation actions taken and the accounts affected, and the time. Any moderation action that appears to not align with the stated content policy should be reviewable by a third party accredited arbitrator, at the plantiff's expense. The net effect of this scenario would be to cause the sites to write down detailed rules about content, and enforce them fairly on all sides. Right now there are simply too many flagrantly biased or inaccurate moderation decisions on these sites, and many of them seem to be motivated by political or economic reasons. It's one thing to ask that sites be the "public square" because of the huge gift of liability protection that section 230 grants. This argument has not held up in courts. It's a totally different thing to require sites play by their own rules, and hold them accountable for each hypocritical moderation action that genuinely hurts the "little guy"

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

#650

Post by iamdbtoo »

throwaway45349 wrote: post #521
iamdbtoo wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To compare the two is to ignore so much context I can't imagine you're being anything other than disingenuous.

Why? Both are a disenfranchised voice complaining with violence. One might be more valid than the other, but that doesn't mean one is inherently better.

No, they are not. Not at all and that you think that is exactly my point. One is the voice of a group that has been in power throughout the history of this country and the other is a group that has been oppressed by the former group.

One group is using violence to maintain their power, while the other is using anything they can to make their lives better.

Post reply on HN