4 ms·

Let's put it a different way then. Imagine right wing dystopia where everything you value is considered bad. Now you try to discuss Gay rights. You can't talk a

by esyir 6y ago

Let's put it a different way then. Imagine right wing dystopia where everything you value is considered bad. Now you try to discuss Gay rights. You can't talk about it on Facebook, nor on any platform, as they ban you instantly. You build your own platform. Aws/gcp/azure ban you there too and kill the whole thing. I'm going to go the next step. Now credit cards and other payment services refuse services as well. Are you supposed to rebuild the entire tech ecosystem that the entire world runs on? Fight through every damn moat along the way? Is this the bar we set here? Its easy to talk free speech for popular speech. It's how people react to unpopular speech that shows their true colours.

ip26 6y ago
The 1st means you can't be jailed by the government for discussing gay rights. It doesn't mean private individuals have to humor you. It doesn't even mean they have to listen to you.
- zaroth 6y ago
  There are other laws than the 1st Amendment that come into play here. The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. So the issue is primarily one of anti-trust laws. Monopolies do not get to arbitrarily and selectively enforce their ToS against competitors; that is an illegal abuse of market power. The tech giants this week seem to have demonstrated that they do in fact hold monopoly power in the market, and are willing to use it to crush a potential competitor. This seems to me to be an unprecedented situation, a likely anti-trust violation, and potentially to the extent that it was a coordinated action by these companies, a violation of RICO statutes. I think it is fair to say that Parler, like every social network, could be used to post hateful messages, or messages advocating violence. GP stated that Parler was a “hate site” but I think it’s more accurate to say that Parler was a site that carried some hateful messages. It was by no means a site formed or designed specifically to carry hate. A corollary that I would raise is a similar standard in copyright infringement. Sites which are designed specifically with the intent of committing copyright infringement are now criminally liable — it has recently become a serious felony to make these kinds of sites. However, site that show a significant non-infringement purpose are not illegal, even if some infringement takes place on their platform. You might recall that YouTube was a site that got its start with rampant copyright infringement, and to this day has a significant amount of infringing material on its servers, but it is not criminally liable, or even civilly liable for that content due to the fact that the site has a significant non-infringement purpose. I think that’s a fair analogy with Parler. If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. The cause of action should be against the poster, not against the entire platform. Nuking the entire platform from orbit is not an appropriate remedy, and in any case should be done through a court of law, not through the actions of a monopolistic cartel.
  - pertymcpert 6y ago
    > The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. Maybe Facebook, but... How did Parler compete with Apple? What market were they competing in? How did Parler compete with AWS? Did they share the same sort of clients? How did Parler compete with Google?
  - ip26 6y ago
    If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. The cause of action should be against the poster, not against the entire platform. Remember Parler was asked by the tech co's to moderate such content, and it refused. I also don't see how Parler competed with AWS.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. For many kinds of criminal content posing an acute public safety hazard, it does, and it's very simple: if you have knowledge of the existence of the material, you must take it down or become yourself criminally liable for it, in addition to anyone who is already criminally liable. (For copyright, there's the DMCA takedown process, which is more generous because people don't tend to get killed as a forseeable consequence of civil copyright violations.) Of course, if you are a second level host and don't have item-by-item control (such as AWS for a site hosted there by another firm), the only efficient way to acheived that may be to drop the entire account.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      > For many kinds of criminal content posing an acute public safety hazard, it does, and it's very simple: if you have knowledge of the existence of the material, you must take it down or become yourself criminally liable for it. I'd be quite surprised if this is true in the USA. If you could provide an example of such a case I'd be very interested. The only time I'm aware of the Supreme Court ruling on online hate speech was to overturn the conviction of a Anthony Elois, who posted some truly disgusting things online. [1] I'm not aware of any case where an internet platform was held crminally liable for content posted on their platform, in fact Section 230 provides "wide immunity" for both criminal and civil liability for the content that users post. [2] For example, from [2]; > A recent case [3] out of the 2nd Circuit illustrates the types of issues courts are facing in our era of social media predominance and terrorist attacks. > The 2nd Circuit case arose after Hamas posted content on Facebook that both directly and indirectly led to the attack and death of several Israeli nationals, including a 10 year-old girl. The victims subsequently sued Facebook for allowing the posts to exist, and to “match” terrorist sympathizers with terrorist organizations. > While the content at issue violated Facebook’s terms of service and Community Standards, Facebook did not remove the content prior to the attacks. [1] - https://gizmodo.com/supreme-court-online-threats-legal-as-long-as-you-dont-1708190038 https://gizmodo.com/supreme-court-online-threats-legal-as-lo... [2] - https://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2019/08/what-legal-responsibilities-do-online-platforms-have-for-curbing-violent-rhetoric.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2019/08/what-legal-... [3] - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-2nd-circuit/2019/07/31/287148.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-2nd-circuit/2...
dnh44 6y ago
I'm mostly in agreement with you, and if the choice were left to me I probably wouldn't have banned Parler from the app stores or AWS. Although I'd have to reconsider if an incoming Biden administration would punish me in any upcoming anti-trust case, as cowardly as that may seem. But I also think the rights of the services providers have to considered as well. Should Nintendo be forced to publish porn apps in their Switch online store for example? Should HN be prevented from moderating comments here? Should thedonald.win be prevented from deleting anti-Trump comments? No is my answer to those rhetorical questions. At the same time I don't think that electricity, water, and internet service providers should be allowed to cut off Westboro Baptist Church either. Likewise for their domain name provider. I think things like AWS and payment services are more like electric and water suppliers then they are like app stores and web forums. So I suppose that I'm in favour of drawing a line in a reasonable place, it's just not clear to me yet exactly where that line should be.
- ng12 6y ago
  I feel similar. It's a tricky problem. What would help is what we should have done a long time ago: Apple should either allow users to install different app stores or submit to regulation as a platform.

by esyir 6y ago

ip26 6y ago

The 1st means you can't be jailed by the government for discussing gay rights. It doesn't mean private individuals have to humor you. It doesn't even mean they have to listen to you.

zaroth 6y ago
There are other laws than the 1st Amendment that come into play here. The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. So the issue is primarily one of anti-trust laws. Monopolies do not get to arbitrarily and selectively enforce their ToS against competitors; that is an illegal abuse of market power. The tech giants this week seem to have demonstrated that they do in fact hold monopoly power in the market, and are willing to use it to crush a potential competitor. This seems to me to be an unprecedented situation, a likely anti-trust violation, and potentially to the extent that it was a coordinated action by these companies, a violation of RICO statutes. I think it is fair to say that Parler, like every social network, could be used to post hateful messages, or messages advocating violence. GP stated that Parler was a “hate site” but I think it’s more accurate to say that Parler was a site that carried some hateful messages. It was by no means a site formed or designed specifically to carry hate. A corollary that I would raise is a similar standard in copyright infringement. Sites which are designed specifically with the intent of committing copyright infringement are now criminally liable — it has recently become a serious felony to make these kinds of sites. However, site that show a significant non-infringement purpose are not illegal, even if some infringement takes place on their platform. You might recall that YouTube was a site that got its start with rampant copyright infringement, and to this day has a significant amount of infringing material on its servers, but it is not criminally liable, or even civilly liable for that content due to the fact that the site has a significant non-infringement purpose. I think that’s a fair analogy with Parler. If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. The cause of action should be against the poster, not against the entire platform. Nuking the entire platform from orbit is not an appropriate remedy, and in any case should be done through a court of law, not through the actions of a monopolistic cartel.
- pertymcpert 6y ago
  > The 3 biggest technology companies in the world united in the last two days to shut down an upstart competitor who was, at the time, literally the #1 app on iPhone and Android. Maybe Facebook, but... How did Parler compete with Apple? What market were they competing in? How did Parler compete with AWS? Did they share the same sort of clients? How did Parler compete with Google?
- ip26 6y ago
  If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. The cause of action should be against the poster, not against the entire platform. Remember Parler was asked by the tech co's to moderate such content, and it refused. I also don't see how Parler competed with AWS.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If there’s a copyright or public safety issue with a piece of content posted on a social media platform, the law should provide for a takedown procedure against the content, not against the whole platform. For many kinds of criminal content posing an acute public safety hazard, it does, and it's very simple: if you have knowledge of the existence of the material, you must take it down or become yourself criminally liable for it, in addition to anyone who is already criminally liable. (For copyright, there's the DMCA takedown process, which is more generous because people don't tend to get killed as a forseeable consequence of civil copyright violations.) Of course, if you are a second level host and don't have item-by-item control (such as AWS for a site hosted there by another firm), the only efficient way to acheived that may be to drop the entire account.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    > For many kinds of criminal content posing an acute public safety hazard, it does, and it's very simple: if you have knowledge of the existence of the material, you must take it down or become yourself criminally liable for it. I'd be quite surprised if this is true in the USA. If you could provide an example of such a case I'd be very interested. The only time I'm aware of the Supreme Court ruling on online hate speech was to overturn the conviction of a Anthony Elois, who posted some truly disgusting things online. [1] I'm not aware of any case where an internet platform was held crminally liable for content posted on their platform, in fact Section 230 provides "wide immunity" for both criminal and civil liability for the content that users post. [2] For example, from [2]; > A recent case [3] out of the 2nd Circuit illustrates the types of issues courts are facing in our era of social media predominance and terrorist attacks. > The 2nd Circuit case arose after Hamas posted content on Facebook that both directly and indirectly led to the attack and death of several Israeli nationals, including a 10 year-old girl. The victims subsequently sued Facebook for allowing the posts to exist, and to “match” terrorist sympathizers with terrorist organizations. > While the content at issue violated Facebook’s terms of service and Community Standards, Facebook did not remove the content prior to the attacks. [1] - https://gizmodo.com/supreme-court-online-threats-legal-as-long-as-you-dont-1708190038 https://gizmodo.com/supreme-court-online-threats-legal-as-lo... [2] - https://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2019/08/what-legal-responsibilities-do-online-platforms-have-for-curbing-violent-rhetoric.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/second_circuit/2019/08/what-legal-... [3] - https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-2nd-circuit/2019/07/31/287148.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/opinion/us-2nd-circuit/2...

dnh44 6y ago

I'm mostly in agreement with you, and if the choice were left to me I probably wouldn't have banned Parler from the app stores or AWS. Although I'd have to reconsider if an incoming Biden administration would punish me in any upcoming anti-trust case, as cowardly as that may seem. But I also think the rights of the services providers have to considered as well. Should Nintendo be forced to publish porn apps in their Switch online store for example? Should HN be prevented from moderating comments here? Should thedonald.win be prevented from deleting anti-Trump comments? No is my answer to those rhetorical questions. At the same time I don't think that electricity, water, and internet service providers should be allowed to cut off Westboro Baptist Church either. Likewise for their domain name provider. I think things like AWS and payment services are more like electric and water suppliers then they are like app stores and web forums. So I suppose that I'm in favour of drawing a line in a reasonable place, it's just not clear to me yet exactly where that line should be.

ng12 6y ago
I feel similar. It's a tricky problem. What would help is what we should have done a long time ago: Apple should either allow users to install different app stores or submit to regulation as a platform.