15 ms·
I was wondering if you were online to see it and thinking about that comment. I was really surprised to read that, AWS is another level beyond social media de-p
by sbinthree 6y ago
I was wondering if you were online to see it and thinking about that comment. I was really surprised to read that, AWS is another level beyond social media de-platforming. Wouldn't there be other harmful things hosted on AWS? Who governs this?
- ve55 6y agoYes, and I think that's one of the first complaints that many think of here, e.g. how many users on Twitter are there that post worse things than Trump, how many thousands of websites does AWS host that are worse than Parler?, and so on. One might object "Sure, enforcement is not perfect and some bad actors will get by. But at least we are removing some things instead of nothing!", and while they are right about this as a first-order effect, they are missing what happens afterwards: people will, rightfully so, identity that policies are not evenly enforced, and this can have many further effects down the line.
- bavell 6y agoAgreed, I think the underlying problem here is selective enforcement.
- olivermarks 6y agoWhat happened to a cornerstone of American free world values "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Free speech is in grave danger
- olivermarks 6y agoThe downvotes say it all, it's a tragedy
- flunhat 6y agoWhat happened was an attempted political assassination: Q anon supporters stormed the capitol with guns, zip ties, and pipe bombs, chanting "hang mike pence." I imagine we make "I will kill you" exemptions for free speech.
- olivermarks 6y agoThis is wildly incorrect. ' Q anon supporters storming the capitol with guns, zip ties, and pipe bombs, chanting "hang mike pence' is a dangerous media fantasy. A huge number of people demonstrated, a tiny number broke the law. We are entering very dangerous, 1930's Reichstag like 'problem, reaction, solution' authoritarianism with these free speech crack downs. Patriot Act 2.0 is ready to go versus 'domestic terrorists'.
- flunhat 6y agoThere's video evidence, lol: https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1346963199778828290?s=20 https://twitter.com/59dallas/status/1346963199778828290?s=20
- olivermarks 6y agoYes of course there is, along with a motley crew straight out of central casting in bizarre outfits posing for press photos... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree 'Seizing on the burning of the Reichstag building as the supposed opening salvo in a communist uprising, the Nazis were able to throw millions of Germans into a convulsion of fear at the threat of Communist terror' For communists read Qanon, proud boys et etc
- olivermarks 6y agoThe Many Occasions Joe Biden Took Credit For Writing The Patriot Act Biden has repeatedly claimed that a bill he wrote in 1994 was essentially the same as the 2001 Patriot Act. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveillance-joe https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/andrewkaczynski/surveil...
- Delmania 6y agoYou are severely underestimating how dangerous these people are. This was not a group of people hiding in a pack of demonstrators. The Proud Boys and QAnon supporters are the ones behind this. Chris Hayes has a segment that shows just how dangerous the situation really was. The motley crew was the exception.
- EdwardDiego 6y agoFreedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- agiroth 6y agoYes, it is. It requires some impressive mental gymnastics to claim that on the one hand you have free speech, and on the other you have no realistic ability to exercise it. A right - especially a natural right - is only a right when it can be meaningfully exercised. In particular, free speech only applies to speech you don't like, because nobody is attempting to shut down memes of cute kittens.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIf that's how you define it, nobody will ever have free speech. There are plenty of things people can say that would get them kicked out of my house, de-friended, or fired if they were my employee. I bet you could even think of some scenarios yourself. There will always be the possibility of consequences.
- chr1 6y agoThe same thing said in one society can result in people kicking each other, killing each other then causing blood feud for centuries while in another society merely in a lawsuit. For economy to work, large number of people who dislike each other need to cooperate, so it is generally a good strategy for the society to arrange consequences in such a way as to not cause escalating chain of feud.
- agiroth 6y agoThis is an excellent point. I've been thinking about how to make it succinctly, I think this is as good a way as any.
- 6y ago
- cyrus_ 6y agoYou can still say whatever you want, you just can't compel others (including businesses) to assist you in conveying your speech. This is really basic stuff, it is surprising how difficult many otherwise smart people are finding it.
- olivermarks 6y ago"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
- chr1 6y agoThere is a difference between cases when business needs to spend effort to assist you, and when it needs to spend effort to prevent you. Here preventing is actually harder, because there is no difference to AWS/Twitter which combination of numbers it stores and it has to go out of its way to read the number and block specifically your speech.
- cyrus_ 6y agoThe dominant cost here isn't the cost of the employee that has to update their database, it is the cost of lost advertising or customers angry that your company is providing services to terrorists.
- chr1 6y agoIf twitter had done this for advertisers and the customers, their price of their shares would not fall.
- agensaequivocum 6y agoAgreed. And, if I don't want to make a cake for a gay wedding no one can compel me to do so.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- curlyQueue 6y agoAgreed. We are in a time where language is changing with no questions asked. (moronically but nonetheless - amen:a-woman? Hate speech? Removing gendered terms while insisting on identifying as a gender) Look up New Speak from 1984. This is where we are, and where the Party wants us to be :-)
- awill 6y agobut is perfect enforcement even possible? If it isn't, does that mean companies shouldn't bother enforcing at all? I agree, it's a very complicated issue, and there will be repercussions, but that shouldn't stop a company from taking down this sort of thing. No reasonable company wants to be associated with this. Especially if people on Parler are planning something worse in the future.
- cujo 6y agoThe number of users that almost pulled off an insurrection is pretty small.
- sjwalter 6y agoCalling a bunch of unarmed morons taking selfies inside the Capitol building an "insurrection" is totally absurd. It's as though you think that it's a videogame, like whoever has that building has all the power. LOL!
- mkull 6y agoWay to belittle what actually happened https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U https://youtu.be/cJOgGsC0G9U We are lucky more didnt die
- sjwalter 6y agoStop being so afraid.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- denom 6y agoPhysical votes, people’s lives, including leaderships, were at stake.
- sjwalter 6y agoThis is hilarious. We're all so worried for those fair, upright, excellent Congresspeople, whose day's work was delayed by almost five whole hours. During which the leader of this "insurrection" appealed for peace and the day after completely gave in. If that's the insurrection you people are afraid of, you're gigantic wusses.
- DarmokJalad1701 6y ago
- conception 6y agoIf harmful is planning impending terrorists attacks, they should also be removed, yes. People weren’t and aren’t up in arms when Isis gets deplatformed.
- mynameishere 6y agoIf people are actually plotting attacks on an open platform, they should be reported to law enforcement. Deleting their accounts may actually give them a nudge towards using proper OPSEC. Obviously, we aren't talking about people actually plotting attacks though.
- pixl97 6y agoThe federal law enforcement currently in control by a seditious and insurrectionist president?