4 ms·

Completely not true. ISIS, Hamas, and other Wahhabistic groups still maintain a very large presence on these platforms. A little closer to home, riots and looti

Completely not true. ISIS, Hamas, and other Wahhabistic groups still maintain a very large presence on these platforms. A little closer to home, riots and looting were planned in real time on Twitter. It's admittedly a very hard problem to solve.

awillen 6y ago
How about some examples of ISIS using AWS?
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  ISIS uses AWS in the same sense the capitol hill rioters did, via services like twitter that are hosted on AWS.[1] [1]: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1300/RR1328/RAND_RR1328.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
  - dboreham 6y ago
    == they don't use AWS.
    - hnburnsy 6y ago
      I do not know if Twitter uses AWS now but it looks like they will be, I believe that Parler mentioned it in the lawsuit it filed. 'Amazon.com Inc.'s AMZN, Amazon Web Services announced Tuesday that Twitter Inc. would be using its cloud services to support its delivery of users' timeliness.' https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will-use-its-cloud-services-to-help-scale-its-timeline-2020-12-15 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will-use-...
      - watwut 6y ago
        Twitter was closing ISIS accounts a lot. Twitter was not "free speech except illegal" platform for ISIS at all.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    In 2018 Twitter banned over 1 million ISIS linked accounts. Prior to that they banned hundreds of thousands. Without much of a peep from the free speech fundamentalists.
    - kansface 6y ago
      Back in 2014, ~50K accounts were posting support for ISIS. Parlor got one day's notice. How much notice did twitter get before the liberal consensus was to remove it from the Internet for inciting hate? https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_twitter_census_berger_morgan.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_tw...
      - mthoms 6y ago
        >Parlor got one day's notice. Not true. AWS has been working with Parler for "several weeks" [0] to help it comply with their TOS. Not only did they fail to remove the posts Amazon provided, the calls for violence on their platform got worse during that time. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
  - aeturnum 6y ago
    If you're really going to go down this line of argument - do you think it's incorrect to say that AWS banned Parler because the Parler team can still 'use' AWS through twitter?
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      I'm not sure what the point of this nitpicking is. The context of this conversation is someone asking for an example of ISIS using AWS, in a conversation about the capitol hill rioters "using" AWS. And my response is that they indeed use it in the same way. Now, if you want to argue that this doesn't in fact constitute "using", then the capitol hill rioters didn't use AWS either, and AWS isn't responsible for them.
      - aeturnum 6y ago
        I think we have different reads of the root comment of this thread. Yoav[1] was talking about the contract between AWS and Parler as corporate entities. I'm not sure how you made the leap from organizational relationships to individuals using services implemented on AWS. That's why I asked about members of Parler still being able to "use" AWS through other AWS-hosted services. I don't get what you're driving at. > AWS isn't responsible for them. Again, I'm not sure I understand what point this is responding to. No one is claiming AWS is responsible for the capital hill folks. They are claiming that Parler bears some responsibility and did so in such a way that violated AWS' policies. So AWS banned them. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097
jmeister 6y ago
See also Facebook in Myanmar: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

awillen 6y ago

How about some examples of ISIS using AWS?

amadeuspagel 6y ago
ISIS uses AWS in the same sense the capitol hill rioters did, via services like twitter that are hosted on AWS.[1] [1]: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1300/RR1328/RAND_RR1328.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...
- dboreham 6y ago
  == they don't use AWS.
  - hnburnsy 6y ago
    I do not know if Twitter uses AWS now but it looks like they will be, I believe that Parler mentioned it in the lawsuit it filed. 'Amazon.com Inc.'s AMZN, Amazon Web Services announced Tuesday that Twitter Inc. would be using its cloud services to support its delivery of users' timeliness.' https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will-use-its-cloud-services-to-help-scale-its-timeline-2020-12-15 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/aws-says-twitter-will-use-...
    - watwut 6y ago
      Twitter was closing ISIS accounts a lot. Twitter was not "free speech except illegal" platform for ISIS at all.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  In 2018 Twitter banned over 1 million ISIS linked accounts. Prior to that they banned hundreds of thousands. Without much of a peep from the free speech fundamentalists.
  - kansface 6y ago
    Back in 2014, ~50K accounts were posting support for ISIS. Parlor got one day's notice. How much notice did twitter get before the liberal consensus was to remove it from the Internet for inciting hate? https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_twitter_census_berger_morgan.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/isis_tw...
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >Parlor got one day's notice. Not true. AWS has been working with Parler for "several weeks" [0] to help it comply with their TOS. Not only did they fail to remove the posts Amazon provided, the calls for violence on their platform got worse during that time. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
- aeturnum 6y ago
  If you're really going to go down this line of argument - do you think it's incorrect to say that AWS banned Parler because the Parler team can still 'use' AWS through twitter?
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    I'm not sure what the point of this nitpicking is. The context of this conversation is someone asking for an example of ISIS using AWS, in a conversation about the capitol hill rioters "using" AWS. And my response is that they indeed use it in the same way. Now, if you want to argue that this doesn't in fact constitute "using", then the capitol hill rioters didn't use AWS either, and AWS isn't responsible for them.
    - aeturnum 6y ago
      I think we have different reads of the root comment of this thread. Yoav[1] was talking about the contract between AWS and Parler as corporate entities. I'm not sure how you made the leap from organizational relationships to individuals using services implemented on AWS. That's why I asked about members of Parler still being able to "use" AWS through other AWS-hosted services. I don't get what you're driving at. > AWS isn't responsible for them. Again, I'm not sure I understand what point this is responding to. No one is claiming AWS is responsible for the capital hill folks. They are claiming that Parler bears some responsibility and did so in such a way that violated AWS' policies. So AWS banned them. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25748097

jmeister 6y ago

See also Facebook in Myanmar: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46105934

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]