3 ms·

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

• 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.