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

Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 1001 posts

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#701

Post by ogre_codes »

bawolff wrote: post #693
ogre_codes wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can mitigate anything My point is what this guy seems to want to enable is fundamentally conspiring to commit crimes. He seems to talk around that, but that's where we are.

I think you're reading in things he did not say. He seems concerned he will be unpopular not illegal. Whether or not that is a reasonable concern is debatable... but history certainly has examples of that sort of thing. That said, there are plenty of websites that do conspire to do illegal acts and seem to get away with it, for a time at least. (pirate bay, sci-hub are two im ok with ethically. The silk road is an ex…

Parler had no trouble getting in the App Store and AWS when they were perceived as merely espousing an unpopular opinion.

Parler was blocked only after there was clear evidence that criminal activity was being openly planned on their platform and that planning was acted on.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#702

Post by hchz »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #469
cactus2093 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the best mitigations here, both technical and social? Vocally side with the popular issues, or try to stay completely out of them, to try to avoid becoming a target (e.g., social media presence)? For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government. Seems like a pretty easy thing to stay clear of. I get the concern you're expressing, but not everything is a s…

> not everything is a slippery slope From a risk management perspective, this does not seem like a safe assumption to make. The DailyStormer got "canceled" by vendors for not even trying to moderate content that actively promoted violence (among other horrible things). Now Parlor gets "canceled" by vendors for not doing a good enough job trying to moderate content promoting violence. The bar for getting "canceled" is…

What's the calculation you need to make?

Don't provide an unmoderated online platform for neo-nazis preparing for genocide.

I didn't finish my math major but this seems straightforward.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#703

Post by hayd »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #336
mech422 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if all the bakers in town refuse to bake you a cake, should you be able to force one to? Seriously, when there are dozens of options and none of them want your business, shouldn't that give you pause? If all the insurance agencies refuse to insure your ship because they think it will sink, wouldn't it be prudent to double check your blueprints/construction ?

> And if all the bakers in town refuse to bake you a cake, should you be able to force one to? Yes. edit: Well, they could also close all of their bakeries. I'm willing to allow them that option.

The same argument applies if you wanted to commission a cake celebrating the holocaust.

The distinction must be that anyone (any race, any sexual orientation, etc. etc.) should be able to buy anything "off the shelf" (e.g. a plain cake or wedding cake). But no one should be forced to write/design/create something which they don't want to.

My bakery should be allowed to refuse to bake a cake celebrating the holocaust.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#704

Post by lolc »

namedpipe wrote: post #524
zmb_ wrote: post #321

I'm struggling to try to understand what this means for the risks of running a business in the cloud going forward. It was not just AWS dropping them, but many of their other vendors dropped them too, essentially killing their business overnight. Granted, for this first case the bar was extremely high. You needed literal storming of the Capitol and a platform seemingly specifically targeted at those people for this t…

The best mitigation strategy here is to engage your vendors with private contracts instead of depending on generic terms of service (ToS) alone. Every company I've worked with has negotiated separate agreements with providers to reduce risk. Including contracts with both AWS and Azure. If your business gets to a certain size and you are still on the generic ToS and paying by credit card you have a big risk on your ha…

> If you are unwilling to do that, then you need to make sure you diversify your cloud. It's much less likely that two competing cloud vendors would shut you off at exactly the same time.

I actually think that the providers would fall like dominoes. See what Apple and Google did to the app. Once a big company shows you the door because they worry about legal risks and reputational damage, other companies will take note and you'll have a hard time staying on.

You'll have to find a company that does it out of idealism. Or one that is socially disconnected enough that the threats to reputation and legal risks do not apply.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#705

Post by cycop »

Closi wrote: post #683
cactus2093 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the best mitigations here, both technical and social? Vocally side with the popular issues, or try to stay completely out of them, to try to avoid becoming a target (e.g., social media presence)? For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government. Seems like a pretty easy thing to stay clear of. I get the concern you're expressing, but not everything is a s…

> For now, don't attempt to overturn a fair democratic election and install an illegitimate government. Seems like a pretty easy thing to stay clear of. I don't think it is though - the point is who decides if the democratic election was fair? What happens in a foreign country if their government decides the election isn't fair? Should people be silenced? Or is it Amazon's job now to work out if worldwide elections a…

The platform being used for organizing potential mass murder of targeted groups. If the screenshots are correct of what I have seen then AWS had no choice. They would have been liable if something really bad happened and was made aware of this before it happened. Parler has no monitoring of this activity and that is why everyone shut them down once it was exposed.

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#706

Post by Closi »

sterlind wrote: post #595
MisterBiggs wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those posts barely have any interaction or views so it doesn't seem like they are actually that big of an issue. Every social network has people saying crazy things.

the damning thing for Parler though is that they didn't remove those posts - which I remind you are illegal because they unambiguously incite violence - after AWS reported them. there is no excuse for Parler not to have removed those posts. they chose to ride or die with their jury moderation system, and died. this isn't a 1A issue. incitement to violence is not protected by 1A - that's been settled by the Supreme Co…

I know there is a subtlety here and I might be being pedantic, but I don't think it's illegal to host illegal speech.

And I don't think there is a legal obligation to censor other people's illegal speech.

And if it was, the buzzfeed article is presumably illegal too for hosting the same speech?

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#707

Post by frockington1 »

b0bb1z3r0 wrote: post #618
Closi wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree - but I think this can only be solved via legislation. Amazon has too much market power if it can shut down another company at the push of a button for something that isn't illegal (even if it's distasteful).

It is illegal to conspire to commit violence against the US

How is any social media platform up? I understand why Parler was taken down, but why is this not applied to every single website? I'm sure we can find a 'conspiracy to commit violence against the US' in this single article thread

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#708

Post by threeseed »

larrywright wrote: post #528
Daishiman wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, parlor wasn't even doing a "good enough job". It wasn't doing _anything_. It's financial backers supported everything with regards to its users going into a violent frenzy. There really is nothing contentious here, unless you feel that if you know that a group is organizing in your platform with the intent of staging a coup then you're in your right to just let them go about it.

There are lots of horrible things on Parler from what I’ve seen (I don’t have an account, I’ve just seen screen shots). The most egregious example was the post from Trump attorney Lin Wood calling for Pence to be executed by firing squad. It was up for days, and only taken down when this all blew up.

Here are some examples that are just as egregious:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBxXcAAuTkC?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgBuXYAAB4y2?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErTzgB3XIAcffGC?format=jpg&name=...

Re: Parler drops offline after Amazon pulls support

#710

Post by res0nat0r »

nautilus12 wrote: post #614
mcguire wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are the AWS Service Terms ( https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ ) and the AWS Acceptable Use Policy ( https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ ). You are responsible for understanding and following these as well as the appropriate laws (which probably require the assistance of a lawyer, which I am not, and which is probably a good idea in any case). If a service provider refuses you service and you believe it violates the…

The problem is that someone (Parler in this case) would have to actively build automated moderation systems or be philosophically aligned with moderation in order to fulfill the TOS in this case since its the users driving the violation. The baseline shouldn't require them build something, that seems like a burden too far. Suppose the violators were bots, doesn't this mean that anyone that can't build a moderation sy…

> doesn't this mean that anyone that can't build a moderation system to keep up with the bots becomes collateral damage?

Yes.

Post reply on HN