9 ms·

How do HN readers, who I presume would generally support safe harbor provisions for free speech, common carrier rules etc, not find it deeply alarming that this

How do HN readers, who I presume would generally support safe harbor provisions for free speech, common carrier rules etc, not find it deeply alarming that this is happening? Even if Parler hosted straight up illegal content, surely the proportional response is to block those accounts, not the entire platform? If no, why aren't we deplatforming Twitter or Facebook next?

akmarinov 6y ago
This right here. At least Apple gave them time to implement moderation in their app. A really unrealistic 24 hour timeframe, but still. Truth is it was good PR to obliterate Parler for everyone involved and they weren't a big enough player to be able to fight back.
awillen 6y ago
Blocking individual accounts is something Parler can do (and chose not to), not Amazon/Facebook/Google who don't have access to the contents of those accounts (at least not easily). Also, it's worth looking at some of the hacked info that was released - Parler had a serious moderation system, but it was used to make sure people had MAGA viewpoints, not to prevent violence. This is not some free and open platform, it was a controlled one that purposely built an echo chamber of violent rhetoric. Twitter and Facebook don't allow the same kind of violent rhetoric, lies, etc., and while they may not do an ideal (or even good) job at it, the fact is they're broad platforms used for a whole lot of things for a whole lot of people and are absolutely not comparable to Parler.
- Allower 6y ago
  >Twitter and Facebook don't allow the same kind of violent rhetoric, lies, etc. You must not be paying much attention..this is simply not true
- 6sup6 6y ago
  I can remember very well calls for violence in twitter against Nick Sandemann. And I remember very well those calls for violence not being removed at all. Also, during the riots of 2020, it was extremely common to find calls to violence in twitter that weren't deleted.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    What's your point, that they apply TOS inconsistently? I don't think anyone will disagree with that assessment. They let Trump violate the TOS for 4 years. They are perfectly within their rights as a private business to make those exceptions. Is it fair? No. Would we much rather they apply things consistently? Yes. The question is, do we want to enforce who and what they can and cannot allow on their platform via law, or do we want private businesses to control who they are allowed to do business with?
    - shard972 6y ago
      ok so under your view, tech companies can enforce the law unevenly which is their right. Cool, can we agree thats incredibly dumb?
necrotic_comp 6y ago
Because Parler was explicitly designed to host reprehensible speech, and was not making a good-faith effort in censoring their platform. Those hosting the platform decided "nah, we don't want to be associated with this" and cut them off. These free-speech advocates still have the ability to create mastodon instances or a listserv or something else where a company doesn't have that leverage over them. They still have options and this crying is overblown.
- atc 6y ago
  No, they knew they could use this situation to eliminate a fast growing competitor. Follow the money
- SyzygistSix 6y ago
  I am actually comforted by the fact that people are allowed to espouse views and ideas that I personally find reprehensible. However, I do not find psy-ops to undermine our democracy by Russia and other parties to be freedom of expression, any more than they have a right to use platforms to rob a bank (something I'm grudgingly somewhat sympathetic toward).
baxtr 6y ago
I think it’s one thing if Twitter bans DJT. In the end it’s their platform, and their rules. But I feel very different about infrastructure players starting their censorship based on what’s happening 1 or even 2 steps further down the line. It’s a wrong move and will just push the discussion somewhere else, the least. The worst that this might lead is that the internet breaks off into several non-communicating islands, which we all don’t want.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  If we’re talking about individual ISPs, backhaul providers, and electricity companies, I agree. But we’re not. If anything, we should be more bothered that people consider something like AWS or any of the other major clouds, core infrastructure akin to backhaul or electricity. (Google Play and the App Store have always had very clear TOS rules that limit certain types of content so I don’t even see them as being part of the discussion.) I fundamentally agree that something like Parler, as abhorrent as much of its content was, has the right to exist somewhere on the internet, but I just as fundamentally disagree that Amazon should be forced to provide them with services or that we should equate having a right to exist with “having the right to exist on X’s brand of compute.”
  - malwrar 6y ago
    But how far can this principle be applied? I admit this is complete hyperbole, but what if your local grocery stores forbade you from buying food there because they didn't want people associating them with you? I think there's a grey area to explore here where that principle becomes unsustainable, and even though this banning was done for noble purposes it still isn't a norm I'd want to curse future generations with.
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Hasn’t this always been the norm though? People with abhorrent views are not welcome in polite society. The idea that I should be forced to associate with those people is definitely not a norm I’d want to curse future generations with.
brodouevencode 6y ago
And it's being flagged on here, presumably because it's against certain users' political priors.
PretzelFisch 6y ago
What is your definition of Free speach? In america we have a fredom of speach to protect the people from the government. Not to protect the government from the people. As a buisness owner i may refuse some one/entitiy service, it is how the free market works.
- bjornsing 6y ago
  Can you really? Here in Sweden, if a business owner refuses service to people based on political opinions or similar they are in for a world of hurt. I imagine it’s the same in most of the western world.
  - awillen 6y ago
    So if a neo-Nazi walks into a restaurant and says that all Jews should burn to death then tries to order lunch and is refused, that owner is in for a world of hurt? We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. Now obviously it's a blurry line, but again, the neo-Nazis storming the capital and their ilk are just way over the line. Just because it's blurry doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist out of some sense of fairness.
    - silicon2401 6y ago
      It is a founding principle of western civilization that you cannot be prosecuted for thoughts and ideas. All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only actions can be prosecuted. > We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. I will hard disagree with this every day of the week. To me this is a clear example of how ideology has taken the place of religion in today's society. It's no longer enough for you to be civil and respect the laws, but even having the wrong thoughts is considered criminal, just like lust and envy are considered sinful in religion. We're heading in a dark direction if we're re-adopting the same principles and perspectives that were behind McCarthyism, let alone used to burn witches and conduct the Inquisition.
yoav 6y ago
The key thing here is that Parler _refused_ to do this. Had Parler done this these companies wouldn’t have distanced themselves from them. But also their whole brand is enabling those accounts so had they blocked those accounts they wouldn’t have a community.
pas 6y ago
One current model of what's happened/happening, is the US system of politics is broken (first-past-the-post voting in states, 2 seats per state, two party, polarization ... and now on top of that the drawback of the separately elected president is that now the Executive and the Legislation was in a deadlock), so the private sector stepped in its usual awkward way. (FB/Tw/YT profited from hosting recruiting content, they did some minor moderation to calm advertisers, but now real people realized that they have the capacity, right and maybe even moral duty to do something with the problem they helped to create, so reverse course, full throttle backward, bam-bam, ban, ban.) It's not about illegal content. It's about politics and ethics. (And private companies can choose to do or not do business with whomever they want - except a few protected things. But there's a gay wedding cake somewhere too in this. Free association and free speech. Ethically it's hard to coerce anyone to say or not say something, and to host or not host some content.) Furthermore, there's the power imbalance aspect. Twitter banning SciHub is probably Twitter abusing its power, Twitter banning Trump is less likely an abuse. (Though there very well could be and are exceptions.)
MrMan 6y ago
If my account could downvote I would. I dont want the top comment once again to be some generic free speech fundamentalism. It amounts to putting our head in the sand. We should be able to rank, sort, and discriminate between different competing challenges to the peaceful (as if everyone even agrees that this is good) conduct of civilization. By all means "deplatform" Facebook, please, but why would you condone that and condemn deplatforming Parler? makes no sense.
silicon2401 6y ago
> Even if Parler hosted straight up illegal content, surely the proportional response is to block those accounts, not the entire platform? If no, why aren't we deplatforming Twitter or Facebook next? I've made this exact argument. It's a blatant double standard that Youtube or Twitter, as you said, aren't held liable for the content their users upload, but Amazon and Google can deplatform whoever they want for whatever they want. I've read a joke that we're officially in a cyberpunk world now that corporations are "going to war" with each other. I've thought that our society has been heading towards civil war for years, but only in the past year with so many riots and corporate overreach have I started to believe it might actually come sooner than later.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Except Twitter and Youtube routinely moderate their content. It isn't perfect but they are actively and publicly doing so. Parler publicly seems to take the stance of no to little moderation. I haven't read the hacked info from the site on principle of how it was distributed/hacked but seems that data confirms it based on others notes in the thread
  - Tallasatree 6y ago
    So lets think about this for a minute. What is the goal? To stop violence and to stop promulgating illegal material? Or to make it look like you want to stop violence? If its the latter, then lets continue to deplatform people. If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et al given their proven history of allowing violence and hate speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs. The logic here is terrible and you can't argue against that. No matter how many users parler gets, it won't even come close to having the same reach.
    - ShamelessC 6y ago
      > If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et al given their proven history of allowing violence and hate speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs. Sounds good to me... They're totally culpable for the domestic terrorism that happened at the capitol. Facebook too. Dogshit companies that track our behavior and make money off of outrage.
valuearb 6y ago
Free speech doesn’t mean you have the right to go over to your neighbors house and print out and distribute hate speech from their printer. Parlour used AWS property to allow its members to help organize sedition. AWS has the right to nope out. All the problems with large private entities like Twitter and Facebook hosting speech on their own terms pale in to comparison with letting governments dictate how they host speech. Parlour can find or create another hosting device and get back up quickly. If they want to use mainstream services, they should moderate out something other than liberals.
busterarm 6y ago
Because HN readers are just as tribalist as anyone else and now they're winning after a bad ref call. You've seen this play out in sports hundreds of times. Politics isn't any different. It's even got WWE-esque storylines.
- dinero_rojo 6y ago
  It's even got a WWE "Superstar" at the center of it all! https://www.wwe.com/superstars/donald-trump https://www.wwe.com/superstars/donald-trump
eximius 6y ago
I find both the existence and destruction of Parler disturbing as separate incidents. However, I am going to worry more that it existed in the first place than it being destroyed.
probably_wrong 6y ago
I personally would be very angry if their ISP refused them access, because I believe the internet should be a public utility that everyone can use and "you can still yell on the public square" wouldn't be a good faith argument. But I don't feel the same way about AWS, because they are not as critical as an ISP would be. Nothing is stopping Parler from plugging in and managing their own servers. I see AWS as a convenience, and as such I don't think anyone is entitled to it. As a side note: I would like to take a minute to remind the youngsters that no one owes them a revolution. If you want to go fight against the status quo, you should really have a plan for when the status quo fights back.
dboreham 6y ago
This is action taken because AWS's customer (Parler) specifically did not take that action. Since the raison d'etre for Parler is to host content not acceptable to mainstream social media sites, it seems reasonable to assume they won't in good faith moderate their content.
- umvi 6y ago
  Why should AWS care though? It's infrastructure. They should not be disconnecting service just because the infrastructure is used for something they perceive as evil. It would be like Verizon automatically dropping calls if you make a phone call and try to say something evil to the person on the other line.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    Maybe, but that's not how internet services are currently regulated. Ironically, because the Republicans have fought that type of regulation tooth and nail. AWS cares because they're a public company with a reputation, and many of their customers and employees are anti-rioter.
mplewis 6y ago
Read the suspension letter. AWS suspended them BECAUSE they refused to moderate the problem accounts. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
- hnburnsy 6y ago
  Parler stated in its lawsuit that it removed all the content that Amazon pointed out... 'On January 8, 2021, AWS brought concerns to Parler about user content that encouraged violence. Parler addressed them, and then AWS said it was “okay” with Parler.' 'The next day, January 9, 2021, AWS brought more “bad” content to Parler and Parler took down all of that content by the evening' https://www.scribd.com/document/490405156/Parler-sues-Amazon https://www.scribd.com/document/490405156/Parler-sues-Amazon
  - hnburnsy 6y ago
    also Parler wrote in the lawsuit... "AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false—because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame Parler nonetheless."
    - tzs 6y ago
      Amazon did not want Parler to moderate content pointed out by Amazon. Amazon wanted Parler to find that kind of content and moderate it itself.
      - hnburnsy 6y ago
        How long has Amazon been asking them to moderate violent content? The lawsuit says it was a three day timeline, start to suspension, and then 36 hours until they were taken offline. I haven't seen any comment from Amazon talking about the timeline on their decision. I get a pit in my stomach thinking that in the span of 3 days an internet business with +10 million users can get shut down instantly. Was there no middle ground where they worked collaboratively to let Parler pause, clean up, and get moderation in place? Sure the CEO was bombastic, but in the lawsuit they said Amazon ghosted them and that their contract said they get 30 days.
inscionent 6y ago
Parler was never a good faith actor. They are profiteers looking to corral a conservative audience. They were more than happen to moderate descriptions of areola, but not violence. We do have a big tech problem. Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, and Apple should be broken up. Twitter should be required to improve moderation and bot removal. Public/Private enterprises should be established to provide alternates to Twitter/Parler.
rodgerd 6y ago
Do you support the idea that government should be able to force you to allow your private property to be used by others? If so, when can I start hosting raves in your front room?
RangerScience 6y ago
Been thinking about this, and basically - Freedom of speech is, colloquially, about being able to discuss things. That's something I'd like to support, and to see more of, but I'm going to draw a stark categorization between discussion and incitement. Both use words, sure. Are both speech that should be free? Edit: To be clear, not a rhetorical question: actual question, one I don't have an answer to.
SyzygistSix 6y ago
The entire point of "freedom of speech" is freedom of expression. Ongoing psy-ops from Russia and other parties to undermine US democracy are not what I would consider freedom of expression.
- rtx 6y ago
  Psyops is as real as Area 51
  - zepto 6y ago
    Are you so sure Area 51 is real? https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2017-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Russian-Actions-and-Methods/ https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Onl...
- base698 6y ago
  Arguments Freedom of speech: 1) You could be wrong. Numerous examples exist throughout history regarding the wrong opinion turning out to the be the truth. 2) Knowing wrong opinions makes you have greater understanding of the correct ones. 3) Roughly the expression argument you mention.

akmarinov 6y ago

This right here. At least Apple gave them time to implement moderation in their app. A really unrealistic 24 hour timeframe, but still. Truth is it was good PR to obliterate Parler for everyone involved and they weren't a big enough player to be able to fight back.

awillen 6y ago

Blocking individual accounts is something Parler can do (and chose not to), not Amazon/Facebook/Google who don't have access to the contents of those accounts (at least not easily). Also, it's worth looking at some of the hacked info that was released - Parler had a serious moderation system, but it was used to make sure people had MAGA viewpoints, not to prevent violence. This is not some free and open platform, it was a controlled one that purposely built an echo chamber of violent rhetoric. Twitter and Facebook don't allow the same kind of violent rhetoric, lies, etc., and while they may not do an ideal (or even good) job at it, the fact is they're broad platforms used for a whole lot of things for a whole lot of people and are absolutely not comparable to Parler.

Allower 6y ago
>Twitter and Facebook don't allow the same kind of violent rhetoric, lies, etc. You must not be paying much attention..this is simply not true
6sup6 6y ago
I can remember very well calls for violence in twitter against Nick Sandemann. And I remember very well those calls for violence not being removed at all. Also, during the riots of 2020, it was extremely common to find calls to violence in twitter that weren't deleted.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  What's your point, that they apply TOS inconsistently? I don't think anyone will disagree with that assessment. They let Trump violate the TOS for 4 years. They are perfectly within their rights as a private business to make those exceptions. Is it fair? No. Would we much rather they apply things consistently? Yes. The question is, do we want to enforce who and what they can and cannot allow on their platform via law, or do we want private businesses to control who they are allowed to do business with?
  - shard972 6y ago
    ok so under your view, tech companies can enforce the law unevenly which is their right. Cool, can we agree thats incredibly dumb?

necrotic_comp 6y ago

Because Parler was explicitly designed to host reprehensible speech, and was not making a good-faith effort in censoring their platform. Those hosting the platform decided "nah, we don't want to be associated with this" and cut them off. These free-speech advocates still have the ability to create mastodon instances or a listserv or something else where a company doesn't have that leverage over them. They still have options and this crying is overblown.

atc 6y ago
No, they knew they could use this situation to eliminate a fast growing competitor. Follow the money
SyzygistSix 6y ago
I am actually comforted by the fact that people are allowed to espouse views and ideas that I personally find reprehensible. However, I do not find psy-ops to undermine our democracy by Russia and other parties to be freedom of expression, any more than they have a right to use platforms to rob a bank (something I'm grudgingly somewhat sympathetic toward).

baxtr 6y ago

I think it’s one thing if Twitter bans DJT. In the end it’s their platform, and their rules. But I feel very different about infrastructure players starting their censorship based on what’s happening 1 or even 2 steps further down the line. It’s a wrong move and will just push the discussion somewhere else, the least. The worst that this might lead is that the internet breaks off into several non-communicating islands, which we all don’t want.

filmgirlcw 6y ago
If we’re talking about individual ISPs, backhaul providers, and electricity companies, I agree. But we’re not. If anything, we should be more bothered that people consider something like AWS or any of the other major clouds, core infrastructure akin to backhaul or electricity. (Google Play and the App Store have always had very clear TOS rules that limit certain types of content so I don’t even see them as being part of the discussion.) I fundamentally agree that something like Parler, as abhorrent as much of its content was, has the right to exist somewhere on the internet, but I just as fundamentally disagree that Amazon should be forced to provide them with services or that we should equate having a right to exist with “having the right to exist on X’s brand of compute.”
- malwrar 6y ago
  But how far can this principle be applied? I admit this is complete hyperbole, but what if your local grocery stores forbade you from buying food there because they didn't want people associating them with you? I think there's a grey area to explore here where that principle becomes unsustainable, and even though this banning was done for noble purposes it still isn't a norm I'd want to curse future generations with.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Hasn’t this always been the norm though? People with abhorrent views are not welcome in polite society. The idea that I should be forced to associate with those people is definitely not a norm I’d want to curse future generations with.

brodouevencode 6y ago

And it's being flagged on here, presumably because it's against certain users' political priors.

PretzelFisch 6y ago

What is your definition of Free speach? In america we have a fredom of speach to protect the people from the government. Not to protect the government from the people. As a buisness owner i may refuse some one/entitiy service, it is how the free market works.

bjornsing 6y ago
Can you really? Here in Sweden, if a business owner refuses service to people based on political opinions or similar they are in for a world of hurt. I imagine it’s the same in most of the western world.
- awillen 6y ago
  So if a neo-Nazi walks into a restaurant and says that all Jews should burn to death then tries to order lunch and is refused, that owner is in for a world of hurt? We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. Now obviously it's a blurry line, but again, the neo-Nazis storming the capital and their ilk are just way over the line. Just because it's blurry doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist out of some sense of fairness.
  - silicon2401 6y ago
    It is a founding principle of western civilization that you cannot be prosecuted for thoughts and ideas. All viewpoints and thoughts are equal before the law; only actions can be prosecuted. > We need to stop pretending like everyone's viewpoint is equal and we shouldn't exclude people for what they believe. Violent racists should be ostracized and pushed out of society. People who choose to have those kinds of beliefs are a constant threat to the safety of people around them. I will hard disagree with this every day of the week. To me this is a clear example of how ideology has taken the place of religion in today's society. It's no longer enough for you to be civil and respect the laws, but even having the wrong thoughts is considered criminal, just like lust and envy are considered sinful in religion. We're heading in a dark direction if we're re-adopting the same principles and perspectives that were behind McCarthyism, let alone used to burn witches and conduct the Inquisition.

yoav 6y ago

The key thing here is that Parler _refused_ to do this. Had Parler done this these companies wouldn’t have distanced themselves from them. But also their whole brand is enabling those accounts so had they blocked those accounts they wouldn’t have a community.

pas 6y ago

One current model of what's happened/happening, is the US system of politics is broken (first-past-the-post voting in states, 2 seats per state, two party, polarization ... and now on top of that the drawback of the separately elected president is that now the Executive and the Legislation was in a deadlock), so the private sector stepped in its usual awkward way. (FB/Tw/YT profited from hosting recruiting content, they did some minor moderation to calm advertisers, but now real people realized that they have the capacity, right and maybe even moral duty to do something with the problem they helped to create, so reverse course, full throttle backward, bam-bam, ban, ban.) It's not about illegal content. It's about politics and ethics. (And private companies can choose to do or not do business with whomever they want - except a few protected things. But there's a gay wedding cake somewhere too in this. Free association and free speech. Ethically it's hard to coerce anyone to say or not say something, and to host or not host some content.) Furthermore, there's the power imbalance aspect. Twitter banning SciHub is probably Twitter abusing its power, Twitter banning Trump is less likely an abuse. (Though there very well could be and are exceptions.)

MrMan 6y ago

If my account could downvote I would. I dont want the top comment once again to be some generic free speech fundamentalism. It amounts to putting our head in the sand. We should be able to rank, sort, and discriminate between different competing challenges to the peaceful (as if everyone even agrees that this is good) conduct of civilization. By all means "deplatform" Facebook, please, but why would you condone that and condemn deplatforming Parler? makes no sense.

silicon2401 6y ago

> Even if Parler hosted straight up illegal content, surely the proportional response is to block those accounts, not the entire platform? If no, why aren't we deplatforming Twitter or Facebook next? I've made this exact argument. It's a blatant double standard that Youtube or Twitter, as you said, aren't held liable for the content their users upload, but Amazon and Google can deplatform whoever they want for whatever they want. I've read a joke that we're officially in a cyberpunk world now that corporations are "going to war" with each other. I've thought that our society has been heading towards civil war for years, but only in the past year with so many riots and corporate overreach have I started to believe it might actually come sooner than later.

darkwizard42 6y ago
Except Twitter and Youtube routinely moderate their content. It isn't perfect but they are actively and publicly doing so. Parler publicly seems to take the stance of no to little moderation. I haven't read the hacked info from the site on principle of how it was distributed/hacked but seems that data confirms it based on others notes in the thread
- Tallasatree 6y ago
  So lets think about this for a minute. What is the goal? To stop violence and to stop promulgating illegal material? Or to make it look like you want to stop violence? If its the latter, then lets continue to deplatform people. If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et al given their proven history of allowing violence and hate speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs. The logic here is terrible and you can't argue against that. No matter how many users parler gets, it won't even come close to having the same reach.
  - ShamelessC 6y ago
    > If its the former, then lets ban facebook, twitter et al given their proven history of allowing violence and hate speech and as an essential tool to organize mobs. Sounds good to me... They're totally culpable for the domestic terrorism that happened at the capitol. Facebook too. Dogshit companies that track our behavior and make money off of outrage.

valuearb 6y ago

Free speech doesn’t mean you have the right to go over to your neighbors house and print out and distribute hate speech from their printer. Parlour used AWS property to allow its members to help organize sedition. AWS has the right to nope out. All the problems with large private entities like Twitter and Facebook hosting speech on their own terms pale in to comparison with letting governments dictate how they host speech. Parlour can find or create another hosting device and get back up quickly. If they want to use mainstream services, they should moderate out something other than liberals.

busterarm 6y ago

Because HN readers are just as tribalist as anyone else and now they're winning after a bad ref call. You've seen this play out in sports hundreds of times. Politics isn't any different. It's even got WWE-esque storylines.

dinero_rojo 6y ago
It's even got a WWE "Superstar" at the center of it all! https://www.wwe.com/superstars/donald-trump https://www.wwe.com/superstars/donald-trump

eximius 6y ago

I find both the existence and destruction of Parler disturbing as separate incidents. However, I am going to worry more that it existed in the first place than it being destroyed.

probably_wrong 6y ago

I personally would be very angry if their ISP refused them access, because I believe the internet should be a public utility that everyone can use and "you can still yell on the public square" wouldn't be a good faith argument. But I don't feel the same way about AWS, because they are not as critical as an ISP would be. Nothing is stopping Parler from plugging in and managing their own servers. I see AWS as a convenience, and as such I don't think anyone is entitled to it. As a side note: I would like to take a minute to remind the youngsters that no one owes them a revolution. If you want to go fight against the status quo, you should really have a plan for when the status quo fights back.

dboreham 6y ago

This is action taken because AWS's customer (Parler) specifically did not take that action. Since the raison d'etre for Parler is to host content not acceptable to mainstream social media sites, it seems reasonable to assume they won't in good faith moderate their content.

umvi 6y ago
Why should AWS care though? It's infrastructure. They should not be disconnecting service just because the infrastructure is used for something they perceive as evil. It would be like Verizon automatically dropping calls if you make a phone call and try to say something evil to the person on the other line.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  Maybe, but that's not how internet services are currently regulated. Ironically, because the Republicans have fought that type of regulation tooth and nail. AWS cares because they're a public company with a reputation, and many of their customers and employees are anti-rioter.

mplewis 6y ago

Read the suspension letter. AWS suspended them BECAUSE they refused to moderate the problem accounts. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...

hnburnsy 6y ago
Parler stated in its lawsuit that it removed all the content that Amazon pointed out... 'On January 8, 2021, AWS brought concerns to Parler about user content that encouraged violence. Parler addressed them, and then AWS said it was “okay” with Parler.' 'The next day, January 9, 2021, AWS brought more “bad” content to Parler and Parler took down all of that content by the evening' https://www.scribd.com/document/490405156/Parler-sues-Amazon https://www.scribd.com/document/490405156/Parler-sues-Amazon
- hnburnsy 6y ago
  also Parler wrote in the lawsuit... "AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false—because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame Parler nonetheless."
  - tzs 6y ago
    Amazon did not want Parler to moderate content pointed out by Amazon. Amazon wanted Parler to find that kind of content and moderate it itself.
    - hnburnsy 6y ago
      How long has Amazon been asking them to moderate violent content? The lawsuit says it was a three day timeline, start to suspension, and then 36 hours until they were taken offline. I haven't seen any comment from Amazon talking about the timeline on their decision. I get a pit in my stomach thinking that in the span of 3 days an internet business with +10 million users can get shut down instantly. Was there no middle ground where they worked collaboratively to let Parler pause, clean up, and get moderation in place? Sure the CEO was bombastic, but in the lawsuit they said Amazon ghosted them and that their contract said they get 30 days.

inscionent 6y ago

Parler was never a good faith actor. They are profiteers looking to corral a conservative audience. They were more than happen to moderate descriptions of areola, but not violence. We do have a big tech problem. Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, and Apple should be broken up. Twitter should be required to improve moderation and bot removal. Public/Private enterprises should be established to provide alternates to Twitter/Parler.

rodgerd 6y ago

Do you support the idea that government should be able to force you to allow your private property to be used by others? If so, when can I start hosting raves in your front room?

RangerScience 6y ago

Been thinking about this, and basically - Freedom of speech is, colloquially, about being able to discuss things. That's something I'd like to support, and to see more of, but I'm going to draw a stark categorization between discussion and incitement. Both use words, sure. Are both speech that should be free? Edit: To be clear, not a rhetorical question: actual question, one I don't have an answer to.

SyzygistSix 6y ago

The entire point of "freedom of speech" is freedom of expression. Ongoing psy-ops from Russia and other parties to undermine US democracy are not what I would consider freedom of expression.

rtx 6y ago
Psyops is as real as Area 51
- zepto 6y ago
  Are you so sure Area 51 is real? https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2017-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Russian-Actions-and-Methods/ https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Onl...
base698 6y ago
Arguments Freedom of speech: 1) You could be wrong. Numerous examples exist throughout history regarding the wrong opinion turning out to the be the truth. 2) Knowing wrong opinions makes you have greater understanding of the correct ones. 3) Roughly the expression argument you mention.