4 ms·

Not sure why the downvotes. This essentially is the same as my take. This is the inevitable result of pushing your brand as "no content moderation" but not actu

Not sure why the downvotes. This essentially is the same as my take. This is the inevitable result of pushing your brand as "no content moderation" but not actually having any skills or plans on what to do when it eventually caught up with them. Anyone familiar with 4chan knows that some of the earliest content that was banned on the platform include childporn and organizing raids/doxxing. If you read the terms of service, you'll see that content is still banned (even if not uniformly enforced). The fact that parler couldn't muster even 4chan levels of moderation shows you that they really had no comprehension of the content creators they would be courting with their service.

tmpz22 6y ago
Its downvoted because a large portion of HN users prefer alternative facts that allow them to feel superior as opposed to actual reality.
sbierwagen 6y ago
Since when is "not enough moderation" grounds for terminating hosting? Amazon does a terrible job of moderating their own catalog and reviews. Should their ASNs be blackholed? You can read the comments on any given CNN article, and see racist statements. Should CNN reporters be barred from attending press conferences?
- petroseskinder 6y ago
  It is grounds for terminating hosting when AWS has repeatedly asked you to remove said content AND they've offered to help you migrate you off of AWS. See court filings - https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... Or for specific sections, see https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1349162165698252802 https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/134916216569825280...
  - CryptoGhost 6y ago
    I was skimming through it and couldn't really find any smoking gun about them missing any hard deadlines for content removal. If you take a site like Reddit, it can take days before all violent / threatening language is removed from a given thread. A lot of the content AWS uses as exhibits is borderline, so its not as simple as approve some auto filter. I am assuming Parler just took on the scale of weeks to months to fail to remove some bad stuff but it would great to see that in writing to confirm.
    - lapphi 6y ago
      It would be foolish of Amazon’s legal team to make an argument like they did and not be able to back it up with proof, imo.
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    If Microsoft sends an email to Valve telling them to delete certain unlawful posts on Steam, or else they'll use Windows Defender to block the Steam executable, would you defend that? Why not? It's not like Valve owns the computers of their customers. They're in clear violation of the Windows terms of service. If you violate the ToS, then Microsoft has every right to remove you from their operating system and Valve is in turn free to migrate to a different OS.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
zarkov99 6y ago
This is factually false. There was moderation, there were terms of service and they banned appeals to violence from their site. The glee with which so many in tech are celebrating was essentially an attempt at corporate murder, on ideological grounds, is revolting.
- paxys 6y ago
  You can read Amazon's entire response to their sham lawsuit which debunks every one of these theories.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  And yet, in the Amazon suit, Amazon clearly says that Parler did not. So, it's not "factually false". At best, it's up for a court of law to decide who is telling the truth. But considering that it's trivial to show messages from Lin Wood, among others at the capital protests messages on parler calling for "appeals to violence" exactly in contradiction to your suggestion that there isn't... Well your argument doesn't appear supported by the facts.
  - hnburnsy 6y ago
    From Amazon's response to the lawsuit... 'The email also notes Parler “remove[s] some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency,'
- newacct583 6y ago
  > and they banned appeals to violence from their site Lin Wood, the president's election lawyer[1] LITERALLY called for VP Pence to be executed the week before the riot. This was shared everywhere on the internet, was shared right there on Parler like tens of thousands of times, and AFAIK was still up and unmoderated when the site was shut down. Parler's moderation was a community-run thing. Effectively, popular users could say anything they liked. There was no meaningful moderation at all. [1] Or whatever. The relationships were totally muddled, but nonetheless this guy was a big thought leader among the Kraken set.

tmpz22 6y ago

Its downvoted because a large portion of HN users prefer alternative facts that allow them to feel superior as opposed to actual reality.

sbierwagen 6y ago

Since when is "not enough moderation" grounds for terminating hosting? Amazon does a terrible job of moderating their own catalog and reviews. Should their ASNs be blackholed? You can read the comments on any given CNN article, and see racist statements. Should CNN reporters be barred from attending press conferences?

petroseskinder 6y ago
It is grounds for terminating hosting when AWS has repeatedly asked you to remove said content AND they've offered to help you migrate you off of AWS. See court filings - https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... Or for specific sections, see https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1349162165698252802 https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/134916216569825280...
- CryptoGhost 6y ago
  I was skimming through it and couldn't really find any smoking gun about them missing any hard deadlines for content removal. If you take a site like Reddit, it can take days before all violent / threatening language is removed from a given thread. A lot of the content AWS uses as exhibits is borderline, so its not as simple as approve some auto filter. I am assuming Parler just took on the scale of weeks to months to fail to remove some bad stuff but it would great to see that in writing to confirm.
  - lapphi 6y ago
    It would be foolish of Amazon’s legal team to make an argument like they did and not be able to back it up with proof, imo.
- sbierwagen 6y ago
  If Microsoft sends an email to Valve telling them to delete certain unlawful posts on Steam, or else they'll use Windows Defender to block the Steam executable, would you defend that? Why not? It's not like Valve owns the computers of their customers. They're in clear violation of the Windows terms of service. If you violate the ToS, then Microsoft has every right to remove you from their operating system and Valve is in turn free to migrate to a different OS.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

zarkov99 6y ago

This is factually false. There was moderation, there were terms of service and they banned appeals to violence from their site. The glee with which so many in tech are celebrating was essentially an attempt at corporate murder, on ideological grounds, is revolting.

paxys 6y ago
You can read Amazon's entire response to their sham lawsuit which debunks every one of these theories.
ggggtez 6y ago
And yet, in the Amazon suit, Amazon clearly says that Parler did not. So, it's not "factually false". At best, it's up for a court of law to decide who is telling the truth. But considering that it's trivial to show messages from Lin Wood, among others at the capital protests messages on parler calling for "appeals to violence" exactly in contradiction to your suggestion that there isn't... Well your argument doesn't appear supported by the facts.
- hnburnsy 6y ago
  From Amazon's response to the lawsuit... 'The email also notes Parler “remove[s] some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency,'
newacct583 6y ago
> and they banned appeals to violence from their site Lin Wood, the president's election lawyer[1] LITERALLY called for VP Pence to be executed the week before the riot. This was shared everywhere on the internet, was shared right there on Parler like tens of thousands of times, and AFAIK was still up and unmoderated when the site was shut down. Parler's moderation was a community-run thing. Effectively, popular users could say anything they liked. There was no meaningful moderation at all. [1] Or whatever. The relationships were totally muddled, but nonetheless this guy was a big thought leader among the Kraken set.