8 ms·
I don't know which social media platforms use AWS to any critical extent, but I can't imagine them ejecting a big name like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc ove
by CivBase 6y ago
I don't know which social media platforms use AWS to any critical extent, but I can't imagine them ejecting a big name like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc over "finding dozens of posts on the service which it said encouraged violence".
- makeworld 6y agoYes, because "dozens" represents different percentages of content on Parler vs much much bigger platforms like Twitter. Parler is filled with content that encourages violence, while Twitter is used for all kinds of things.
- moralestapia 6y agoCan you provide (or estimate) numbers on that? And also, what is the threshold for deciding which platform is on one side or another?
- eejit_compiler 6y agoThe threshold is if the management at Amazon etc. feel that it would generate too much bad publicity and/or potential legal liability for them to provide service to an organization mired in such controversy.
- Schiendelman 6y agoThat’s a perfectly reasonable reason for a business to do something.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y agoSo they could have just filled their site with GPT3-generated nonsense to reach the acceptable percentage of nonviolent content? Cool!
- gameswithgo 6y agoThe distinction, that AWS, Google, and Apple have all claimed, is that Parler refuses to sufficiently moderate the inciting of violence. Perhaps that claim is in error, perhaps such judgements are too subjective. If so, large social media companies might avoid AWS for fear of it.
- leereeves 6y agoIf that means that Parler refuses to moderate the actual planning or threatening of crimes, the legal system would shut them down. Section 230 doesn't protect social media companies from criminal liability. If that merely means that Parler allows posts that make people angry with a fair amount of violent rhetoric, well, that's all social media. In that case, the distinction is partisan, not principled.
- itsoktocry 6y ago>that Parler refuses to sufficiently moderate Where can one find a definition of "sufficient" in this context?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- moate 6y agoProbably the ToS has language about when AWS can decide to stop hosting. I would assume the langue is extremely broad, legally speaking, in how much control it gives AWS to their own platform. If you're going to build something aimed entirely at "taking down/riling up the establishment" you need to make sure you're not entirely dependent on the establishment to keep your something online.
- jcranmer 6y agoThe Amazon email to Parler says: > Over the past several weeks, we’ve reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence. [...] It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. [...] This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you. (quoting from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p..., it's a ways down the page). The email is lacking in specifics, though.
- eejit_compiler 6y agoIndeed, and I think it's because Parler is best known for hosting violent, far-right content, that is linked to the recent insurrection at the Capitol Building. Whereas the other services you cite are much more generic in their clientele. So based on this, Amazon made a business decision to deny service to Parler, due to the adverse publicity (and perhaps, potential legal liability) generated for them by hosting this content.
- CivBase 6y agoThen maybe AWS should just come out and say "We disabled our services for Parler because it's very unpopular and we don't want to be associated with it."
- eejit_compiler 6y agoThey pretty much already did. In corporate PR terms, "it contravened our Terms of Service" is essentially synonymous with "we don't want to be associated with it".
- mech422 6y agoI'd be happier with something like: "parler is just not worth the aggravation" - they are likely to be a minuscule revenue source that requires constant monitoring to make sure we not facing any liability, as well as potentially pissing off our existing clients. Therefore, its in our best interests just not to bother with them. Anyone that thinks corporations care one way or another about anything except their bottom lines, has a much higher view of corporations then I do. I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. That's just capitalism. No master except the almighty dollar. but if they were at least honest about it, maybe we could stop re-hashing this everyday...
- derision 6y agoWhat about calling for the eradication of Jews? https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784 Twitter doesn't seem to have any issue with this content
- partiallypro 6y agoI would be near willing to bet that more of the Capitol Hill events were planned on private Facebook groups, chats, etc than on Parler. Signal is a chat app that is secure and group chats are big in planning... So are they going to ban Signal? Conspiracy theories are rampant on WeChat and even over text messages.
- valuearb 6y agoYou’d likely be wrong. You have to meet your conspirators on public platforms or in public places before you can switch to private communications.
- sigstoat 6y agopublic platforms like twitter and facebook and whatever for the last X years? conservatives have watched themselves banned piecemeal from these platforms, they know exactly what’s coming. the ones you’re worried about have already got private comms.
- partiallypro 6y agoI just said they probably were on private Facebook groups, once you meet there you can branch out to Signal and WeChat, etc. My point is that you don't see calls to ban those apps, but everyone is celebrating Parler's death. I think everyone should be careful what they wish for.
- Faark 6y agoEquating private with public messaging is ridiculous. Not sure how laws are in the US, but when doing support here in germany we had to have private in-game messages reported by a participant before we were even allowed to look at them. The company obviously had a much easier time shaping the atmosphere in the public forum. Also while ensuring those tools can never be used for "evil" is unreasonable, we should expect dominant players to do what they can or at least not do a lot worse than everyone else. Are you arguing Parler tried to moderate as much as others?
- deleted 6y ago
- valuearb 6y agoConservatives support AWS right to decide who it wants to do business with, so implicitly they support the ejection of Parlour.
- robertlagrant 6y agoThat doesn't mean what you think it does.
- jtdev 6y agoAyatollah posts to Instagram... they don’t seem to care much about that.
- margaretdouglas 6y agoWhataboutisms aren't an argumentative position.
- kofejnik 6y agothey actually are, when we're discussing selective rule enforcement
- standardUser 6y agoIt's not about finding posts encouraging violence, it is about refusing to try to moderate that content, and your suggestion otherwise is disingenuous. If Facebook said "we are no longer going to try and moderate content that incites violence" there would obviously be blowback.
- NDizzle 6y agoIt wouldn't be such a big deal if "hurts feelings" didn't equal "incites violence". Silence is also violence. All of you lurkers will be purged as well.
- domano 6y agoI do not understand what you are saying, could you clarify?
- neogodless 6y agoRoughly translated, "everyone who isn't on my side is going to be killed by our side, which might upset you, but I would not consider that 'inciting violence'." EDIT: I misunderstood "purge" in this context. I disagree that silence on moderating content is "violence" just as I disagree that anything you disagree with is "violence." But I do not believe content will be "purged" unless it's part of a movement to unseat democracy or coordinate violent actions.
- CivBase 6y agoI disagree with what he said, but you're seemingly doing your best to make his point. He's saying that when a person don't like something, the recent trend is to just label it as "inciting violence". He then adds onto that by saying the idea of "silence is violence" means that anyone who does not speak out against the disliked thing is inherently guilty of "inciting violence" as well, so lurkers and moderates are not safe from being labeled. Again, I disagree with what he said. However, accusing his post of threatening violence against everyone with whom he disagrees does kind of support his point.
- kingdomcome50 6y agoThat's not the reason, and we all know it. We live in a capitalist free-market system. Amazon (or any entity) is free to choose with whom they do business (oh the irony!). They are dropping Parler because the the current political climate has manifest in such a way that they think it will cost them more financial and/or political capital than the alternative (recall there is a lot of antitrust sentiment out there right now). Too bad so sad. Sorry not sorry. This is exactly the kind of "freedom" for which many of the above platform's users would advocate. Parler's PR team is missing the opportunity to applaud AWS for exercising their freedoms.
- CivBase 6y agoOkay, but shouldn't it at least bother you that Amazon is lying about their reason? I don't think congratulating a company for exercising their rights is appropriate when they're actively lying to our faces. Unless, of course, they actually stand by what they've said. In which case we come right back to my original post.
- kingdomcome50 6y agoWhat am I supposed to say? Amazon doesn't really come off as the "good guy" by admitting they have weighed the current political climate against their profits. Especially given whose about to be in charge. They made a business decision and wrapped up in some good 'ol PR spin/legalese. It happens all the time. About everything. It's still their right to refuse service.
- CivBase 6y agoI never made the case that they don't have that right. I just called out their statement.
- Fellshard 6y agoIt's the clear double standard that makes this concerning.
- Schiendelman 6y agoI think you have to read the standard as: did this lead to violence? If you do, it doesn’t seem like a double standard anymore.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]