4 ms·

>Ironically, this also feels like a false equivalency to me. I don't believe Parler was putting Amazon/AWS at risk in terms of legal liability (I'm pretty sure

by tw04 6y ago

>Ironically, this also feels like a false equivalency to me. I don't believe Parler was putting Amazon/AWS at risk in terms of legal liability (I'm pretty sure in the US you can only sue a hosting provider for material they host if it is copyrighted material and they don't take it down when they receive notices. A Google search didn't turn up anything else.) They also weren't at risk of bringing AWS down. You seriously don't think with the amount of publicity Parler was getting, that AWS' reputation was going to be hurt? When my Dad is talking about Parler and AWS it has become a PR nightmare... >I often hear the argument "Private company, they can do what they want" but at what point does a private company become so powerful that we really do need the government to step in? If the private company is "so powerful the government needs to step in" then it should be through breaking up a monopoly. But it turns out AWS doesn't have anything approaching a monopoly in hosting, so it would be absurd for the government to step in. There are literally THOUSANDS of other hosting providers out there. What you're seeing is that nobody agrees with the hate speech Parler is selling, and nobody wants to host it. That is the free market at work. >Vaping isn't illegal. It isn't hateful. It also isn't inherently harmful. People used those apps for legitimate reasons. Some of them used iPhone sensors through APIs that aren't available for websites/web apps. And Apple just decided "Nope, you don't get to exist anymore". So don't buy an iPhone? Buy any number of android phones that don't require Apple or Google's app store. If you want the government to dictate who companies do business with, you aren't for capitalism or free market, that's all there is to it. Parler isn't a protected class, vaping isn't a protected class, nobody should be forced to do business with them if they don't want to.

ashtonkem 6y ago
As I keep saying: you probably have fewer options for takeout than you do for hosting.
dimmke 6y ago
>If the private company is "so powerful the government needs to step in" then it should be through breaking up a monopoly. I definitely agree that the government does need to break up some large tech companies. But I don't agree that that should be the only form of regulation. I think the government should regulate technology companies in several ways. Here are some no brainers: ISPs - Net neutrality required. No data caps allowed. Device manufacturers - Right to repair. Can't lock down the device the way that gaming consoles and mobile phones (and TVs, etc...) often do. Cloud providers - Greater privacy protections like they have in Europe. >There are literally THOUSANDS of other hosting providers out there. You're glossing over the other infrastructure examples I named. We're talking about a cumulative effect here. It makes me uncomfortable that key parts of the internet's infrastructure are controlled by private companies with little to no regulation on what they can do. And I feel like it's getting worse every year. >So don't buy an iPhone? Buy any number of android phones Not everybody gets to choose what phone they have. Maybe they got their phone handed down to them or donated to them and can't afford to buy a new one. For a lot of people, their phone might be their only computer. Also, vaping was just one example. Apple routinely blocks apps and only backpedals if the app creator has enough clout. They tried to do it with the open source blogging platform WordPress a few months ago. If there were regulation in place that Apple could maintain their own app store, but couldn't block or make it difficult for regular users to install other apps then nobody to choose. Same thing with like a gaming console - buy a gaming console and you could install Linux and use it as a general purpose machine without having to break some encryption scheme. It's clear that maintaining an operating system/platform is an expensive endeavor - and maybe it just isn't feasible for more than those two operating systems to exist. That's where regulation comes in. There need to be ground rules especially when the barrier to competition is so high. >Parler isn't a protected class, vaping isn't a protected class, nobody should be forced to do business with them if they don't want to. So companies should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not discriminatory/racist about it?
- triceratops 6y ago
  > ISPs - Net neutrality required. Gee...I wonder why we don't have that. > So companies should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not discriminatory/racist about it? Yes, that's actually how the law works. This isn't exactly news to anyone.
  - dimmke 6y ago
    >Yes, that's actually how the law works. I am really trying to understand your perspective on this, because it's so obviously not true. Companies are regulated by the government and limited with what they can do in a lot of different ways. Net neutrality is a form of regulation that I am advocating for - and it sounds like you're in support of it too which would seem to contradict this. I was looking at some of your other comments on this subject and saw you posted this one day ago: >Maybe Cloudflare et al should also be required by law to serve everyone regardless of content. You're advocating for regulation of tech companies here too.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Let me clarify. I support net neutrality. Including DDOS protection in that is to ensure that you can't be taken offline even if every hosting provider in the world hates your guts and you have to self-host (as might be the case for a lot of the people and organizations being banned these days). And I'm not an expert on DDOS mitigation, so it might be that you don't have to require even them to serve everyone. I was pointing out the irony that net neutrality was repealed under this same administration. I am yet to be convinced that "neutrality" or a requirement to provide service regardless of content should be enforced by any government regulation above the network layer. Companies IRL have the right to discriminate against their customers based on their speech. If I walk into your bar and start insulting other patrons it's totally legal for you to kick me out. And in fact if you fail to do that, your other patrons might leave and never come back. I don't see why that shouldn't extend online. Except at the network layer. Because if you don't have that, you can't have any speech online. Which is also unjust. I think this is self-consistent. Feel free to tell me if there are any holes in it.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
I mostly agree for AWS, but are you seriously claiming that Apple/Google smartphone duopoly isn't an issue ? If even Epic Games / Fortnite had to cave in…

by tw04 6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago

As I keep saying: you probably have fewer options for takeout than you do for hosting.

dimmke 6y ago

>If the private company is "so powerful the government needs to step in" then it should be through breaking up a monopoly. I definitely agree that the government does need to break up some large tech companies. But I don't agree that that should be the only form of regulation. I think the government should regulate technology companies in several ways. Here are some no brainers: ISPs - Net neutrality required. No data caps allowed. Device manufacturers - Right to repair. Can't lock down the device the way that gaming consoles and mobile phones (and TVs, etc...) often do. Cloud providers - Greater privacy protections like they have in Europe. >There are literally THOUSANDS of other hosting providers out there. You're glossing over the other infrastructure examples I named. We're talking about a cumulative effect here. It makes me uncomfortable that key parts of the internet's infrastructure are controlled by private companies with little to no regulation on what they can do. And I feel like it's getting worse every year. >So don't buy an iPhone? Buy any number of android phones Not everybody gets to choose what phone they have. Maybe they got their phone handed down to them or donated to them and can't afford to buy a new one. For a lot of people, their phone might be their only computer. Also, vaping was just one example. Apple routinely blocks apps and only backpedals if the app creator has enough clout. They tried to do it with the open source blogging platform WordPress a few months ago. If there were regulation in place that Apple could maintain their own app store, but couldn't block or make it difficult for regular users to install other apps then nobody to choose. Same thing with like a gaming console - buy a gaming console and you could install Linux and use it as a general purpose machine without having to break some encryption scheme. It's clear that maintaining an operating system/platform is an expensive endeavor - and maybe it just isn't feasible for more than those two operating systems to exist. That's where regulation comes in. There need to be ground rules especially when the barrier to competition is so high. >Parler isn't a protected class, vaping isn't a protected class, nobody should be forced to do business with them if they don't want to. So companies should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not discriminatory/racist about it?

triceratops 6y ago
> ISPs - Net neutrality required. Gee...I wonder why we don't have that. > So companies should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not discriminatory/racist about it? Yes, that's actually how the law works. This isn't exactly news to anyone.
- dimmke 6y ago
  >Yes, that's actually how the law works. I am really trying to understand your perspective on this, because it's so obviously not true. Companies are regulated by the government and limited with what they can do in a lot of different ways. Net neutrality is a form of regulation that I am advocating for - and it sounds like you're in support of it too which would seem to contradict this. I was looking at some of your other comments on this subject and saw you posted this one day ago: >Maybe Cloudflare et al should also be required by law to serve everyone regardless of content. You're advocating for regulation of tech companies here too.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Let me clarify. I support net neutrality. Including DDOS protection in that is to ensure that you can't be taken offline even if every hosting provider in the world hates your guts and you have to self-host (as might be the case for a lot of the people and organizations being banned these days). And I'm not an expert on DDOS mitigation, so it might be that you don't have to require even them to serve everyone. I was pointing out the irony that net neutrality was repealed under this same administration. I am yet to be convinced that "neutrality" or a requirement to provide service regardless of content should be enforced by any government regulation above the network layer. Companies IRL have the right to discriminate against their customers based on their speech. If I walk into your bar and start insulting other patrons it's totally legal for you to kick me out. And in fact if you fail to do that, your other patrons might leave and never come back. I don't see why that shouldn't extend online. Except at the network layer. Because if you don't have that, you can't have any speech online. Which is also unjust. I think this is self-consistent. Feel free to tell me if there are any holes in it.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

I mostly agree for AWS, but are you seriously claiming that Apple/Google smartphone duopoly isn't an issue ? If even Epic Games / Fortnite had to cave in…