9 ms·

Unreservedly yes: a) Parler is hardly being “kicked off the entire internet.” They are being severely ostracized and being denied service by major online compa

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.

umvi 6y ago
> 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?
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  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.
  - umvi 6y ago
    I made up a hypothetical future where political winds and morals shift to something you disagree with to expose the flaw in your logic.
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      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.
  - xvector 6y ago
    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.
    - ojnabieoot 6y ago
      > 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.
      - xvector 6y ago
        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.
Kaytaro 6y ago
If you can't make a point without mentioning morality, maybe your reasoning isn't objective.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  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.
myWindoonn 6y ago
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.

umvi 6y ago

> 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?

ojnabieoot 6y ago
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.
- umvi 6y ago
  I made up a hypothetical future where political winds and morals shift to something you disagree with to expose the flaw in your logic.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    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.
- xvector 6y ago
  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.
  - ojnabieoot 6y ago
    > 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.
    - xvector 6y ago
      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.

Kaytaro 6y ago

If you can't make a point without mentioning morality, maybe your reasoning isn't objective.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
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.

myWindoonn 6y ago

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.