5 ms·

This "so service x is now the arbiter..." argument keeps coming up in the threads about companies trying to limit their exposure. Yes. They absolutely 100% ar

This "so service x is now the arbiter..." argument keeps coming up in the threads about companies trying to limit their exposure. Yes. They absolutely 100% are the arbiter of what you can do on their platforms. They have not only the right, but the responsibility to kick you off if your actions threaten the continued operation of their platform, either directly or indirectly. And allowing the sort of speech that brings down a government is absolutely something that threatens the whole platform. Even if Amazon wanted you to storm the capitol, execute the VP, or whatever other dangerous stuff is currently being discussed on Parler, allowing that discussion to happen publicly on AWS-hosted websites would be a bad business decision. It is 100% their job to police their customers, it always has been, it always will be. This isn't new, it's just how a responsible business operates. No business has ever been immune from the actions their clientele takes, and business have always dropped clients they didn't want to be associated with. (And "seditionist" is not a protected class that is legally prevented from discrimination)

systemvoltage 6y ago
I don’t hear a peep from people about AWS banning Bitcoin miners. They’re providing proof of what kind of content exists on their servers. It’s the same with child porn and other criminal content. People offended by AWS’s stance, please help explain the differences in aforementioned violations. The only odd part of all of this is why now? AWS should have banned them during formation. They tolerated it because of Trump being in power. This is the only cowardly hypocritical thing I see with the recent bans. All of a sudden cat is acting like a Lion in the cave after the Lion has left.
- XorNot 6y ago
  The heck are you talking about? Bitcoin isn't illegal. And AWS actually have numerous reporting obligations surrounding the use of instances for illegal activity and content if they become aware of it. Which in the case of Parler they're explicitly and overtly aware.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    > The heck are you talking about? Bitcoin isn't illegal. That's the point. Booting Parler off of AWS isn't illegal either. You know, conservative principles of free enterprise and all. AWS isn't government that will protect free speech.
  - hndudette2 6y ago
    The person you responded to is largely correct, despite your aggressive tone. While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material. Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...
kristofferR 6y ago
Read up on Section 230 and why it was passed, the whole point of it is that what you're arguing is unworkable and massively stifling innovation. ISPs aren't responsible for what it's users do.
- hrunt 6y ago
  IANAL, but ... Section 230 says that ISPs are not treated as the publisher or speaker of what their users publish or say. That does not mean that prosecutors cannot try to find companies criminally responsible for allowing users to post illegal content on their platforms, especially if they have knowledge of such content. See Backpage. And even if the companies win, the battle itself is quite damaging. Furthermore, Section 230 says nothing about how the court of public opinion will treat the provider. These companies are thinking about more than just the legal repercussions. If their business suffers because people do not want to do work with companies that support this kind of content, then all the Section 230 protections in the world will not bring in revenue.
  - kristofferR 6y ago
    Parler is removing illegal content and encouragement of violence, they've just been unable to completely do so due to massive growth. They're not like Backpage at all in that regard (and that verdict was harmful regardless). All the violent parleys Amazon mentioned are from nobodies and they have barely any upvotes. You're right with the second paragraph though, in the US de-facto monopolistic companies are allowed to discriminate their customers regardless of public interest. Visa and Mastercard is allowed to ban Wikileaks from receiving any donations at all (thank God for cryptocurrencies) since they posted info about war crimes and Amazon is allowed to ban social networks that doesn't fact check. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be that way. Public interests needs some protection, even though companies are the suppliers.
- notatoad 6y ago
  ISPs are not legally responsible under under the communications decency act. That doesn't make them completely immune to legal consequences. For example, Section 230 definitely doesn't supercede an NSL. Invoking it also doesn't let you reclaim a DoD contract you lost, or restore public opinion of your company. (also, protip for trying to convince anybody of anything: don't start out with an assumption that the person you're talking to is ignorant. Replying with "read up on..." is always insulting)
ImprobableTruth 6y ago
So you'd be fine with platforms purging anything critical of them? I guess in theory I wouldn't have an issue with that, but in practice a lot most of the time there isn't really an alternative.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  Note that someone approving of one particular action by AWS does not imply that person approves of all actual or hypothetical actions that AWS might take. That’s absurd.
  - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
    Except that's not at all what I said. I actually chose that example because I think the vast majority of people wouldn't approve it. They're arguing that this action is fine because they own the platform, so they can kick off whoever they want to. Do they accept that this also includes justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good?
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      You’re repeating the same absurdity I outlined. There’s a big difference between saying “that company is free to make that decision” and “I approve of that decision by that company.” Approving of one decision does not imply being bound to approve of all future decisions of that company.
      - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
        No, you just seem to think for some reason that "justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good" means approving of this action. They're not saying that kicking off people critical of them is good (i.e. something they personally approve of), but they're saying that it's reasonable.
        Talanes 6y ago

systemvoltage 6y ago

I don’t hear a peep from people about AWS banning Bitcoin miners. They’re providing proof of what kind of content exists on their servers. It’s the same with child porn and other criminal content. People offended by AWS’s stance, please help explain the differences in aforementioned violations. The only odd part of all of this is why now? AWS should have banned them during formation. They tolerated it because of Trump being in power. This is the only cowardly hypocritical thing I see with the recent bans. All of a sudden cat is acting like a Lion in the cave after the Lion has left.

XorNot 6y ago
The heck are you talking about? Bitcoin isn't illegal. And AWS actually have numerous reporting obligations surrounding the use of instances for illegal activity and content if they become aware of it. Which in the case of Parler they're explicitly and overtly aware.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  > The heck are you talking about? Bitcoin isn't illegal. That's the point. Booting Parler off of AWS isn't illegal either. You know, conservative principles of free enterprise and all. AWS isn't government that will protect free speech.
- hndudette2 6y ago
  The person you responded to is largely correct, despite your aggressive tone. While AWS will act on anything that's reported, they are well known to do absolutely nothing in addition to that to stop the rampant usage of their platform to spread child pornography, unlike FB and other platforms which invest heavily in stopping the spread of child abuse material. Amazon AWS really don't care about what goes on their platform unless it becomes a potential PR issue. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-child-sex-abuse.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/09/us/internet-c...

kristofferR 6y ago

Read up on Section 230 and why it was passed, the whole point of it is that what you're arguing is unworkable and massively stifling innovation. ISPs aren't responsible for what it's users do.

hrunt 6y ago
IANAL, but ... Section 230 says that ISPs are not treated as the publisher or speaker of what their users publish or say. That does not mean that prosecutors cannot try to find companies criminally responsible for allowing users to post illegal content on their platforms, especially if they have knowledge of such content. See Backpage. And even if the companies win, the battle itself is quite damaging. Furthermore, Section 230 says nothing about how the court of public opinion will treat the provider. These companies are thinking about more than just the legal repercussions. If their business suffers because people do not want to do work with companies that support this kind of content, then all the Section 230 protections in the world will not bring in revenue.
- kristofferR 6y ago
  Parler is removing illegal content and encouragement of violence, they've just been unable to completely do so due to massive growth. They're not like Backpage at all in that regard (and that verdict was harmful regardless). All the violent parleys Amazon mentioned are from nobodies and they have barely any upvotes. You're right with the second paragraph though, in the US de-facto monopolistic companies are allowed to discriminate their customers regardless of public interest. Visa and Mastercard is allowed to ban Wikileaks from receiving any donations at all (thank God for cryptocurrencies) since they posted info about war crimes and Amazon is allowed to ban social networks that doesn't fact check. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be that way. Public interests needs some protection, even though companies are the suppliers.
notatoad 6y ago
ISPs are not legally responsible under under the communications decency act. That doesn't make them completely immune to legal consequences. For example, Section 230 definitely doesn't supercede an NSL. Invoking it also doesn't let you reclaim a DoD contract you lost, or restore public opinion of your company. (also, protip for trying to convince anybody of anything: don't start out with an assumption that the person you're talking to is ignorant. Replying with "read up on..." is always insulting)

ImprobableTruth 6y ago

So you'd be fine with platforms purging anything critical of them? I guess in theory I wouldn't have an issue with that, but in practice a lot most of the time there isn't really an alternative.

tshaddox 6y ago
Note that someone approving of one particular action by AWS does not imply that person approves of all actual or hypothetical actions that AWS might take. That’s absurd.
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  Except that's not at all what I said. I actually chose that example because I think the vast majority of people wouldn't approve it. They're arguing that this action is fine because they own the platform, so they can kick off whoever they want to. Do they accept that this also includes justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good?
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    You’re repeating the same absurdity I outlined. There’s a big difference between saying “that company is free to make that decision” and “I approve of that decision by that company.” Approving of one decision does not imply being bound to approve of all future decisions of that company.
    - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
      No, you just seem to think for some reason that "justifying kicking off people generally thought of as good" means approving of this action. They're not saying that kicking off people critical of them is good (i.e. something they personally approve of), but they're saying that it's reasonable.
      - Talanes 6y ago