8 ms·

> The Hacker Who Archived Parler Explains How She Did It (and What Comes Next) I'm really glad she did that. I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down,

by ardy42 6y ago

> The Hacker Who Archived Parler Explains How She Did It (and What Comes Next) I'm really glad she did that. I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down, but it really needs to be archived somewhere for historical purposes, to help understand this moment. Given the kind of media and political impact Trump's tweets from @theRealDonaldTrump have been, I really hope they're archived at NARA along with the @POTUS tweets. They're legit historical primary source documents.

rendall 6y ago
> "I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down" I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with?
- kennywinker 6y ago
  The only principal that protects that kind of group is that we agree with it. It’s not much, but it’s something.
  - rendall 6y ago
    If only there were some principle or value that would somehow... allow us to express opinions even if others - even powerful people, or even the majority of people - disagreed with us. Some kind of inalienable right. Hmm. It is a mystery.
    - kennywinker 6y ago
      You can express opinions all you want, but you’re going to have to do a lot of work in order to justify compelling someone to do business with you after you say something they don’t like. Like, amazon isn’t actually the basic infrastructure of the internet. You can build web sites and apps without involving them. So why would a law force them to do business with you?
      - rendall 6y ago
        I didn't say anything about "forcing Amazon to do business" with me. If that's your solution, it's a non-starter. I don't have a solution, but Amazon + Apple + Google coordinating to shut down a platform for communication - even a platform that contains expression that I strongly disagree with, I might add - is a problem that requires a solution This is what I wish more people understood now rather than later, but at some point everyone will understand that it's a problem
        kennywinker 6y ago
        If you come up with a good solution, let us know. Until then, I’m happy to support antitrust action against apple/google/amazon/facebook - but for more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists attempting to overthrow a fair and free election.
        rendall 6y ago
        > more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists Hint: it's the identical problem to deplatforming BLM or Antifa or Occupy or the Proud Boys or pick anyone you agree with that annoys powerful people. "Having the better politics" will not protect you. "Oh they're just fascists" will not protect your peoples.
        mlazos 6y ago
        Except you need to replace “annoys powerful people” with “storms the seat of our government with intent to overthrow a democratic election result” I’m fine with that being the line for companies to ban a political entity. Amazon and google aren’t randomly banning BLM for protesting in cities.
        cycomanic 6y ago
        But they have been doing that since forever and nobody was complaining. Here's a link to when twitter deleted 125,000 ISIS accounts [1] (and they had been monitoring for islam extremist content for much longer already). So I ask why this uproar now that they are deplatforming fascists? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/05/twitter-deletes-isis-accounts-terrorism-online https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/05/twitter-d...
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? Parler had people discussing murdering Congresspeople and didn't do anything about it. No matter which faction of "what level of free speech is acceptable" one subscribes, this is never acceptable and it is no wonder that Parler got booted off.
  - rendall 6y ago
    > this is never acceptable I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehensible; and beliefs that you hold dear will someday, by someone, be seen as unacceptable and reprehensible. To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. David Goldberger didn't defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie because he is a Nazi, but to defend his (and all of our) rights. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk... The people who planned actual murders and crimes must be caught and punished. But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. Actually, even in the US there are exceptions - namedly when speech is likely to incite crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
      - rendall 6y ago
        Indeed! We weren't talking about the 1st Amendment, but let's go where you lead: speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is illegal. Courts decide if that applies. Someday you might say "Politician Y should be hung by his thumbs". Politician Y and friends try to convince a judge that you thereby incite imminent lawless action. Of course, you were just feeling passionate, and no one reasonable would believe that you meant it. Thankfully, due to strong 1A protections, the case would not proceed. But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Aye. Relevant SSC: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-firs... https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o...
  - no-s 6y ago
    After reading these beautiful articles I'm sadly wondering if we've already put the golden age behind us. I will dig a little deeper to support archive.org[1] this year. I'd love to run a mirror. [1] https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/
- frollo 6y ago
  > what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? Honestly, none. It's their business and they can handle it however they want. What you can do (and this is exactly what Kolmisoppi was suggesting) is build your platform to work without relying on other people's business. I'm happy that companies like Amazon don't want to get associated with people who organized a failed coup. That should be the bare minimum. But there is no law which forces you to be hosted on Amazon if you want to be on the Internet. You can self-host. You can buy/rent servers in another country, where what you are doing doesn't have direct consequences which might lead people to want to get away from you. Use the blockchain, use torrent, develop your own P2P protocol. Those people just got locked out from the easy way, something they should have expected to happen (and plan for) since day one.
  - Thlom 6y ago
    These huge Internet companies really should be regulated. Last weeks we've seen these companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple act like governing bodies by banning Donald Trump from their platforms and essentially shut down a business (Parlor). This is problematic because these companies have monopolistic power, not only in the US, but also internationally.
    - specialist 6y ago
      Only POTUS can silence POTUS. POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. whitehouse.gov, daily press briefing, C-SPAN, etc. No third party should serve as alternate bully pulpit, allowing a democratically elected leader to speak directly to their audience, bypassing the fourth estate. I'm not saying Twitter was right to shut down POTUS. I'm saying never should have hosted POTUS in the first place. Further, no leader should be allowed to speak as a private individual. If Twitter wants to feature POTUS, then let Twitter attend the daily presser along with all the other reporters and journalists. Everyone is responsible for allowing this undemocratic violation of norms. Social medias are just the one that profited most.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >build your platform to work without relying on other people's business You can't although you can, of course, mitigate. But are you OK with just a PWA on mobile w/o the Apple or Google stores? And your platform is ultimately dependent on a network connection, probably CDN, domain registrar, DNS, etc. Those are a pretty high bar to get kicked off but you're not immune. (And, yes, there are things like Tor and jumping around providers if you have a fairly lightweight web site--like most torrents--but that doesn't help you if yo have a site with many TB of data catering to unsophisticated users.)
- pelliphant 6y ago
  In my opinion the internet was already seriously flawed. This makes people talk about how they think it should work, not just how it works right now, which I think is exactly what is needed.
- watwut 6y ago
  > what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with Personally I found Amazons response to Parler convincing: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.u... The question is, why should a company in Amazons situation be unable to turn off that service? As in, your question assumes that Amazon turned off Parler out of nowhere for no reason other then "we dont like them". It assumes they did not had documented reasons, documented attempts to convince Parler to comply to TOS etc. Otherwise said, contract.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> "I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down" > I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? It's kind of predictable but still disappointing that this was the part of my comment people chose to discuss with a 43-comment thread. It was the least novel and interesting idea in it. But to your point, there's a lot more "looking beyond" than just that. There also needs to be a lot more looking beyond rather limited fundamentalist views of free speech, which tend to abrogate other fundamental rights and be so short-sighted that they actually bring discredit to the values they try to protect.
- sellyme 6y ago
  > what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? The principle of Amazon not wanting to piss off all of their customers and several government organisations. If you're this tentative about something you explicitly agree is just, then clearly you (and millions of others) are going to react pretty harshly to Amazon unilaterally deciding, e.g., that all mentions of Belgium should get scrubbed from the platform.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    >Belgium I mean, it is the rudest word in the universe.

by ardy42 6y ago

rendall 6y ago

> "I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down" I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with?

kennywinker 6y ago
The only principal that protects that kind of group is that we agree with it. It’s not much, but it’s something.
- rendall 6y ago
  If only there were some principle or value that would somehow... allow us to express opinions even if others - even powerful people, or even the majority of people - disagreed with us. Some kind of inalienable right. Hmm. It is a mystery.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    You can express opinions all you want, but you’re going to have to do a lot of work in order to justify compelling someone to do business with you after you say something they don’t like. Like, amazon isn’t actually the basic infrastructure of the internet. You can build web sites and apps without involving them. So why would a law force them to do business with you?
    - rendall 6y ago
      I didn't say anything about "forcing Amazon to do business" with me. If that's your solution, it's a non-starter. I don't have a solution, but Amazon + Apple + Google coordinating to shut down a platform for communication - even a platform that contains expression that I strongly disagree with, I might add - is a problem that requires a solution This is what I wish more people understood now rather than later, but at some point everyone will understand that it's a problem
      - kennywinker 6y ago
        If you come up with a good solution, let us know. Until then, I’m happy to support antitrust action against apple/google/amazon/facebook - but for more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists attempting to overthrow a fair and free election.
        rendall 6y ago
        > more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists Hint: it's the identical problem to deplatforming BLM or Antifa or Occupy or the Proud Boys or pick anyone you agree with that annoys powerful people. "Having the better politics" will not protect you. "Oh they're just fascists" will not protect your peoples.
        mlazos 6y ago
        Except you need to replace “annoys powerful people” with “storms the seat of our government with intent to overthrow a democratic election result” I’m fine with that being the line for companies to ban a political entity. Amazon and google aren’t randomly banning BLM for protesting in cities.
        cycomanic 6y ago
        But they have been doing that since forever and nobody was complaining. Here's a link to when twitter deleted 125,000 ISIS accounts [1] (and they had been monitoring for islam extremist content for much longer already). So I ask why this uproar now that they are deplatforming fascists? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/05/twitter-deletes-isis-accounts-terrorism-online https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/05/twitter-d...
mschuster91 6y ago
> but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? Parler had people discussing murdering Congresspeople and didn't do anything about it. No matter which faction of "what level of free speech is acceptable" one subscribes, this is never acceptable and it is no wonder that Parler got booted off.
- rendall 6y ago
  > this is never acceptable I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehensible; and beliefs that you hold dear will someday, by someone, be seen as unacceptable and reprehensible. To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. David Goldberger didn't defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie because he is a Nazi, but to defend his (and all of our) rights. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk... The people who planned actual murders and crimes must be caught and punished. But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand. Actually, even in the US there are exceptions - namedly when speech is likely to incite crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
    - rendall 6y ago
      Indeed! We weren't talking about the 1st Amendment, but let's go where you lead: speech likely to incite imminent lawless action is illegal. Courts decide if that applies. Someday you might say "Politician Y should be hung by his thumbs". Politician Y and friends try to convince a judge that you thereby incite imminent lawless action. Of course, you were just feeling passionate, and no one reasonable would believe that you meant it. Thankfully, due to strong 1A protections, the case would not proceed. But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning.
concordDance 6y ago
Aye. Relevant SSC: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-first-amendment/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/12/29/the-spirit-of-the-firs... https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o...
- no-s 6y ago
  After reading these beautiful articles I'm sadly wondering if we've already put the golden age behind us. I will dig a little deeper to support archive.org[1] this year. I'd love to run a mirror. [1] https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/
frollo 6y ago
> what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? Honestly, none. It's their business and they can handle it however they want. What you can do (and this is exactly what Kolmisoppi was suggesting) is build your platform to work without relying on other people's business. I'm happy that companies like Amazon don't want to get associated with people who organized a failed coup. That should be the bare minimum. But there is no law which forces you to be hosted on Amazon if you want to be on the Internet. You can self-host. You can buy/rent servers in another country, where what you are doing doesn't have direct consequences which might lead people to want to get away from you. Use the blockchain, use torrent, develop your own P2P protocol. Those people just got locked out from the easy way, something they should have expected to happen (and plan for) since day one.
- Thlom 6y ago
  These huge Internet companies really should be regulated. Last weeks we've seen these companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple act like governing bodies by banning Donald Trump from their platforms and essentially shut down a business (Parlor). This is problematic because these companies have monopolistic power, not only in the US, but also internationally.
  - specialist 6y ago
    Only POTUS can silence POTUS. POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. whitehouse.gov, daily press briefing, C-SPAN, etc. No third party should serve as alternate bully pulpit, allowing a democratically elected leader to speak directly to their audience, bypassing the fourth estate. I'm not saying Twitter was right to shut down POTUS. I'm saying never should have hosted POTUS in the first place. Further, no leader should be allowed to speak as a private individual. If Twitter wants to feature POTUS, then let Twitter attend the daily presser along with all the other reporters and journalists. Everyone is responsible for allowing this undemocratic violation of norms. Social medias are just the one that profited most.
- ghaff 6y ago
  >build your platform to work without relying on other people's business You can't although you can, of course, mitigate. But are you OK with just a PWA on mobile w/o the Apple or Google stores? And your platform is ultimately dependent on a network connection, probably CDN, domain registrar, DNS, etc. Those are a pretty high bar to get kicked off but you're not immune. (And, yes, there are things like Tor and jumping around providers if you have a fairly lightweight web site--like most torrents--but that doesn't help you if yo have a site with many TB of data catering to unsophisticated users.)
pelliphant 6y ago
In my opinion the internet was already seriously flawed. This makes people talk about how they think it should work, not just how it works right now, which I think is exactly what is needed.
watwut 6y ago
> what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with Personally I found Amazons response to Parler convincing: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.u... The question is, why should a company in Amazons situation be unable to turn off that service? As in, your question assumes that Amazon turned off Parler out of nowhere for no reason other then "we dont like them". It assumes they did not had documented reasons, documented attempts to convince Parler to comply to TOS etc. Otherwise said, contract.
ardy42 6y ago
>> "I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down" > I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? It's kind of predictable but still disappointing that this was the part of my comment people chose to discuss with a 43-comment thread. It was the least novel and interesting idea in it. But to your point, there's a lot more "looking beyond" than just that. There also needs to be a lot more looking beyond rather limited fundamentalist views of free speech, which tend to abrogate other fundamental rights and be so short-sighted that they actually bring discredit to the values they try to protect.
sellyme 6y ago
> what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with? The principle of Amazon not wanting to piss off all of their customers and several government organisations. If you're this tentative about something you explicitly agree is just, then clearly you (and millions of others) are going to react pretty harshly to Amazon unilaterally deciding, e.g., that all mentions of Belgium should get scrubbed from the platform.
- Talanes 6y ago
  >Belgium I mean, it is the rudest word in the universe.