[untitled]
143 comments
Aside: This ongoing episode reminds me of the old Mark Twain quote: Never anger a man that buys ink by the barrel.
I think an update is needed: Never anger a man that measures servers by the acre.
I think an update is needed: Never anger a man that measures servers by the acre.
> I personally don't this AWS is a utility / common carrier (I can go and buy a server and serve a website all on my own for the entire internet to access)
How? Where will the server be located? How will it be connected to the internet? ISPs are not common carriers so good luck...
How? Where will the server be located? How will it be connected to the internet? ISPs are not common carriers so good luck...
I voted "yes, with caveats". The caveat is that my agreement is based on my understanding that these bans are justified because of terms of service (TOS) violations.
I'm pretty sure that Google Play, for example, has banned other apps in the past because of issues with "user-generated content" that was not sufficiently moderated.
If tech firms are enforcing TOS and doing it in an even-handed way, then I'm OK with that. Freedom of speech is important, big companies with lots of power also have lots of responsibility, but I think they should still be able to have TOS.
Whether it's truly even-handed is an important question. Even if a TOS agreement is written objectively, it's possible enforce it selectively. Personally, I don't see any clear sign that it isn't even-handed. Given the timing, it's obviously reactive, but that seems OK to me because there is new information to consider, and the app took on greater importance, so it's natural to look more closely at it (among all the many apps out there).
I'm pretty sure that Google Play, for example, has banned other apps in the past because of issues with "user-generated content" that was not sufficiently moderated.
If tech firms are enforcing TOS and doing it in an even-handed way, then I'm OK with that. Freedom of speech is important, big companies with lots of power also have lots of responsibility, but I think they should still be able to have TOS.
Whether it's truly even-handed is an important question. Even if a TOS agreement is written objectively, it's possible enforce it selectively. Personally, I don't see any clear sign that it isn't even-handed. Given the timing, it's obviously reactive, but that seems OK to me because there is new information to consider, and the app took on greater importance, so it's natural to look more closely at it (among all the many apps out there).
No, and this morning was probably filled with companies all across this country re-evaluating their cloud strategies...
The problem is, what happens to the next platform, if they don't like something. Our company's board had a meeting today to discuss cloud, and vendor lockin (or translation... holy eff, this could happen to anyone, let's pump the brakes on this cloud stuff). What happens if for some reason an employee, customer, or some other event caused a similar scenario. Twitter has had plenty of content filled with threats of violence in other instances, and much more direct, targeted, and deliberate. They are still running.
I personally don't have an answer, and it didn't matter why the plug was pulled, but what it did was cause a pause, and a rethink on where the control resides. Needless to say, our cloud strategy changed this morning, and I wonder how many other businesses had a similar conversation this morning.
The problem is, what happens to the next platform, if they don't like something. Our company's board had a meeting today to discuss cloud, and vendor lockin (or translation... holy eff, this could happen to anyone, let's pump the brakes on this cloud stuff). What happens if for some reason an employee, customer, or some other event caused a similar scenario. Twitter has had plenty of content filled with threats of violence in other instances, and much more direct, targeted, and deliberate. They are still running.
I personally don't have an answer, and it didn't matter why the plug was pulled, but what it did was cause a pause, and a rethink on where the control resides. Needless to say, our cloud strategy changed this morning, and I wonder how many other businesses had a similar conversation this morning.
Is this kind of submission really a good idea?
I have real concern that polling like this only succeeds at falsely distorting and amplifying the small[0] differences between people within a community. It draws battle lines and suggests that people ought to take a position now and sort themselves into buckets. It does not ask us to think beyond a straight line from yes to no, black or white, right or wrong. It does not encourage us to remember our innumerable other shared interests and values.
An observer glancing at any of the submissions about Parler’s fate in the last week will clearly see that opinion is divided. Quantifying that division, as this poll does, might satisfy some curiosity for hard numbers, but what is the cost to our sense of belonging to a community to do so? What is the cost to our ability to put our differences aside in pursuit of larger goals?
The question of what to do about the influence of social media and conglomeration of power among big tech companies is clearly a defining one for our age, but I don’t know how we’re going to get closer to a thoughtful answer with polls like these which—intentionally or not—seem to me almost purpose-built to drive ideological wedges between people and nudge them toward taking hard-line positions. In a time where the lack of nuance itself is driving so many negative outcomes, this feels dangerous.
[0] I don’t mean that this is somehow a minor or unimportant issue, but rather that people on HN are more similar, even in disagreement, than two random people on the street.
I have real concern that polling like this only succeeds at falsely distorting and amplifying the small[0] differences between people within a community. It draws battle lines and suggests that people ought to take a position now and sort themselves into buckets. It does not ask us to think beyond a straight line from yes to no, black or white, right or wrong. It does not encourage us to remember our innumerable other shared interests and values.
An observer glancing at any of the submissions about Parler’s fate in the last week will clearly see that opinion is divided. Quantifying that division, as this poll does, might satisfy some curiosity for hard numbers, but what is the cost to our sense of belonging to a community to do so? What is the cost to our ability to put our differences aside in pursuit of larger goals?
The question of what to do about the influence of social media and conglomeration of power among big tech companies is clearly a defining one for our age, but I don’t know how we’re going to get closer to a thoughtful answer with polls like these which—intentionally or not—seem to me almost purpose-built to drive ideological wedges between people and nudge them toward taking hard-line positions. In a time where the lack of nuance itself is driving so many negative outcomes, this feels dangerous.
[0] I don’t mean that this is somehow a minor or unimportant issue, but rather that people on HN are more similar, even in disagreement, than two random people on the street.
Unreservedly yes.
The Capitol riots killed 6 people, including two police officers. The crowd was armed to the teeth with guns, pipebombs, and ziptie handcuffs. They constructed a gallows. They coordinated with police sympathizers to gain access to the building, while one GOP congresswoman live-tweeted the known whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi.
They were planning to murder political opposition and violently overthrow a fair democratic election to appoint their leader instead.
If not for the plan devolving into a disorganized mob, and a quick thinking capitol officer who lead rioters away from the chamber where House Reps had been evacuated, rioters may have claimed many more lives.
Kudos for Amazon, Apple, Google, and all other tech companies for deplatforming violent neo-fascists and their enablers.
The Capitol riots killed 6 people, including two police officers. The crowd was armed to the teeth with guns, pipebombs, and ziptie handcuffs. They constructed a gallows. They coordinated with police sympathizers to gain access to the building, while one GOP congresswoman live-tweeted the known whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi.
They were planning to murder political opposition and violently overthrow a fair democratic election to appoint their leader instead.
If not for the plan devolving into a disorganized mob, and a quick thinking capitol officer who lead rioters away from the chamber where House Reps had been evacuated, rioters may have claimed many more lives.
Kudos for Amazon, Apple, Google, and all other tech companies for deplatforming violent neo-fascists and their enablers.
Twitter hosts the KSA and leaders of other terroristic regimes. Should Twitter unreservedly be banned?
Reddit has been implicated in murdering an innocent thinking they were the Boston Bomber. Should Reddit be unreservedly banned?
Suicides and murders have been live-streamed on Facebook. Should Facebook be unreservedly banned?
Each of those platforms host countless instances of violence, are platforms on which abuse of all kinds can grow and thrive - should they all be unreservedly banned?
Sure, some of Parler’s users were violent in the protests. A vanishingly small minority of their user base, at that. But to single out Parler and not any of the other platforms is no different than singling out a political viewpoint that you find disagreeable, and for all that you wax poetic about neo-fascism, nothing is more fascist than saying that a viewpoint you don’t like shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Reddit has been implicated in murdering an innocent thinking they were the Boston Bomber. Should Reddit be unreservedly banned?
Suicides and murders have been live-streamed on Facebook. Should Facebook be unreservedly banned?
Each of those platforms host countless instances of violence, are platforms on which abuse of all kinds can grow and thrive - should they all be unreservedly banned?
Sure, some of Parler’s users were violent in the protests. A vanishingly small minority of their user base, at that. But to single out Parler and not any of the other platforms is no different than singling out a political viewpoint that you find disagreeable, and for all that you wax poetic about neo-fascism, nothing is more fascist than saying that a viewpoint you don’t like shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook ban people all the time for calls to violence. Reddit made the national news last year because moderators of r/The_Donald failed to police the numerous posts of users who plotted to murder the governor of Michigan.
Parler, by contrast, did not moderate calls to violence. It quickly became a safe space for neo-fascists to plan, coordinate, and execute plots against the US government.
Parler was playing a completely different game to Twitter, Reddit, and FB. Parler was deservedly ejected from the stadium.
Parler, by contrast, did not moderate calls to violence. It quickly became a safe space for neo-fascists to plan, coordinate, and execute plots against the US government.
Parler was playing a completely different game to Twitter, Reddit, and FB. Parler was deservedly ejected from the stadium.
Yes, with caveats. Companies have a right to set the terms by which they provide service to others, unless those rights have been taken away for that class of companies (say, public utilities) or those terms are otherwise illegal (say, discriminating against a "protected class").
Apple & Google I've no issue with, outside the generic issue with Apple being the only app distribution provider for iPhones. But that should (IMO) be handled through regular anti-trust law.
AWS is more an infrastructure service. I don't necessarily think that they should be held to be a utility. But the logical continuation (if Parler build their own datacenter, will ISPs peer with them?) does lead to problems if the answer is "no". ISPs should be Title II common carriers, and peering should be non-discriminatory. Just like i wouldn't support an electric company turning off their power or a gas company turning off their heat, I don't think ISPs should be allowed to discriminate based on content (except in the case of protocol headers explicitly set by the client to allow such discrimination, such as the IPv4 Type Of Service field or the IPv6 Traffic Class field).
So the real question for me is "is AWS big enough to be regulated as a utility/common carrier?" I lean towards "no" at this point, given that there are several alternatives.
Apple & Google I've no issue with, outside the generic issue with Apple being the only app distribution provider for iPhones. But that should (IMO) be handled through regular anti-trust law.
AWS is more an infrastructure service. I don't necessarily think that they should be held to be a utility. But the logical continuation (if Parler build their own datacenter, will ISPs peer with them?) does lead to problems if the answer is "no". ISPs should be Title II common carriers, and peering should be non-discriminatory. Just like i wouldn't support an electric company turning off their power or a gas company turning off their heat, I don't think ISPs should be allowed to discriminate based on content (except in the case of protocol headers explicitly set by the client to allow such discrimination, such as the IPv4 Type Of Service field or the IPv6 Traffic Class field).
So the real question for me is "is AWS big enough to be regulated as a utility/common carrier?" I lean towards "no" at this point, given that there are several alternatives.
Parler has a first-amendment right to free speech.
Amazon, etc., also have a first-amendment right to free speech. IMHO this includes deciding not to conduct business with another private party. I do not consider this on their part to be "censorship," at least not moreso than any restriction on their decision to do this.
The underlying issue is that services provided by private companies have effectively become essential infrastructure. This causes a host of problems, which have been pointed out by far-sighted individuals, and only now are some of this issues becoming visible to a broader audience. These private companies are structurally not designed to take responsibility for the activities happening on their platform, and in fact some of them are designed around not being responsible. But there's no one else to shift that responsibility onto, and a large area with a vacumm of accountability has caused problems.
Compared to private companies becoming the gatekeepers of public discourse, I have a variety of things I would prefer, including regulation. But I don't know if any of those alternatives are realistic. So, "yes with caveats."
Amazon, etc., also have a first-amendment right to free speech. IMHO this includes deciding not to conduct business with another private party. I do not consider this on their part to be "censorship," at least not moreso than any restriction on their decision to do this.
The underlying issue is that services provided by private companies have effectively become essential infrastructure. This causes a host of problems, which have been pointed out by far-sighted individuals, and only now are some of this issues becoming visible to a broader audience. These private companies are structurally not designed to take responsibility for the activities happening on their platform, and in fact some of them are designed around not being responsible. But there's no one else to shift that responsibility onto, and a large area with a vacumm of accountability has caused problems.
Compared to private companies becoming the gatekeepers of public discourse, I have a variety of things I would prefer, including regulation. But I don't know if any of those alternatives are realistic. So, "yes with caveats."
Someone the "right to free speech" becomes the right to censor.
No, with caveats. Free speech underpins our (speaking for the US) nation. Even violent speech helped create our nation in the first place.
Completely obliterating these platforms is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes - and this is my caveat - we should be keeping a tight rein on hate speech, on inciting violence, and on death threats. But, and this is key to me, these kinds of things are the minority of discussion occurring, and should be treated as the outliers they are.
For better or worse, these platforms are the public squares of the internet; if people can't speak freely there, they can't speak freely on the internet. Private company or not, they have a monopoly on what speech appears on the internet, and an individual's right to free speech should be regulated accordingly.
Completely obliterating these platforms is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes - and this is my caveat - we should be keeping a tight rein on hate speech, on inciting violence, and on death threats. But, and this is key to me, these kinds of things are the minority of discussion occurring, and should be treated as the outliers they are.
For better or worse, these platforms are the public squares of the internet; if people can't speak freely there, they can't speak freely on the internet. Private company or not, they have a monopoly on what speech appears on the internet, and an individual's right to free speech should be regulated accordingly.
[deleted]
Yes, with caveats
The reason for dropping them should be noted with some kind of auditable trail. If they are dropping them because of illegal activity being sanctioned on the service, that should be part of the record, maybe even along with evidence of their unwillingness to address the problem. All of those things point to a client willing to abuse the service, thus justifying Amazon/Apple/Google cutting them off. If however, the auditable trail shows that the service was making attempts to address the issue, that gives them some leeway. All of this is under the false assumption that there is some unforeseen perfectly objective arbiter of disputes like this.
The reason for dropping them should be noted with some kind of auditable trail. If they are dropping them because of illegal activity being sanctioned on the service, that should be part of the record, maybe even along with evidence of their unwillingness to address the problem. All of those things point to a client willing to abuse the service, thus justifying Amazon/Apple/Google cutting them off. If however, the auditable trail shows that the service was making attempts to address the issue, that gives them some leeway. All of this is under the false assumption that there is some unforeseen perfectly objective arbiter of disputes like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, as there has been some questionable (violent, or other) content on Twitter that has not been blocked. Seems a little fishy to say the least.
Unreservedly no. Any company big enough to have this kind of power, like Amazon or Google, is without doubt hosting illegal content somewhere in their data centers. I don't think youtube or AWS should be shielded from legal effects of what their users do, if they don't extend the same principle to their customers. On top of that, I'm a staunch free speech advocate, so I definitely don't agree with the recent trend of censorship and cancel culture.
[deleted]
Unreservedly no. It could become a nice reservation for haters. Now hate is gonna spread elsewhere.
The fear that haters will unite and do some damage is understandable. But silencing them completely is the wrong way.
The only right way to fight lies and madmans is spreading the enlightenment. Speaking the truth, making honest deeds, etc. Making a nicer counter-play. This is the way. Shutting your opponent off is a primitive way that will solve nothing.
The fear that haters will unite and do some damage is understandable. But silencing them completely is the wrong way.
The only right way to fight lies and madmans is spreading the enlightenment. Speaking the truth, making honest deeds, etc. Making a nicer counter-play. This is the way. Shutting your opponent off is a primitive way that will solve nothing.
[deleted]
No. It's corporate collusion in an obvious act of sabotage, and it and sets up an anti-trust situation.
[deleted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCGp-zYjUKA
Is about capital and demand. If people want to have independent platforms, they will appear.
Is about capital and demand. If people want to have independent platforms, they will appear.
I find the question a little unclear.
I think it's bad for the companies that did this, so I don't agree they made the right decision.
But hurting these companies is a good thing, so I'm glad they did it.
I think it's bad for the companies that did this, so I don't agree they made the right decision.
But hurting these companies is a good thing, so I'm glad they did it.
Unreservedly yes, and anyone who votes "unreservedly no" on this poll should be per-banned from this site.
> anyone who votes "unreservedly no" on this poll should be per-banned from this site.
That honestly sounds fascistic. Scratch that - it literally is fascistic. Care to explain your viewpoint?
That honestly sounds fascistic. Scratch that - it literally is fascistic. Care to explain your viewpoint?
Yes, with caveats.
This whole episode reopens a conversation happening during the whole of the XX century, of how a free society defends itself against actors trying to subvert it.
Trump's mass movement got as far as performing a very botched putsch on Congress to try and stop the ratification of election results it denounced.
This was dangerous. The preceding years showed us that the rate at which people radicalized through social media was far greater than anything you could do to stop it, save from mass censorship it turns out and that still remains to be seen.
I think that society owes a great lot to freedom of expression and indeed the social progress that progressives seek wouldn't have happened without it. Trying to consolidate it over the years closing the barn door to what now is occupying their old place as provocative, non-conforming, "immoral" speech is shortsighted and a detriment to society.
But even with mild forms of deplatforming that already have caused much outrage, it came to this, a small abortive revolution playing out in Washington DC. You may disagree with revolutions or these revolutionaries in particular, but if you don't want one happening you must have the means to stop it from getting there, and you have to find a solution to unbridled social media radicalization.
I wouldn't want as a solution having the Great Powers among Tech's moneyed interests being the ones deciding based on profit, political favor, clout or whatever motivation they may ultimately have.
This whole episode reopens a conversation happening during the whole of the XX century, of how a free society defends itself against actors trying to subvert it.
Trump's mass movement got as far as performing a very botched putsch on Congress to try and stop the ratification of election results it denounced.
This was dangerous. The preceding years showed us that the rate at which people radicalized through social media was far greater than anything you could do to stop it, save from mass censorship it turns out and that still remains to be seen.
I think that society owes a great lot to freedom of expression and indeed the social progress that progressives seek wouldn't have happened without it. Trying to consolidate it over the years closing the barn door to what now is occupying their old place as provocative, non-conforming, "immoral" speech is shortsighted and a detriment to society.
But even with mild forms of deplatforming that already have caused much outrage, it came to this, a small abortive revolution playing out in Washington DC. You may disagree with revolutions or these revolutionaries in particular, but if you don't want one happening you must have the means to stop it from getting there, and you have to find a solution to unbridled social media radicalization.
I wouldn't want as a solution having the Great Powers among Tech's moneyed interests being the ones deciding based on profit, political favor, clout or whatever motivation they may ultimately have.
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 shouldn’t use AWS to run a business that makes money hosting Nazi propaganda! In general people should be aware of the risks of offsourcing to the cloud... especially when your business model is odious and immoral.
b) Parler is not some innocent social media service that got overrun with Nazis. While its leadership is secretive, it is heavily financed and owned by major conservative activists, and a great deal of its marketing is towards disaffected far-right Twitter users.
c) Again and again and again: nobody has ever complained about YouTube banning pornography. It is not because we’re moral scolds who want to make porn illegal - it is because pornography is a shady business with shady people and YouTube has every right to not want to get involved with it. It would be a violation of the first amendment to force YouTube to host porn. Likewise it would be unconstitutional to force Twitter to restore access to @realDonaldTrump. The exact same applies to AWS or the Google App store and hosting Nazis on Parler.
This grotesque perversion of “free speech” being used to shield people from the consequences of hate speech is one of the more worrying ideological developments in recent years.
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 shouldn’t use AWS to run a business that makes money hosting Nazi propaganda! In general people should be aware of the risks of offsourcing to the cloud... especially when your business model is odious and immoral.
b) Parler is not some innocent social media service that got overrun with Nazis. While its leadership is secretive, it is heavily financed and owned by major conservative activists, and a great deal of its marketing is towards disaffected far-right Twitter users.
c) Again and again and again: nobody has ever complained about YouTube banning pornography. It is not because we’re moral scolds who want to make porn illegal - it is because pornography is a shady business with shady people and YouTube has every right to not want to get involved with it. It would be a violation of the first amendment to force YouTube to host porn. Likewise it would be unconstitutional to force Twitter to restore access to @realDonaldTrump. The exact same applies to AWS or the Google App store and hosting Nazis on Parler.
This grotesque perversion of “free speech” being used to shield people from the consequences of hate speech is one of the more worrying ideological developments in recent years.
Replying to the one top-level comment with genuine empathy. Thank you.
Here's how I read the poll: If I were a datacenter owner, and I leased out a serious portion of my datacenter as a public cloud, would I have terms of service? Yes; I don't want to attract trouble or criminality. Would those terms of service ban abuse, like cryptocurrency miners on free trial accounts? Yes; I can't afford to run a datacenter at a loss for long periods of time. Would those terms of service ban planning or executing crimes? Yes; I can't afford to give service to criminals, as they drive off customers who are less likely to violate other terms of service.
It's that simple. There's no additional caveats. If I saw the sort of evidence that AWS, Apple, and Google have been shown, then I would have cut off Parler as well.
While it's not a caveat, I would certainly enjoy a regulatory approach to moderating the immense power that comes with owning many datacenters. However, given the "free speech" angle, I think that Parler users and owners should suck it up and save up their pennies and dimes for on-premise deployments. If you want to host fascists, then you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of society has an allergic reaction and forces you to go fund yourself.
Here's how I read the poll: If I were a datacenter owner, and I leased out a serious portion of my datacenter as a public cloud, would I have terms of service? Yes; I don't want to attract trouble or criminality. Would those terms of service ban abuse, like cryptocurrency miners on free trial accounts? Yes; I can't afford to run a datacenter at a loss for long periods of time. Would those terms of service ban planning or executing crimes? Yes; I can't afford to give service to criminals, as they drive off customers who are less likely to violate other terms of service.
It's that simple. There's no additional caveats. If I saw the sort of evidence that AWS, Apple, and Google have been shown, then I would have cut off Parler as well.
While it's not a caveat, I would certainly enjoy a regulatory approach to moderating the immense power that comes with owning many datacenters. However, given the "free speech" angle, I think that Parler users and owners should suck it up and save up their pennies and dimes for on-premise deployments. If you want to host fascists, then you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of society has an allergic reaction and forces you to go fund yourself.
> 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?
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?
Honestly: fuck off. Anti-semtism is immoral and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is protected under civil rights laws while racists are not. So no, kicking off a business for catering to homosexuals should be (and in many cases is) illegal. It should not be illegal to kick off a business for catering to Nazis.
This false equivalence is bullshit and you are perfectly aware that it’s bullshit.
This false equivalence is bullshit and you are perfectly aware that it’s bullshit.
The point is that homosexuality has indeed been viewed as odious and immoral in the past, and platforms like Grindr would have been eliminated just as easily as Parler some time ago (on some bullshit TOS violations, no less).
The real concern here is having Big Tech decide what you’re allowed to believe in. AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS, unless you want AWS to control what information you receive and who you can associate with.
The real concern here is having Big Tech decide what you’re allowed to believe in. AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS, unless you want AWS to control what information you receive and who you can associate with.
> AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS
How ridiculous. Individuals need water, heat, and electricity to survive in the 21st century. I would argue they also need a cell phone and internet access.
Individuals do not need cloud computing services. For-profit companies want AWS because they can use it to make money. This is not a good basis to form a utility.
How ridiculous. Individuals need water, heat, and electricity to survive in the 21st century. I would argue they also need a cell phone and internet access.
Individuals do not need cloud computing services. For-profit companies want AWS because they can use it to make money. This is not a good basis to form a utility.
Should Verizon be able to hang up your calls if they don’t like who you’re talking to?
Clearly, rights and needs extend beyond the basics of food, water, and shelter. Preventing corporations from dictating what information you’re allowed to access and who you’re allowed to talk to is as essential to a free world as anything else.
For better or worse, these “for profit companies” have become the de facto replacement of the town square, and if we cannot have free speech on these platforms then we cannot have free speech at all, practically speaking.
Clearly, rights and needs extend beyond the basics of food, water, and shelter. Preventing corporations from dictating what information you’re allowed to access and who you’re allowed to talk to is as essential to a free world as anything else.
For better or worse, these “for profit companies” have become the de facto replacement of the town square, and if we cannot have free speech on these platforms then we cannot have free speech at all, practically speaking.
I made up a hypothetical future where political winds and morals shift to something you disagree with to expose the flaw in your logic.
You made up a truly dystopian future where many norms and laws have fallen by the wayside... including existing legal protections for gay consumers and entrepreneurs. So I don’t think your point is as great as you think it is! I agree that such a future would be bad. Congratulations.
As an entrepreneur I would refuse to do business with anyone who had a Parler account and I am honestly a bit bothered by this authoritarian suggestion that the state should force me to do business with racists.
As an entrepreneur I would refuse to do business with anyone who had a Parler account and I am honestly a bit bothered by this authoritarian suggestion that the state should force me to do business with racists.
If you can't make a point without mentioning morality, maybe your reasoning isn't objective.
a) I didn’t really lean on Parler’s immorality per se so much as pointing out a business model widely perceived as immoral is a very risky thing to be hosting on AWS. My other two points had nothing to do with immorality.
b) A person who sneers at the idea of a moral argument as being not “objective” is maybe a teenager, but more likely a profoundly creepy adult. Either way it’s difficult to take the criticism seriously.
b) A person who sneers at the idea of a moral argument as being not “objective” is maybe a teenager, but more likely a profoundly creepy adult. Either way it’s difficult to take the criticism seriously.
yes, with caveats
It's a private company. If they were unable to host their own servers, and no ISP would give them an IP address then that is a problem as long as they're following the law.
Maybe if this happened a little more often less companies would go all in on Cloud services.
It's a private company. If they were unable to host their own servers, and no ISP would give them an IP address then that is a problem as long as they're following the law.
Maybe if this happened a little more often less companies would go all in on Cloud services.
I voted yes.
Let's say that I want to start my own cloud hosting company. Say I'm Armenian and I don't want to host anything by the Turkish government. Shouldn't that be my right?
Say I have a Jewish employee who I don't want to offend, so I don't host holocaust denial websites. Shouldn't that be my right?
Let's say that I sign up Nike and they only agree to do it if I won't host Reebok. Shouldn't that be my right?
I don't see what's different here.
Amazon is far from a monopoly for web hosting. If you don't like their terms go elsewhere. If you are a cesspool like Parler, shame on you for not seeing the risk that AWS would drop you at some point.
There's all sorts of racist garbage on the internet and plenty of people with low standards or love of money who will host them. Go to one of them.
Let's say that I want to start my own cloud hosting company. Say I'm Armenian and I don't want to host anything by the Turkish government. Shouldn't that be my right?
Say I have a Jewish employee who I don't want to offend, so I don't host holocaust denial websites. Shouldn't that be my right?
Let's say that I sign up Nike and they only agree to do it if I won't host Reebok. Shouldn't that be my right?
I don't see what's different here.
Amazon is far from a monopoly for web hosting. If you don't like their terms go elsewhere. If you are a cesspool like Parler, shame on you for not seeing the risk that AWS would drop you at some point.
There's all sorts of racist garbage on the internet and plenty of people with low standards or love of money who will host them. Go to one of them.
Free speech != free reach.
Absolutely yes.
Morally, violent fascists have no place in society. This isn't a slippery slope. They're not coming for the Communists and Jews next. I have no sympathy for the poor, helpless Nazis being bullied by the big, bad liberals (as if the companies listed are even reliably liberal) when all they want to do is organize an overthrow or two of the US government. The big platforms have been obscenely deferent to the right wing for the past four years; ceasing to do business with them only after actual murder is about as limited a response as you can possibly imagine.
But, you say, companies are supposed to be amoral profit-generating machines? Ok, in that case, let's consider the cost-benefit analysis. Reputation matters. Continuing to do business with violent fascists is bad for reputation. How much money were they bringing in? Probably not much - Parler would have had a hard time getting advertisers, and it's not a system that will work well on a donation/subscription model. Easy decision.
Are we simply concerned in general that a few companies can "silence" certain kinds of speech? First, let's be very clear that if they're going to have that power at all, this is about the best and most restrained possible time for them to use it - relying on the rich and powerful to not abuse their power isn't a long-term strategy, but it's also not productive to whine when they use it in a way that benefits society. But also, it's not completely impossible for Parler to operate. They simply don't get to benefit from the infrastructure that those companies built. Should it be easier to be online and discoverable without those companies cooperating? Maybe, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine how decentralization, discoverability, and human laziness can all coexist. Keep in mind that part of what people like about app stores, for instance, is that they're curated. If Parler has to stay, is there anything beyond literal malware that you think could be removed?
(Full disclosure, I worked for one of those companies until recently.)
Morally, violent fascists have no place in society. This isn't a slippery slope. They're not coming for the Communists and Jews next. I have no sympathy for the poor, helpless Nazis being bullied by the big, bad liberals (as if the companies listed are even reliably liberal) when all they want to do is organize an overthrow or two of the US government. The big platforms have been obscenely deferent to the right wing for the past four years; ceasing to do business with them only after actual murder is about as limited a response as you can possibly imagine.
But, you say, companies are supposed to be amoral profit-generating machines? Ok, in that case, let's consider the cost-benefit analysis. Reputation matters. Continuing to do business with violent fascists is bad for reputation. How much money were they bringing in? Probably not much - Parler would have had a hard time getting advertisers, and it's not a system that will work well on a donation/subscription model. Easy decision.
Are we simply concerned in general that a few companies can "silence" certain kinds of speech? First, let's be very clear that if they're going to have that power at all, this is about the best and most restrained possible time for them to use it - relying on the rich and powerful to not abuse their power isn't a long-term strategy, but it's also not productive to whine when they use it in a way that benefits society. But also, it's not completely impossible for Parler to operate. They simply don't get to benefit from the infrastructure that those companies built. Should it be easier to be online and discoverable without those companies cooperating? Maybe, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine how decentralization, discoverability, and human laziness can all coexist. Keep in mind that part of what people like about app stores, for instance, is that they're curated. If Parler has to stay, is there anything beyond literal malware that you think could be removed?
(Full disclosure, I worked for one of those companies until recently.)
As if ANTIFA isn't a bunch of violent fascists, endlessly coordinating on Twitter.
You are the problem.
You are the problem.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
Honest question: Who decides? How do they decide?
The same people who decide my opinion
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.
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.
Yes exactly it proves their "monopoly" and will invite antitrust actions in near future. So few individuals shouldn't wield so much power particularly given that they aren't elected even if in this instance they may be correct.
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.
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.
These are most of my caveats.
One other: there is a caveat of “given that the system works the way it does right now,” where there is sort of a wild-west approach to these types of big communities, then yeah Google is the sheriff of Play Store and Apple is the sheriff of App Store and Amazon is the sheriff of AWS and they set their rules about how much trouble they want on their streets. But if the overall system were fundamentally different[1], then I would not be so sure; there might be some sort of “due process” expectations then which do not exist for me now.
[1] As it may well have to become—those cities were effectively governed that way given population sizes of, what, 10,000 or so? If you have 100 million users and 0.01% of your users can code apps, you have easily that many app developers you have to wrangle.
One other: there is a caveat of “given that the system works the way it does right now,” where there is sort of a wild-west approach to these types of big communities, then yeah Google is the sheriff of Play Store and Apple is the sheriff of App Store and Amazon is the sheriff of AWS and they set their rules about how much trouble they want on their streets. But if the overall system were fundamentally different[1], then I would not be so sure; there might be some sort of “due process” expectations then which do not exist for me now.
[1] As it may well have to become—those cities were effectively governed that way given population sizes of, what, 10,000 or so? If you have 100 million users and 0.01% of your users can code apps, you have easily that many app developers you have to wrangle.
I have no particular comment about Parler specifically, but in the general case:
Suppose you're a single-person startup of an app called "Speak!". Speak! is pretty niche, but one day, a group of the X-People are ostracized on all the popular forums: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Because Speak! is the only remaining bastion for the X-People all of them flock to Speak!. Let's say the X-People say things that aren't exactly popular among those who are not X-People.
BigCo claims that Speak! is not properly moderated. You say that you're only a single person and a certain level of moderation cannot be expected given N number of employees.
If BigCo bans Speak! on the grounds that Speak! is not sufficiently moderated, would that mean that any small person operation who operates a surprisingly large userbase cannot operate?
I think there should be objective quantitative measures that any company can use that's applied evenly across companies. Should a company with 10,000 moderators be held to the same standard of moderation as an extremely popular forum with only a single moderator? You decide.
Suppose you're a single-person startup of an app called "Speak!". Speak! is pretty niche, but one day, a group of the X-People are ostracized on all the popular forums: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Because Speak! is the only remaining bastion for the X-People all of them flock to Speak!. Let's say the X-People say things that aren't exactly popular among those who are not X-People.
BigCo claims that Speak! is not properly moderated. You say that you're only a single person and a certain level of moderation cannot be expected given N number of employees.
If BigCo bans Speak! on the grounds that Speak! is not sufficiently moderated, would that mean that any small person operation who operates a surprisingly large userbase cannot operate?
I think there should be objective quantitative measures that any company can use that's applied evenly across companies. Should a company with 10,000 moderators be held to the same standard of moderation as an extremely popular forum with only a single moderator? You decide.
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.
And Twitter hosts leaders of terroristic regimes. It remains unbanned. What, exactly, is your point?
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 moderators and company resources. Are these rules inherently biased against smaller companies?
Only so much moderation is possible given a certain amount of moderators and company resources. Are these rules inherently biased against smaller companies?
What "single" post are you talking about?
Parler had thousands of offending posts and users and refused to moderate at all after being told to to be in compliance with various ToS.
It's no surprise that Amazon, Apple, Google, Twilio, etc., do not want to be associated with or support violent seditionists.
Parler had thousands of offending posts and users and refused to moderate at all after being told to to be in compliance with various ToS.
It's no surprise that Amazon, Apple, Google, Twilio, etc., do not want to be associated with or support violent seditionists.
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.
Parler got deplatformed more for a refusal to moderate than an inability to moderate.
They explicitly chose to retain the content
They explicitly chose to retain the content
If you want to operate a social network (and can spin up to arbitrary user loads thanks to the magic of containers and cloud services), then you need to consider the possibility that your site might get jacked by a set of very difficult users.
Unfair to smaller firms? Maybe, but the phrase 'don't bite off more than you can chew' comes to mind.
Unfair to smaller firms? Maybe, but the phrase 'don't bite off more than you can chew' comes to mind.
As far as I understand, that is basically what happened to voat. Which (voluntarily) shut down about a month ago.
Unsure. But perhaps more important than yes or no is that the internet shouldn't be so centralized that these companies can make a choice with such a big effect.
In this case Parler already had a policy in place that banned posts calling for violence / anything else the breaks US law as well as report buttons in place to report it (Reddit and Twitter use similar systems), but there has been enough gaslighting in the media that voted "yes" in this poll never even bothered to look at their ToS prior to voting.
You can post ANYTHING YOU WANT that's awful on Reddit or Twitter, then immediately screenshot it before it can be reported / cleaned by mods and scream "They allow hate speeeeech!" like they've done to Parler.
The companies made a choice based on their political views, not based on public safety / ToS violations and THAT is why have centralized duopolies on social media is so dangerous in the USA.
You can post ANYTHING YOU WANT that's awful on Reddit or Twitter, then immediately screenshot it before it can be reported / cleaned by mods and scream "They allow hate speeeeech!" like they've done to Parler.
The companies made a choice based on their political views, not based on public safety / ToS violations and THAT is why have centralized duopolies on social media is so dangerous in the USA.
I support Apple and Google. I'm hesitantly on board with AWS and I'm worried it's a slippery slope when infrastructure companies give the boot. I then thought about other instances where I'd support it. If an AWS instance was being used to spread malware, I expect them to take it down - even though it's all just bits and cycles from an AWS perspective.
I do hope we push back hard if this ever gets out of hand.
I do hope we push back hard if this ever gets out of hand.
no, with caveats
Not sure we want to set a precedent for tech companies getting to silence whoever they choose, but tech companies should have the power to effectively censor SOME things (child porn, for instance).
Conflating this issue with censorship is a false equivalence. This should purely be viewed through the lens of freedom of association.
oji0hub(1)
> please participate so that we can get a good picture of what people here think.
why would you expect an honest answer to this poll?
why would you expect an honest answer to this poll?
Because your vote is just as anonymous as your upvote history, which is quite a bit more private than your comment history.
Why wouldn't you expect an honest answer?
I am no Trump supporter or conservative - I find it ridiculous that I feel the need to preface that - but I can’t be the only one that is surprised at how willing people are to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth and acceptable political viewpoints.
From the calls to violence on Facebook, to the terrorists on Twitter, to the hardcore pornography on Reddit, plenty of platforms break Apple’s, Google’s, or Amazon’s ToS. I don’t know how one could possibly argue that Parler isn’t being singled out.
Today it’s Parler. Tomorrow it will be whatever ideology the megacorps find inconvenient.
If anything, this whole saga underscores the need for decentralized social media and having control over our own devices and the apps we are allowed to install.
I’m genuinely surprised. HN is the last place that I’d expect to be comfortable with our snowball into a corporate dystopia.
From the calls to violence on Facebook, to the terrorists on Twitter, to the hardcore pornography on Reddit, plenty of platforms break Apple’s, Google’s, or Amazon’s ToS. I don’t know how one could possibly argue that Parler isn’t being singled out.
Today it’s Parler. Tomorrow it will be whatever ideology the megacorps find inconvenient.
If anything, this whole saga underscores the need for decentralized social media and having control over our own devices and the apps we are allowed to install.
I’m genuinely surprised. HN is the last place that I’d expect to be comfortable with our snowball into a corporate dystopia.
I can't speak for others but I marked "unsure", not because I'm "willing to accept Big Tech becoming the arbiter of truth" but because Big Tech is that arbiter already. Everything from who gets a blue check mark to how the algorithm sorts your feed creates and feeds your concerns and beliefs.
I honestly think this discussion "should they or shouldn't they ban x" is a poor framing of the discussion we should be having. It implies media companies can be unbiased. It implies there is some democracy implicit in social media. It implies that the right virtues can make social media work. I don't think any of those things are true and I don't think we should have a discussion that allows their presumption.
What people are doing on Twitter isn't new. What Twitter is doing isn't new. What people on Parler are doing isn't new. What Parler is doing isn't new. People who believe it is new simply have an incorrect understanding of history. They underestimate the gross bias in media historically. They underestimate the volume and extremity of seditious communication and activity. They underestimate the violence and frequency of political unrest.
If we want to have a real conversation about disassociating power and speech, disassociating money and speech, disassociating status quo and speech, I think that's a worthy conversation. The rest of this is red meat for slacktivist posters.
I honestly think this discussion "should they or shouldn't they ban x" is a poor framing of the discussion we should be having. It implies media companies can be unbiased. It implies there is some democracy implicit in social media. It implies that the right virtues can make social media work. I don't think any of those things are true and I don't think we should have a discussion that allows their presumption.
What people are doing on Twitter isn't new. What Twitter is doing isn't new. What people on Parler are doing isn't new. What Parler is doing isn't new. People who believe it is new simply have an incorrect understanding of history. They underestimate the gross bias in media historically. They underestimate the volume and extremity of seditious communication and activity. They underestimate the violence and frequency of political unrest.
If we want to have a real conversation about disassociating power and speech, disassociating money and speech, disassociating status quo and speech, I think that's a worthy conversation. The rest of this is red meat for slacktivist posters.
Parler refused to even try to moderate posts and users calling for violence.
This isn't about ideology, except in cases where an ideology is calling for violence.
This isn't about ideology, except in cases where an ideology is calling for violence.
Parler was given 24 hours to come up with and implement a moderation policy. They might as well have received no time at all.
Edit: it turns out Parler actually did have policies and moderation against violent content
And what use is having a moderation policy when it isn’t getting implemented anyways? KSA can still post on Twitter. Hardcore pornography will continue to exist on Reddit. Users will continue to insinuate violence on Facebook.
Edit: it turns out Parler actually did have policies and moderation against violent content
And what use is having a moderation policy when it isn’t getting implemented anyways? KSA can still post on Twitter. Hardcore pornography will continue to exist on Reddit. Users will continue to insinuate violence on Facebook.
Unreservedly no
forcing voters to shut up in a time of increasing polarisation will always get you more polarisation, or worse.
I'm not sure I follow. To me, recent polarization is a product of echoChamber * confirmationBias. e.g. (1) I subscribe to a trustworthy information outlet on $PLATFORM that reflects my beliefs. (2) I am recommended related untrusted content to increase my engagement with $PLATFORM. (3) I do not verify the related content because it reflects what I already believe. Rinse, cycle, repeat. Forcing voters to "shut up" means only allowing information to be shared by trustworthy sources. Over time I suspect that decreases polarization, at the expense of free speech.
Voters are not forced to shut up, though. A big portion of them are just mad that a) other people don't want to listen to them or b) that they're asked to express themselves without being extremely rude or aggressive.
Yes - Apple/Google should be able to cut off Parler from their own stores.
BUT.
Parler should still be available via 3rd party stores if the user so chooses (which isn't possible). Here we have a case of big tech acting against the will of the user "for their own good" which I fundamentally disagree with. I own the device. I should have the right to install anything I want on it, even if the company that makes the device deemed the thing I want bad for me or for society.
Amazon should not be able to kick services off of AWS they don't agree with. That's entering cloudflare/daily stormer territory and is a dangerous precedent. I prefer the "infrastructure" layers of the stack to be net neutral.
BUT.
Parler should still be available via 3rd party stores if the user so chooses (which isn't possible). Here we have a case of big tech acting against the will of the user "for their own good" which I fundamentally disagree with. I own the device. I should have the right to install anything I want on it, even if the company that makes the device deemed the thing I want bad for me or for society.
Amazon should not be able to kick services off of AWS they don't agree with. That's entering cloudflare/daily stormer territory and is a dangerous precedent. I prefer the "infrastructure" layers of the stack to be net neutral.
You can still sideload apps on android can you not? So you're really talking about Apple.
I find the particularly libertarian mindset of the hackernews audience really fascinating here. If a group of neo nazis were organizing an attack on people in a hotel room, wouldn’t the hotel be allowed to kick them out? Or the same situation with a landlord and their tenants?
People keep bringing up ideology. This isn’t really about ideology, this is about violence. Parler was being used to organize violence.
People keep bringing up ideology. This isn’t really about ideology, this is about violence. Parler was being used to organize violence.
> Parler was being used to organize violence.
So are Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, Telegram, ...
IMO criminal behavior on social platforms should be investigated and prosecuted by the police and FBI etc. The same would presumably happen in your hotel analogy. Shutting them down doesn’t help with that.
In addition, social platforms of a certain size IMO should be treated more like a public infrastructure, because that’s what they effectively serve as. That’s a complex topic though.
So are Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, Telegram, ...
IMO criminal behavior on social platforms should be investigated and prosecuted by the police and FBI etc. The same would presumably happen in your hotel analogy. Shutting them down doesn’t help with that.
In addition, social platforms of a certain size IMO should be treated more like a public infrastructure, because that’s what they effectively serve as. That’s a complex topic though.
Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook all have been used to (successfully) organize violence and still exist. They all host - and continue to host - content that violates the TOS of Apple, Google, and Amazon.
I think it takes particular mental acrobatics to say that Parler has not been unfairly singled out here.
I think it takes particular mental acrobatics to say that Parler has not been unfairly singled out here.
Yes, with caveats. You do not have the right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Continuing to incite insurrectionists seems to be screaming "fire". But should a private company be the judge of what is this line?
Not sure if that is the current interpretation of "with caveats" means
Not sure if that is the current interpretation of "with caveats" means
I think "with caveats" means any caveats you might personally hold.
These companies are ultimately in the business of staying in business. A governmental overthrow is bad for business so its stopped. It all makes sense and seems good. The only concern is if the government goes off the rails. But thats on the people of the nation.
All seems to be working properly.
All seems to be working properly.
> But thats on the people of the nation.
I think there is a very real concern that when the time comes, it will be impossible to organize a revolution against a tyrannical government due to reliance on centralized and regulated social media.
I think there is a very real concern that when the time comes, it will be impossible to organize a revolution against a tyrannical government due to reliance on centralized and regulated social media.
No, with caveats.
Apple and Google, fine. That’s distribution. They have a lot of distribution power, but that’s an antitrust question.
AWS pulling the plug is infrastructure being yanked, and that’s more concerning. It takes Parler off the web. That’s closer to silencing than removing an amplifier.
Nobody should be forced to provide services to the likes of Parler. But cutting them off with hours’ notice is excessive.
Apple and Google, fine. That’s distribution. They have a lot of distribution power, but that’s an antitrust question.
AWS pulling the plug is infrastructure being yanked, and that’s more concerning. It takes Parler off the web. That’s closer to silencing than removing an amplifier.
Nobody should be forced to provide services to the likes of Parler. But cutting them off with hours’ notice is excessive.
AWS can cut off service for copyright complaints. The company I work for gets complaints these all the time and our service time to remove the data/images is pretty small.
If the activity is illegal, AWS can cut off service.
If the activity is illegal, AWS can cut off service.
Yeah, but I think this is case where it is at best illegal because of belief that they cannot adequately police their content... that seems like the kind of thing you could give them a lot more lead time on and give them some practical transition options (like, your content isn't deleted, but we're not going to route any traffic to public IPs). I mean, it's a belief, not even something that they have really evaluated and dealt with legal consequences. You might think they are entitled to at least prove that the belief is incorrect.
[deleted]
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 register a domain without using a private corporation?
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?
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 register a domain without using a private corporation?
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?
> 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.
You can’t, and that is the problem with allowing Big Tech to be the arbiter of truth.
"...allowing Big Tech to be the arbiter of truth."
Absolutely. As I see it, one of the single biggest problems with the internet has ALWAYS been that users always have had to go through third parties—hosting sites—to gain access to the internet.
Essentially, for the vast majority, the internet does not and cannot provide unfettered access to the internet in the way that a city's Public Commons would have done in years past. The fact is that the technical infrastructure for users to bypass ISPs, social media etc. just does not exist to the extent that would allow millions to do so. As users have no guaranteed [legislated] right to access the internet's Public Commons, they're always going to be at the mercy or discretion of the party who allows them access.
As we've seen in recent days, this is a terrible state of affairs for users, as it clearly demonstrates how the owners of these access points have ultimate control over access to the internet. The fact that the US president has been censored on the whim of a gatekeeper's CEO amply demonstrates the fact. This is an intolerable* situation and ultimately it has to be rectified if we are to have a free and open internet.
Of course, governments love this situation because channeling users through common access points such as ISPs allow them to more effectively monitor and control internet traffic.
_
* Please note, I'm not describing this situation as intolerable because I'm a supporter of President Trump. The fact is that I'm not a Trump supporter but my position is more along the line commonly but wrongfully attributed to Voltaire which is that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
As far as I'm concerned, President Trump unreservedly has the right to say whatever he wishes to without being censored on a whim by some corporate body (or a bureaucratic gnome therein)—that is unless such comment is outright unlawful (which, in Trump's case, has yet to be determined—and only a court of law can ultimately adjudicate on said matter)!
In my opinion, Trump's behavior has been obnoxious in the extreme but banning what he says is not the answer (especially so given that he's still an elected official—none less than the US President).
Moreover, I believe that no matter how bad, antisocial or outright mad some of these internet cretins are (and I reckon there are many that fit that mold), it is better to know who they are and what they think than to have them and their thoughts go underground—where, in all likelihood, they'll likely fester and become even more dangerous and virulent.
The internet censorship we've seen in recent days is the most prominent example of what the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have been doing for quite some time. That matters have ramped up to censoring the US President may bring the matter to a head and that ultimately we'll see laws enacted that will put limits on these corporate bullies.
(Ultimately, the whole problem boils down to the fact that democracies haven't yet established at law any effective and or reliable methods or protocols to single out what should be censored and what should not—or for that matter, what internet users can actually discuss and or look at online without attracting the attention or ire of government and security services. [It seems to me that only online content that's deemed illegal at law ought to be subject to censorship—nothing else.]
The fact that governments haven't so acted is now proving to be very troubling, and until it's resolved at law the problem with Big Tech will persist.)
Absolutely. As I see it, one of the single biggest problems with the internet has ALWAYS been that users always have had to go through third parties—hosting sites—to gain access to the internet.
Essentially, for the vast majority, the internet does not and cannot provide unfettered access to the internet in the way that a city's Public Commons would have done in years past. The fact is that the technical infrastructure for users to bypass ISPs, social media etc. just does not exist to the extent that would allow millions to do so. As users have no guaranteed [legislated] right to access the internet's Public Commons, they're always going to be at the mercy or discretion of the party who allows them access.
As we've seen in recent days, this is a terrible state of affairs for users, as it clearly demonstrates how the owners of these access points have ultimate control over access to the internet. The fact that the US president has been censored on the whim of a gatekeeper's CEO amply demonstrates the fact. This is an intolerable* situation and ultimately it has to be rectified if we are to have a free and open internet.
Of course, governments love this situation because channeling users through common access points such as ISPs allow them to more effectively monitor and control internet traffic.
_
* Please note, I'm not describing this situation as intolerable because I'm a supporter of President Trump. The fact is that I'm not a Trump supporter but my position is more along the line commonly but wrongfully attributed to Voltaire which is that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
As far as I'm concerned, President Trump unreservedly has the right to say whatever he wishes to without being censored on a whim by some corporate body (or a bureaucratic gnome therein)—that is unless such comment is outright unlawful (which, in Trump's case, has yet to be determined—and only a court of law can ultimately adjudicate on said matter)!
In my opinion, Trump's behavior has been obnoxious in the extreme but banning what he says is not the answer (especially so given that he's still an elected official—none less than the US President).
Moreover, I believe that no matter how bad, antisocial or outright mad some of these internet cretins are (and I reckon there are many that fit that mold), it is better to know who they are and what they think than to have them and their thoughts go underground—where, in all likelihood, they'll likely fester and become even more dangerous and virulent.
The internet censorship we've seen in recent days is the most prominent example of what the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and others have been doing for quite some time. That matters have ramped up to censoring the US President may bring the matter to a head and that ultimately we'll see laws enacted that will put limits on these corporate bullies.
(Ultimately, the whole problem boils down to the fact that democracies haven't yet established at law any effective and or reliable methods or protocols to single out what should be censored and what should not—or for that matter, what internet users can actually discuss and or look at online without attracting the attention or ire of government and security services. [It seems to me that only online content that's deemed illegal at law ought to be subject to censorship—nothing else.]
The fact that governments haven't so acted is now proving to be very troubling, and until it's resolved at law the problem with Big Tech will persist.)
> Do they literally have to buy physical servers and host them on their own property somewhere?
That's exactly what companies did not too long ago for this very reason. They wanted full control over the entire stack and yes had physical servers in physical offices.
Over time, folks laid off their IT staff and traded away their control for convenience. That's the tradeoff: their house -> their rules, your house -> your rules.
> But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off?
Now that is an insurmountable obstacle and a real problem. For that matter, what if Comcast cut off all of AWS until they banned Parler? It would take years to build a physical cable network. The highways are much more important than the parking lots.
That's exactly what companies did not too long ago for this very reason. They wanted full control over the entire stack and yes had physical servers in physical offices.
Over time, folks laid off their IT staff and traded away their control for convenience. That's the tradeoff: their house -> their rules, your house -> your rules.
> But then how do they get connected to the internet without going through some privately owned ISP that might cut them off?
Now that is an insurmountable obstacle and a real problem. For that matter, what if Comcast cut off all of AWS until they banned Parler? It would take years to build a physical cable network. The highways are much more important than the parking lots.
It is the nature of commerce that you must enter into contracts with other entities. The internet itself is federated but most people don't ever have a chance to see it that way because it mostly just works.
Even if you bought your own physical servers, you still need an agreement with an internet carrier and a colocation facility.
Renting a Linode is a convenient shortcut but you need that one contract with Linode. Linode can, does, and should enforce terms of service.
You can run a website off your home internet connection with a $20 raspberry pi, but your ISP can, does, and should enforce terms of service.
In theory you could become an ISP by entering into a peering agreement with other ISPs. Internet providers do this. Those ISPs will have their own terms, some of them may not regard content but I expect all of them would specifically defer to local law regarding the transported content.
"Bulletproof hosting" is the concept being discussed here. It is literally named that way because armed government agents coming to shut the site down or confiscate servers will be resisted.
Now call me a fanatical sheep, but if one think it's necessary to have that kind of hosting to get their political stories, they might just be seeking out extremely radical sources.
Even if you bought your own physical servers, you still need an agreement with an internet carrier and a colocation facility.
Renting a Linode is a convenient shortcut but you need that one contract with Linode. Linode can, does, and should enforce terms of service.
You can run a website off your home internet connection with a $20 raspberry pi, but your ISP can, does, and should enforce terms of service.
In theory you could become an ISP by entering into a peering agreement with other ISPs. Internet providers do this. Those ISPs will have their own terms, some of them may not regard content but I expect all of them would specifically defer to local law regarding the transported content.
"Bulletproof hosting" is the concept being discussed here. It is literally named that way because armed government agents coming to shut the site down or confiscate servers will be resisted.
Now call me a fanatical sheep, but if one think it's necessary to have that kind of hosting to get their political stories, they might just be seeking out extremely radical sources.
It goes even deeper than this. You also need electricity, and the electric utility can cut you off if you they believe what you are doing is illegal or otherwise goes against their TOS.
So then you have to setup your own generator, on your own land, to power your own ISP.
So then you have to setup your own generator, on your own land, to power your own ISP.
...and of course there is always eminent domain for the land..
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.
Even if you own your own datacenter, you still need peering and a way to accept payment.
The payments system (along with the ISPs) need to become a public utility. For ISPs, the least "socialistic" way is for them to operate like Energy Utilities, but IMO, the would be better off being a single provider, fully publicly provided for free.
For payment systems: also easy... everyone has an account at the Federal Reserve offered free as a public service (but with no overdraught or lending services). Payments are processed via SWIFT/ACH for the banks right now and that service should be opened up to all Americans without a bank or Card Services intermediary.
The progressive left has advocated for things like this for decades. Now it is affecting the right, but it's hard to have sympathy as they have been corporate sycophants for decades.
For payment systems: also easy... everyone has an account at the Federal Reserve offered free as a public service (but with no overdraught or lending services). Payments are processed via SWIFT/ACH for the banks right now and that service should be opened up to all Americans without a bank or Card Services intermediary.
The progressive left has advocated for things like this for decades. Now it is affecting the right, but it's hard to have sympathy as they have been corporate sycophants for decades.
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.
Yes, and then they will also need to be more transparent about pricing, and ensure equal access. Good things all around.
Sewer used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Water used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Natural gas used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Electricity used to be a luxury, now it's a utility.
It's time for network access to also be a utility.
Sewer used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Water used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Natural gas used to be a luxury, now it's a utility. Electricity used to be a luxury, now it's a utility.
It's time for network access to also be a utility.
Where there's a will, there's a way. I don't believe everyone is guaranteed easy IT as a basic human right. Buy some servers. Or just setup a proxy so no one knows where the actual servers are and when one isp shuts you down you can move as fast as dns can update.
Then, of course, the domain name company may come after you. But you can also use a direct ip address. I don't think domain names are a basic human right either.
Then, of course, the domain name company may come after you. But you can also use a direct ip address. I don't think domain names are a basic human right either.
> But you can also use a direct ip address.
And then the RIR cuts off your AS.
Or your SSL issuer revokes your cert.
They can't win on the conventional Internet, even by playing a shell-game. So these 'deplatformed' services will move to store-and-forward mesh networking using opportunistic connectivity over ad hoc WiFi or Bluetooth or whatever. And that's going to be nearly impossible to monitor and police. How will we know what they're discussing if we don't even know that they're communicating?
The more you tighten your grip...
And then the RIR cuts off your AS.
Or your SSL issuer revokes your cert.
They can't win on the conventional Internet, even by playing a shell-game. So these 'deplatformed' services will move to store-and-forward mesh networking using opportunistic connectivity over ad hoc WiFi or Bluetooth or whatever. And that's going to be nearly impossible to monitor and police. How will we know what they're discussing if we don't even know that they're communicating?
The more you tighten your grip...
You can very realistically "self host" up to a certain scale. Larger scale you can still do it realistically, but you can't just do it overnight. It takes a while to get all the pieces in place to handle that scale.
Really, there was a time when every company that had a website would spin up their own hardware and software...
Really, there was a time when every company that had a website would spin up their own hardware and software...
Or they could use one of those federated/distributed system that are all over HN front page. Couldn't block that hydra
No.
If Parler was deemed illegal (eg: it was ruled by law that it's facilitating terrorism), then YES.
If they are violating Amazon Terms of Service / Apple's Terms of Service, then YES (TOS is a bit of a grey area, but assuming that things are clear enough, those should be enforced). One can argue about a monopolic market position, at which case it's the role of the Government to solve the issue and regulate (in a theoretically speaking, well functioning capitalistic framework).
If Parler was deemed illegal (eg: it was ruled by law that it's facilitating terrorism), then YES.
If they are violating Amazon Terms of Service / Apple's Terms of Service, then YES (TOS is a bit of a grey area, but assuming that things are clear enough, those should be enforced). One can argue about a monopolic market position, at which case it's the role of the Government to solve the issue and regulate (in a theoretically speaking, well functioning capitalistic framework).
Government doesn't care about regulating them because these big tech companies help the government controlling people's lives.
They are all private companies. They are free to choose who to do business with. If Parler broke the ToS, then there's even more reason for Amazon/Apple/Google to cut ties.
Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all break Amazon/Apple/Google TOS pretty clearly and yet are still allowed to exist. Clearly, Parler has been singled out by Big Tech.
I can’t be the only one here actually concerned about Big Tech being the ultimate arbiter of truth and information. AWS is effectively public infrastructure at this point and must be treated as such unless you want to careen into a corporate dystopia where the only information you receive is information Big Tech finds acceptable.
I can’t be the only one here actually concerned about Big Tech being the ultimate arbiter of truth and information. AWS is effectively public infrastructure at this point and must be treated as such unless you want to careen into a corporate dystopia where the only information you receive is information Big Tech finds acceptable.
How are they an arbiter of truth? They host tens of thousands of sites that I'm sure they don't necessarily agree with but they're more than happy to take the money of. They singled this one out because they don't want the publicity of their platform being associated with a company that has no problem with users coordinating violent and deadly insurrections...
> How are they an arbiter of truth?
Because they ban politically inconvenient viewpoints.
> their platform being associated with a company that has no problem with users coordinating violent and deadly insurrections...
Does Twitter not host the leaders of terroristic regimes? Has Reddit not been implicated in murder of innocents? Does Facebook not routinely have calls to violence?
All major platforms have broken AWS TOS countless times, and much more often than Parler at that. It’s pretty clear that Parler is being singled out here, and that breaking the AWS TOS is a flimsy excuse at best.
Because they ban politically inconvenient viewpoints.
> their platform being associated with a company that has no problem with users coordinating violent and deadly insurrections...
Does Twitter not host the leaders of terroristic regimes? Has Reddit not been implicated in murder of innocents? Does Facebook not routinely have calls to violence?
All major platforms have broken AWS TOS countless times, and much more often than Parler at that. It’s pretty clear that Parler is being singled out here, and that breaking the AWS TOS is a flimsy excuse at best.
All I know is, if my business was locked in to AWS (or any other single provider) I would take this as a warning to diversify my infrastructure.
Absolutely, our company had a meeting this morning, and our cloud strategy has immediately changed going forward. I wonder how many of these meetings are going on today.
You have an interesting specific question, about actions against a particular service (Parler).
But I think your poll results may be muddied a bit, because of the the side musings about TBL's data decentralization efforts, international telecommunications regulation, and something about "social media licenses" (?!).
Also, the provided answers are vaguely like a familiar 5-level "Likert Scale" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), but without the standard wording (& logical/symmetrical ordering) of "strongly agree / agree / neutral / disagree / strongly disagree". (EDIT: it appears HN is randomizing the order on each reload? That's sometimes but not always a good idea.)
The most informative polls will have the least complication in wording/answers, & minimal "preamble" that risks priming answerers to think of things in the author's way.
But I think your poll results may be muddied a bit, because of the the side musings about TBL's data decentralization efforts, international telecommunications regulation, and something about "social media licenses" (?!).
Also, the provided answers are vaguely like a familiar 5-level "Likert Scale" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale), but without the standard wording (& logical/symmetrical ordering) of "strongly agree / agree / neutral / disagree / strongly disagree". (EDIT: it appears HN is randomizing the order on each reload? That's sometimes but not always a good idea.)
The most informative polls will have the least complication in wording/answers, & minimal "preamble" that risks priming answerers to think of things in the author's way.
My understanding is that Parler's terms of service already included a prohibition against illegal activities. The question then becomes, does an up-an-comer social media service dedicated to encouraging free speech have the resources to handle a sudden flood of Twitter refugees? I'm perfectly willing to believe the answer is no.
I saw a representative of Parler being interviewed. She said that they rely on users reporting violations. Perhaps that doesn't scale. But it's unreasonable to think that the problem could be addressed, given 24 hours to do so.
If anything, malicious actors on Parler are second-rate amateurs. Whoever thinks organizing an uprising on a public platform that requires two-factor authentication (via ones cellphone) to join is doing the work of the police and prosecutors for them. If the tech giants and government were really so worried about this, Parler has just created for them the greatest honeypot for simpleminded, would-be insurrectionists ever. And they do have the resources to capitalize on it.
I saw a representative of Parler being interviewed. She said that they rely on users reporting violations. Perhaps that doesn't scale. But it's unreasonable to think that the problem could be addressed, given 24 hours to do so.
If anything, malicious actors on Parler are second-rate amateurs. Whoever thinks organizing an uprising on a public platform that requires two-factor authentication (via ones cellphone) to join is doing the work of the police and prosecutors for them. If the tech giants and government were really so worried about this, Parler has just created for them the greatest honeypot for simpleminded, would-be insurrectionists ever. And they do have the resources to capitalize on it.
> My understanding is that Parler's terms of service already included a prohibition against illegal activities.
Also FCC broadcast standards for obscene material, making it more restrictive than Twitter on at least some topics.
Also FCC broadcast standards for obscene material, making it more restrictive than Twitter on at least some topics.
Worth nothing that Amazon's Acceptable Use Policy also bars any service that could harm Amazon's own reputation. The bar isn't as high as illegal activity.
This is the same Amazon AWS that has our CIA as one of its biggest customers?
I'm surprised Parler didn't see this coming a mile off. Sure you can pretend to live in your own reality bubble, but you've got to realistic about decisions like "host our site on someone else's computer".
yes, but they also deserve the criticism that comes with the action. it was the right action, but done way too late, and in a way that now looks vengeful and petty.
There are a billion places to rent a server these days. I don't feel bad for them at all and I do not see an issue here.
The only issue I see frankly is that it took people this fucking long to wake up and stop playing the Trump game.
The only issue I see frankly is that it took people this fucking long to wake up and stop playing the Trump game.
[deleted]
If that were the case, then of course the answer would be "no" AWS can't just cut off service, just like Verizon can't just drop calls if they think you're discussing political issues Verizon disagrees with over the phone.
I personally don't this AWS is a utility / common carrier (I can go and buy a server and serve a website all on my own for the entire internet to access). Therefore, I don't think the government should require AWS to provide services to clients that they believe are violating their TOS.
AWS has a very clear Acceptable Use policy: https://aws.amazon.com/aup/
This snippet can be found above the fold (not hidden in a long TOS) in their acceptable use policy:
> Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, that violate the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming.
If nothing else, by AWS hosting Parler they were risking their reputation, which alone is enough to terminate service by the standards set in their AUP.