13 ms·

> On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or not we agree with them? We talk about

> On the other hand, do we really want a handful of unelected billionaires deciding what is acceptable speech - whether or not we agree with them? We talk about net neutrality, but shouldn't we apply the same standard to hosts like AWS? No, because you don't need AWS or Twitter or Cloudflare or any of the name tech companies to run a high-traffic web site successfully.

zhobbs 6y ago
You need an ISP right? You think telecom companies are anxious to provide them bandwidth?
- evgen 6y ago
  Telecom companies are common carriers and do not have the luxury of being able to deny customers access if they are not breaking the law. Nothing preventing these people from starting up their own ISP and hosting company.
  - uberduper 6y ago
    Nothing stopping them from fabricating their own silicon too, right? How far down this hole till we reach the bottom? I wonder if this was the same sort of argument used to justify denying minorities homes / home loans? "Well they're free to build their own house!" "Well they're free to cut their own lumber!" "Well they're free to forge their own hammers!" "Well they're free to..."
    - minkzilla 6y ago
      Thank you for this example. I’ll be using it. I’ve been struggling to articulate that just because technically someone is free to do something doesn’t mean they aren’t being meaningfully hindered from doing it.
    - filoeleven 6y ago
      Denying people homes or loans because of race is vastly different, because one’s race is an inherited physical characteristic.[1] Here, companies are denying service to Parler based on the beliefs (edit: and behavior) of its users. This situation lies somewhere between “refusing service based on someone’s religion” and “refusing service because I just don’t like them.” Political affiliation is not yet recognized as a religious belief, so they are not a protected class. I don’t know enough about the law to say on what grounds a company stands if they drop/refuse service because they think someone is being a dick. [1] it’s more nuanced than that of course, but I’m speaking broadly here
- mattbee 6y ago
  Depends where in the world they are. But US carriers are nowhere near as fussy over who they supply unless their clients end up overwhelming their networks.
treis 6y ago
But you do need Google and Apple to have a mobile app. I do agree with you that AWS dropping them isn't evidence of a monopoly. There's plenty of competitors in that space. None of them, however, are going to touch Parler with a 10ft pole at this point.
- maxfurman 6y ago
  Apple and Google can't stop you from providing a working mobile-responsive web app
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    They could prevent people from accessing them on their phones though, let’s see how long it takes.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      DoH is gonna throw a huge wrench into that plan.
      - Zambyte 6y ago
        Likely not at all for Apple.
    - evgen 6y ago
      Like how they prevent people from getting the ISIS websites, Hamas websites, neo-Nazi web sites? Looks like they have more than a decade to do so and still nothing. Maybe your hyperbolic slippery slope argument is wrong?
      - Grustaf 6y ago
        Many of these are still allowed on Twitter, so I’m not sure what your argument is. And I’m saying they “could”. They might decide not to. Although I don’t think anyone could have foreseen level of censorship we have now, even 5 years ago, so who knows what it will look like in 2025. And I think if you ask the average HN reader he wouldn’t be opposed to blocking websites for political reasons.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution is supposed to protect, which is the difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations. They are only accountable to their shareholders, and they have nearly complete power over their platforms. The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms. This is an oversight in the current legal framework, and will have to be corrected eventually.
- mattbee 6y ago
  > This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. (we're talking, politely, about free speech extremists - so none of this seems wildly inappropriate, right?)
  - whateveracct 6y ago
    > Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. This is all fair. If your goal is to exist on the fringe of the acceptable and legal, you're going to have to DIY.
- ssalazar 6y ago
  If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.
  - whatthesmack 6y ago
    I don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the problem.
Closi 6y ago
> No, because you don't need AWS or Twitter or Cloudflare or any of the name tech companies to run a high-traffic web site successfully. The problem is you need to rely on someone.
- mattbee 6y ago
  You need to rely on the net as a whole - which allows for multiple hosts and carriers and a lot of flexibility between them.
  - Closi 6y ago
    But there are two problems: 1) Some parts are still single points of failure, e.g. domains, dns servers 2) There are switching costs (particularly on the infra slide) both in time and money (time was the issue here).

zhobbs 6y ago

You need an ISP right? You think telecom companies are anxious to provide them bandwidth?

evgen 6y ago
Telecom companies are common carriers and do not have the luxury of being able to deny customers access if they are not breaking the law. Nothing preventing these people from starting up their own ISP and hosting company.
- uberduper 6y ago
  Nothing stopping them from fabricating their own silicon too, right? How far down this hole till we reach the bottom? I wonder if this was the same sort of argument used to justify denying minorities homes / home loans? "Well they're free to build their own house!" "Well they're free to cut their own lumber!" "Well they're free to forge their own hammers!" "Well they're free to..."
  - minkzilla 6y ago
    Thank you for this example. I’ll be using it. I’ve been struggling to articulate that just because technically someone is free to do something doesn’t mean they aren’t being meaningfully hindered from doing it.
  - filoeleven 6y ago
    Denying people homes or loans because of race is vastly different, because one’s race is an inherited physical characteristic.[1] Here, companies are denying service to Parler based on the beliefs (edit: and behavior) of its users. This situation lies somewhere between “refusing service based on someone’s religion” and “refusing service because I just don’t like them.” Political affiliation is not yet recognized as a religious belief, so they are not a protected class. I don’t know enough about the law to say on what grounds a company stands if they drop/refuse service because they think someone is being a dick. [1] it’s more nuanced than that of course, but I’m speaking broadly here
mattbee 6y ago
Depends where in the world they are. But US carriers are nowhere near as fussy over who they supply unless their clients end up overwhelming their networks.

treis 6y ago

But you do need Google and Apple to have a mobile app. I do agree with you that AWS dropping them isn't evidence of a monopoly. There's plenty of competitors in that space. None of them, however, are going to touch Parler with a 10ft pole at this point.

maxfurman 6y ago
Apple and Google can't stop you from providing a working mobile-responsive web app
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Grustaf 6y ago
  They could prevent people from accessing them on their phones though, let’s see how long it takes.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    DoH is gonna throw a huge wrench into that plan.
    - Zambyte 6y ago
      Likely not at all for Apple.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Like how they prevent people from getting the ISIS websites, Hamas websites, neo-Nazi web sites? Looks like they have more than a decade to do so and still nothing. Maybe your hyperbolic slippery slope argument is wrong?
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      Many of these are still allowed on Twitter, so I’m not sure what your argument is. And I’m saying they “could”. They might decide not to. Although I don’t think anyone could have foreseen level of censorship we have now, even 5 years ago, so who knows what it will look like in 2025. And I think if you ask the average HN reader he wouldn’t be opposed to blocking websites for political reasons.

MrBuddyCasino 6y ago

This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution is supposed to protect, which is the difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations. They are only accountable to their shareholders, and they have nearly complete power over their platforms. The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms. This is an oversight in the current legal framework, and will have to be corrected eventually.

mattbee 6y ago
> This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. (we're talking, politely, about free speech extremists - so none of this seems wildly inappropriate, right?)
- whateveracct 6y ago
  > Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. This is all fair. If your goal is to exist on the fringe of the acceptable and legal, you're going to have to DIY.
ssalazar 6y ago
If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.
- whatthesmack 6y ago
  I don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the problem.

Closi 6y ago

> No, because you don't need AWS or Twitter or Cloudflare or any of the name tech companies to run a high-traffic web site successfully. The problem is you need to rely on someone.

mattbee 6y ago
You need to rely on the net as a whole - which allows for multiple hosts and carriers and a lot of flexibility between them.
- Closi 6y ago
  But there are two problems: 1) Some parts are still single points of failure, e.g. domains, dns servers 2) There are switching costs (particularly on the infra slide) both in time and money (time was the issue here).