9 ms·

You don't even need to do that. The actual key to running an extremist / subversive / hate / unpopular website is NOT connecting the site to any in-person activ

You don't even need to do that. The actual key to running an extremist / subversive / hate / unpopular website is NOT connecting the site to any in-person activities. As long as your website is just some text floating out there in the network there is a lot of wiggle room. Sure, companies like Google or WordPress will ban you if they don't like you, but you can still get service from Cloudflare, major web hosts, or domain registration without jumping through a bunch of hoops.

p1mrx 6y ago
> As long as your website is just some text floating out there in the network there is a lot of wiggle room. What does this even mean? Text has to be stored in some physical location, or set of locations.
- markdown 6y ago
  I read it as, if it's just text and all anon, there's always wiggle room. Once you start allowing video and photo uploads, and real names, then your liability increases exponentially.
- rconti 6y ago
  I think what parent meant was not to say "arrive at this location at this time and do this criminal thing", but I could be reading it wrong.
- mikeshank 6y ago
  I think he's referencing Flash
thinkaboutits 6y ago
Cloudflare maybe (although they did ban a few websites for wrongthink in the past) but domains can be cancelled more easily and even censored by governments (requiring ISPs to do DNS blacklists; that’s how France censors various websites).
throwbacktictac 6y ago
This sounds like double speak. Can you elaborate?
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Anyone can say whatever they want on the Internet, but if your violence words become violent deeds you’re at risk of being dropped. So - don’t be violent.
  - ulucs 6y ago
    I hope the platforms remember this line of thought the next time US is going to bomb a country
- cstejerean 6y ago
  I think basically don’t use your platform to plan an insurrection and you should be fine. As soon as you start being used as the platform where violence is being organized all bets are off.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    So... are you talking about Twitter and Facebook? Your comment is short sighted and shows a possibly too eager willingness to accept the media and big tech narrative at completely face value. What if you are wrong? At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. How do you propose we only stop “the wrong” insurrections? We should probably ask you first.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      > At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. Uh, I don't know what you think "insurrectionist" means, but those are definitely not what it means. Actually, one of those comments was actually the law of the land at the time, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court--it was merely a popular politician who said that the Supreme Court had no actual power to enforce its will against him and did it anyways. In the interest of pedantry, it's worth pointing out that the anti-slavery comments weren't the ones made by the insurrectionists, and even in the states that seceded, the unwillingness of Northerners to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act was arguably the more pressing threat, since it is highly unlikely that the federal government would have been enable to effect mandatory abolition on unwilling states but removing any codes enforcing the return of runaway slaves would have been well within its remit. That said, there was one notable abolitionist who provides half the cases in US history of people tried for treason against an individual state.
idrios 6y ago
Tbf, I don't think Parler ever saw itself as extremist. Obviously it was used by extremists, but as I've seen mentioned in other threads lately: When you create an alternative platform from the mainstream, the people who join it are either idealists, or are the people who were banned from the mainstream platforms. And if you don't have the resources to moderate those extremists (or foolishly choose not to), the extremists take over.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  The CEO literally was personally banning anyone who posted anything left-wing, and yet claims that he's for "free speech". It's laughable. If he wasn't cynically cashing in, then he's not a very deep thinker either. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-founder-explains-why-he-built-trumps-new-favorite-social-media-app/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f... They literally welcomed pro-saudi comment farms to their service as well: “The nationalist movement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has made it known that big tech is censoring them at rates we have never experienced in the United States,” Parler wrote in a post on its own account on the site. “Let us welcome them as we all fight for our rights together.” Reminder: Saudi crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, ordered the assassination of a US journalist not that long ago. So, in a sense, Parler is really the social network of choice for dictators and extremists. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-saudi-politics/unhappy-at-twitter-thousands-of-saudis-crash-pro-trump-social-network-idUSKCN1TE32S https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-saudi-politics/un...
  - weare138 6y ago
    Parler is also financially backed by the Mercer family, who are conservative mega-donors and right wing political activists. https://www.reuters.com/article/parler-funding-mercer/social-media-platform-parler-gets-backing-from-mercer-family-wsj-idUSKBN27V020 https://www.reuters.com/article/parler-funding-mercer/social...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
um_ya 6y ago
I appreciate businesses like Cloudflare that stay neutral and just provide their service. I don't want to have to think about the political beliefs of a CEO before deciding to use a service.
- grahamburger 6y ago
  Not expressing an opinion on this either way, but I wouldn't say they're completely neutral: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
  - userbinator 6y ago
    The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. That just shows how dangerous the "if you're not against us, you're with us" mentality can be.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  This entire comment thread can be asterisked with “for now”. GoDaddy kicked off AR15.com with no reason at all, they were fine with the content... until the moment they weren’t. The problem has always been a TOS that is selectively and interpretively enforced. It’s just popular this week. > I don't want to have to think about the political beliefs of a CEO before deciding to use a service. ffs no joke! I was embarrassed for what Expensify did, and if my company used that service we would have dropped them in a hot second. IDK why “we’ll stfu and do our job” isn’t the default anymore.
  - js2 6y ago
    > GoDaddy kicked off AR15.com with no reason at all No, not no reason at all: "In response to content complaints on the ar15.com website, our team investigated and discovered content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence. As a result, we informed the site yesterday that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another registrar, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy told the Washington Examiner. FWIW, ar15.com is hosted on AWS. GoDaddy was just the domain registrar. I gather ar15.com was temporarily removed from the GTLD name servers because they didn't move to a new registrar quickly enough.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Or pick a host that that doesn’t care. They exist both in America and abroad. If Gab and 8kun can stay up, so can Parler. They planned poorly, that’s their fault.

p1mrx 6y ago

> As long as your website is just some text floating out there in the network there is a lot of wiggle room. What does this even mean? Text has to be stored in some physical location, or set of locations.

markdown 6y ago
I read it as, if it's just text and all anon, there's always wiggle room. Once you start allowing video and photo uploads, and real names, then your liability increases exponentially.
rconti 6y ago
I think what parent meant was not to say "arrive at this location at this time and do this criminal thing", but I could be reading it wrong.
mikeshank 6y ago
I think he's referencing Flash

thinkaboutits 6y ago

Cloudflare maybe (although they did ban a few websites for wrongthink in the past) but domains can be cancelled more easily and even censored by governments (requiring ISPs to do DNS blacklists; that’s how France censors various websites).

throwbacktictac 6y ago

This sounds like double speak. Can you elaborate?

germinalphrase 6y ago
Anyone can say whatever they want on the Internet, but if your violence words become violent deeds you’re at risk of being dropped. So - don’t be violent.
- ulucs 6y ago
  I hope the platforms remember this line of thought the next time US is going to bomb a country
cstejerean 6y ago
I think basically don’t use your platform to plan an insurrection and you should be fine. As soon as you start being used as the platform where violence is being organized all bets are off.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  So... are you talking about Twitter and Facebook? Your comment is short sighted and shows a possibly too eager willingness to accept the media and big tech narrative at completely face value. What if you are wrong? At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. How do you propose we only stop “the wrong” insurrections? We should probably ask you first.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > At one point saying “We shouldn’t own slaves”, or “the Indian has rights to the land they live on”, or “women should be allowed to vote”, or “no taxation without representation” were all insurrectionist comments. Uh, I don't know what you think "insurrectionist" means, but those are definitely not what it means. Actually, one of those comments was actually the law of the land at the time, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court--it was merely a popular politician who said that the Supreme Court had no actual power to enforce its will against him and did it anyways. In the interest of pedantry, it's worth pointing out that the anti-slavery comments weren't the ones made by the insurrectionists, and even in the states that seceded, the unwillingness of Northerners to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act was arguably the more pressing threat, since it is highly unlikely that the federal government would have been enable to effect mandatory abolition on unwilling states but removing any codes enforcing the return of runaway slaves would have been well within its remit. That said, there was one notable abolitionist who provides half the cases in US history of people tried for treason against an individual state.

idrios 6y ago

Tbf, I don't think Parler ever saw itself as extremist. Obviously it was used by extremists, but as I've seen mentioned in other threads lately: When you create an alternative platform from the mainstream, the people who join it are either idealists, or are the people who were banned from the mainstream platforms. And if you don't have the resources to moderate those extremists (or foolishly choose not to), the extremists take over.

ggggtez 6y ago
The CEO literally was personally banning anyone who posted anything left-wing, and yet claims that he's for "free speech". It's laughable. If he wasn't cynically cashing in, then he's not a very deep thinker either. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-founder-explains-why-he-built-trumps-new-favorite-social-media-app/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f... They literally welcomed pro-saudi comment farms to their service as well: “The nationalist movement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has made it known that big tech is censoring them at rates we have never experienced in the United States,” Parler wrote in a post on its own account on the site. “Let us welcome them as we all fight for our rights together.” Reminder: Saudi crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, ordered the assassination of a US journalist not that long ago. So, in a sense, Parler is really the social network of choice for dictators and extremists. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-saudi-politics/unhappy-at-twitter-thousands-of-saudis-crash-pro-trump-social-network-idUSKCN1TE32S https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-saudi-politics/un...
- weare138 6y ago
  Parler is also financially backed by the Mercer family, who are conservative mega-donors and right wing political activists. https://www.reuters.com/article/parler-funding-mercer/social-media-platform-parler-gets-backing-from-mercer-family-wsj-idUSKBN27V020 https://www.reuters.com/article/parler-funding-mercer/social...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago

um_ya 6y ago

I appreciate businesses like Cloudflare that stay neutral and just provide their service. I don't want to have to think about the political beliefs of a CEO before deciding to use a service.

grahamburger 6y ago
Not expressing an opinion on this either way, but I wouldn't say they're completely neutral: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
- userbinator 6y ago
  The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. That just shows how dangerous the "if you're not against us, you're with us" mentality can be.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
This entire comment thread can be asterisked with “for now”. GoDaddy kicked off AR15.com with no reason at all, they were fine with the content... until the moment they weren’t. The problem has always been a TOS that is selectively and interpretively enforced. It’s just popular this week. > I don't want to have to think about the political beliefs of a CEO before deciding to use a service. ffs no joke! I was embarrassed for what Expensify did, and if my company used that service we would have dropped them in a hot second. IDK why “we’ll stfu and do our job” isn’t the default anymore.
- js2 6y ago
  > GoDaddy kicked off AR15.com with no reason at all No, not no reason at all: "In response to content complaints on the ar15.com website, our team investigated and discovered content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence. As a result, we informed the site yesterday that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another registrar, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy told the Washington Examiner. FWIW, ar15.com is hosted on AWS. GoDaddy was just the domain registrar. I gather ar15.com was temporarily removed from the GTLD name servers because they didn't move to a new registrar quickly enough.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Or pick a host that that doesn’t care. They exist both in America and abroad. If Gab and 8kun can stay up, so can Parler. They planned poorly, that’s their fault.