6 ms·

Wait, should Amazon be obligated to host an app being used to organize anti-government violence?

by Pfhreak 6y ago

meekmockmook 6y ago
The entire backbone of the internet should not be in the hands of less than 5 companies.
- eropple 6y ago
  The typically suggested counterproposal is state control of what is functionally a utility. And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade. So what's your alternative?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  That's an answer to a different question. You and I might agree there, but that's not an answer to the question I asked.
- MontyCarloHall 6y ago
  AWS is hardly a single vertebra in the entire backbone of the internet. I’ll start worrying when Tier 1 carriers start blocking traffic. Until then, Parler is free to find another hosting solution.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- one2know 6y ago
  Exactly, Centurylink demonstrated a couple months ago they alone could take down and disrupt IPV4 traffic worldwide. I'm starting to wonder if that was a simple configuration mistake or a pre-run.
asiando 6y ago
Yes. If the content is illegal, it's up to the government to censor it.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  So, the only content that a company should be able to remove should be illegal content? Think through that a bit. There is tons of content that we remove from services constantly that isn't illegal.
  - asiando 6y ago
    And that’s fine? What if AWS doesn’t like your business and gives you 24 hours to vacate the premises? I think hosting should be treated like ISPs, which cannot force you out of internet.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      I don't see a problem with your question. Yes, if Amazon gives you 24 hours, then you move somewhere else. What's your concern? Do you think AWS should be required to host violent insurrectionists?
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  If you want this to be the case, you're going to need to push for laws to be changed. AWS is absolutely _not_ forced to host code it doesn't want to host.

Wait, should Amazon be obligated to host an app being used to organize anti-government violence?

meekmockmook 6y ago

The entire backbone of the internet should not be in the hands of less than 5 companies.

eropple 6y ago
The typically suggested counterproposal is state control of what is functionally a utility. And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade. So what's your alternative?
Pfhreak 6y ago
That's an answer to a different question. You and I might agree there, but that's not an answer to the question I asked.
MontyCarloHall 6y ago
AWS is hardly a single vertebra in the entire backbone of the internet. I’ll start worrying when Tier 1 carriers start blocking traffic. Until then, Parler is free to find another hosting solution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
one2know 6y ago
Exactly, Centurylink demonstrated a couple months ago they alone could take down and disrupt IPV4 traffic worldwide. I'm starting to wonder if that was a simple configuration mistake or a pre-run.

asiando 6y ago

Yes. If the content is illegal, it's up to the government to censor it.

Pfhreak 6y ago
So, the only content that a company should be able to remove should be illegal content? Think through that a bit. There is tons of content that we remove from services constantly that isn't illegal.
- asiando 6y ago
  And that’s fine? What if AWS doesn’t like your business and gives you 24 hours to vacate the premises? I think hosting should be treated like ISPs, which cannot force you out of internet.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    I don't see a problem with your question. Yes, if Amazon gives you 24 hours, then you move somewhere else. What's your concern? Do you think AWS should be required to host violent insurrectionists?
CogitoCogito 6y ago
If you want this to be the case, you're going to need to push for laws to be changed. AWS is absolutely _not_ forced to host code it doesn't want to host.