4 ms·

My fear: very real questions of antitrust are going to be litigated by a bunch of unsympathetic jokers like Parler with a flimsy case, like that guy who sued Fa

by npunt 6y ago

My fear: very real questions of antitrust are going to be litigated by a bunch of unsympathetic jokers like Parler with a flimsy case, like that guy who sued Facebook because they shut down his app that let users troll their friends photos for bikini pics.

inglor_cz 6y ago
I can recommend this movie - The People vs. Larry Flint. Things tend to repeat itself. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/ BTW Miloš Forman is one of the best Czech filmmakers ever, but he only flourished to full glory when he moved to the US.
- npunt 6y ago
  Yes that's a great movie. Issues of speech though are a bit different than issues of anticompetitive behavior, I don't think an unsympathetic and probably incompetent litigant works as well in the latter.
that_guy_iain 6y ago
Questions about who a hoster can refuse to host will always have to be asked in court by those we hate. Normal people don't normally get ban hammered. It's like how West Bro set quite a few legal standards for free speech on the sidewalks.
- npunt 6y ago
  Good point. I guess I'd prefer anti-competitive litigation in particular to be centered on arguments among those who compete. Parler wasn't exactly in direct or indirect competition with AWS. Might be better if another cloud provider were saying 'hey these guys shut us out of a deal to maintain their market position' rather than what happened in this case.
- kristopolous 6y ago
  It's more about how we should always be weary of extreme examples which can set precedence with regrettable repercussions. If I had proposed as a thought experiment, a hypothetical "proto-fascist social media site that facilitated a failed insurrection based on outlandish conspiracies and disinformation" to argue something, most would claim it's an absurd outlier and shouldn't be used because it's not generally representative. But here we are. That's the risk. Arguments that normally would be summarily dismissed will be taken as legitimate. This is also exactly the window of time where otherwise unacceptable laws will be accepted (like the AUMF after 9/11) It's potentially a dangerous time with long lasting effects that will be hard to claw back and we should tread lightly and carefully knowing these tendencies. We still haven't been able to spin down the military expansionism from 80 years ago after pearl harbor for instance. These systems can take on a life of their own and become really hard to undo. Careful careful.
iphorde 6y ago
This is not a flimsy case. First, the courts protect speech at all costs, no matter if it is a private or public platform. Second, the actions these companies have taken are monopolistic in nature. Parler should demand billions, and not settle. I would love to be the attorney on this gig.
klodolph 6y ago
Are there real antitrust questions here? If you get booted from AWS, you can always go to Azure or GCP, or Digital Ocean/Linode/Rackspace/etc. I believe there are real antitrust questions regarding Amazon but getting booted from AWS doesn’t seem to connect with any of them. Amazon does not compete with Parler. Seems like one of the funny things about the internet is that as “free” as it seems to be sometimes, there is no part of the internet that is really a public space. Everything on the internet is owned by somebody. There are no public roads, no sidewalks, no easements on the internet. If this were about a physical space like a store, you can get banned from the store but still protest outside on the sidewalk. If AWS were a “common carrier” then it would need strong justifications for banning customers. I don’t see any of these legal arguments playing out here.
- npunt 6y ago
  I'd imagine the case will be flimsy for the very reasons you bring up, but may be well-lawyered if Parler's funders (Mercers) have something out for Amazon. I'd much prefer important questions in society be brought up by the right people for the right reasons.
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    According to the law subreddit, Parler’s current legal representation for this suit consists of a single lawyer running a sole proprietorship. They are going to get buried in this case.
- JulianMorrison 6y ago
  It's clear that the broader problem for Parler is that they can't go to those other hosting providers either, because nobody wants their stinky business ruining the corporate image. Arguably that's the real boycott, not just being tossed off Amazon, but the fact that a very small number of companies have comparable infrastructure, and they're all saying no. But how do you litigate against being sent to Coventry?
  - gnfargbl 6y ago
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
AWS market share just isn't large enough for anybody to succeed on anti-trust grounds. Now when they also get rejected by every other web host, or a sufficiently large fraction, it gets more interesting: are they coordinating, actively or implicitly? Or are they following the same thought process, and ending uo at the same result, independently? Does it matter? Any supermarket can ban you for not wearing a shirt. What if they all ban you, and you just can't buy either a shirt or food? Is the latter different, because it's about survival? if you get thrown out of every bar in town for bad behaviour, do you have an anti-trust case against them? What if they operate a ban list, and one or two incidents are enough to cut you off? Anyway... Parler is mouldy: both toxic and toast. And slippery slope is a fallacy. So this is really all upside, as far as I can tell.
- XorNot 6y ago
  They're still not going to able to prove anti-trust. If we start from the idea that the internet is a vital service, the problem very much becomes at what point is somebody compelled to host you on their infrastructure? Providers will quite rightly claim a right to compensation for reputational damage. If I have to provide service to Parler, I want it known that this is not my choice, for example. The most case I could see them actually having would be if IANA refused to allow them to be listed in the root zone DNS servers, and if basic connectivity were being denied - because that's the very basics of internet connectivity. Everything else is just making things easier, but it's all being done because someone else wants to do it. Freedom of association then becomes a significant issue because hate speech is not a protected class.
listenallyall 6y ago
Why are you fearful? When the courts uphold rights for even the least sympathetic people, it demonstrates the strength of our laws and the commitment to principle -- see ACLU in Skokie. What should scare you is when laws are selectively applied based on the people you like vs the people you don't like... kind of the whole reasoning behind BLM.

by npunt 6y ago

inglor_cz 6y ago

I can recommend this movie - The People vs. Larry Flint. Things tend to repeat itself. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/ BTW Miloš Forman is one of the best Czech filmmakers ever, but he only flourished to full glory when he moved to the US.

npunt 6y ago
Yes that's a great movie. Issues of speech though are a bit different than issues of anticompetitive behavior, I don't think an unsympathetic and probably incompetent litigant works as well in the latter.

that_guy_iain 6y ago

Questions about who a hoster can refuse to host will always have to be asked in court by those we hate. Normal people don't normally get ban hammered. It's like how West Bro set quite a few legal standards for free speech on the sidewalks.

npunt 6y ago
Good point. I guess I'd prefer anti-competitive litigation in particular to be centered on arguments among those who compete. Parler wasn't exactly in direct or indirect competition with AWS. Might be better if another cloud provider were saying 'hey these guys shut us out of a deal to maintain their market position' rather than what happened in this case.
kristopolous 6y ago
It's more about how we should always be weary of extreme examples which can set precedence with regrettable repercussions. If I had proposed as a thought experiment, a hypothetical "proto-fascist social media site that facilitated a failed insurrection based on outlandish conspiracies and disinformation" to argue something, most would claim it's an absurd outlier and shouldn't be used because it's not generally representative. But here we are. That's the risk. Arguments that normally would be summarily dismissed will be taken as legitimate. This is also exactly the window of time where otherwise unacceptable laws will be accepted (like the AUMF after 9/11) It's potentially a dangerous time with long lasting effects that will be hard to claw back and we should tread lightly and carefully knowing these tendencies. We still haven't been able to spin down the military expansionism from 80 years ago after pearl harbor for instance. These systems can take on a life of their own and become really hard to undo. Careful careful.

iphorde 6y ago

This is not a flimsy case. First, the courts protect speech at all costs, no matter if it is a private or public platform. Second, the actions these companies have taken are monopolistic in nature. Parler should demand billions, and not settle. I would love to be the attorney on this gig.

klodolph 6y ago

Are there real antitrust questions here? If you get booted from AWS, you can always go to Azure or GCP, or Digital Ocean/Linode/Rackspace/etc. I believe there are real antitrust questions regarding Amazon but getting booted from AWS doesn’t seem to connect with any of them. Amazon does not compete with Parler. Seems like one of the funny things about the internet is that as “free” as it seems to be sometimes, there is no part of the internet that is really a public space. Everything on the internet is owned by somebody. There are no public roads, no sidewalks, no easements on the internet. If this were about a physical space like a store, you can get banned from the store but still protest outside on the sidewalk. If AWS were a “common carrier” then it would need strong justifications for banning customers. I don’t see any of these legal arguments playing out here.

npunt 6y ago
I'd imagine the case will be flimsy for the very reasons you bring up, but may be well-lawyered if Parler's funders (Mercers) have something out for Amazon. I'd much prefer important questions in society be brought up by the right people for the right reasons.
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  According to the law subreddit, Parler’s current legal representation for this suit consists of a single lawyer running a sole proprietorship. They are going to get buried in this case.
JulianMorrison 6y ago
It's clear that the broader problem for Parler is that they can't go to those other hosting providers either, because nobody wants their stinky business ruining the corporate image. Arguably that's the real boycott, not just being tossed off Amazon, but the fact that a very small number of companies have comparable infrastructure, and they're all saying no. But how do you litigate against being sent to Coventry?
- gnfargbl 6y ago

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

AWS market share just isn't large enough for anybody to succeed on anti-trust grounds. Now when they also get rejected by every other web host, or a sufficiently large fraction, it gets more interesting: are they coordinating, actively or implicitly? Or are they following the same thought process, and ending uo at the same result, independently? Does it matter? Any supermarket can ban you for not wearing a shirt. What if they all ban you, and you just can't buy either a shirt or food? Is the latter different, because it's about survival? if you get thrown out of every bar in town for bad behaviour, do you have an anti-trust case against them? What if they operate a ban list, and one or two incidents are enough to cut you off? Anyway... Parler is mouldy: both toxic and toast. And slippery slope is a fallacy. So this is really all upside, as far as I can tell.

XorNot 6y ago
They're still not going to able to prove anti-trust. If we start from the idea that the internet is a vital service, the problem very much becomes at what point is somebody compelled to host you on their infrastructure? Providers will quite rightly claim a right to compensation for reputational damage. If I have to provide service to Parler, I want it known that this is not my choice, for example. The most case I could see them actually having would be if IANA refused to allow them to be listed in the root zone DNS servers, and if basic connectivity were being denied - because that's the very basics of internet connectivity. Everything else is just making things easier, but it's all being done because someone else wants to do it. Freedom of association then becomes a significant issue because hate speech is not a protected class.

listenallyall 6y ago

Why are you fearful? When the courts uphold rights for even the least sympathetic people, it demonstrates the strength of our laws and the commitment to principle -- see ACLU in Skokie. What should scare you is when laws are selectively applied based on the people you like vs the people you don't like... kind of the whole reasoning behind BLM.