4 ms·

If you look at their suit against Amazon, linked in the article but here too: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294

If you look at their suit against Amazon, linked in the article but here too: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_4.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... Parler notes 3 times AWS complained about specific messages and Parler removed all of them within 24 hours each time, some within a few hours and each time AWS noted they were satisfied. "Parler had no moderation!" and "Parler wouldn't moderate!" are clearly untrue. If the complaint is "not enough moderation" that could be legit. Regardless of your feeling on Parler, we NEED our legal system, contracts, and contract enforcement to be based on facts.

derision 6y ago
Sounds like the issue was AWS had to keep complaining, effectively using them as their moderation review, rather than doing it themselves
freedomben 6y ago
Parler's CEO was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on her podcast a couple days ago, and if what he said is true, AWS is not being truthful. Of course we don't know who is telling the truth, but Parler is asking to release all the correspondence between the two companies, and AWS will not consent. It could very well just be standard legal best practice (since there is a lawsuit in progress), but it does give Parler some credibility. As soon as there is evidence I will re-evaluate where I can stand (not that it matters of course, but to me personally it does :-) Among the big mistruths from AWS alleged by Parler, Parler does do moderation. They have a company principle of not surveilling every single thing their users do and vacuuming up data on them (which I would think most on HN would praise). They have a group of about 600 moderators that review and take down reported posts. Over the last couple months given the in flux of new users and violent content, they did develop some machine learning tools that would identify potential violent posts and send them to a moderator for pre-approval. AWS told them that wasn't good enough. So Parler said, "how about we just use AWS Rekognition, your own product?" To which AWS said, "no, not good enough." I wonder, what is "good enough" to AWS? They clearly don't apply the same standard to Twitter. He also talked about how just a week prior the AWS rep was doing the standard AWS rep thing of, "we love you, what can we do to get you deeper into AWS ecosystem?" Per Parler's CEO, Amazon had previously been satisfied but suddenly after the capitol riot, nothing would satisfy them. It's remarkable to me how much disinformation there is out there over this. Although after the CentOS disinformation fiasco, I shouldn't be all that surprised. I hope they release all of the correspondence soon so we can know who is telling the truth. It is a matter of great consequence in my opinion.
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  > Parler's CEO was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on her podcast a couple days ago, and if what he said is true, AWS is not being truthful. Of course we don't know who is telling the truth, but Parler is asking to release all the correspondence between the two companies, and AWS will not consent. It could very well just be standard legal best practice (since there is a lawsuit in progress), but it does give Parler some credibility. As soon as there is evidence I will re-evaluate where I can stand (not that it matters of course, but to me personally it does :-) I don't think this adds to Parler's credibility. I'd say it's consistent with their self-portrayal as the innocent victim of a liberal conspiracy. Parler's moderators were fine with content like https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png - it's not surprising that Apple, AWS, and Google found it unacceptable. Making these emails public (even in a censored form) could expose AWS employees to doxxing, harassment, and worse. An email system administrator, for example, could use the text of an emails to identify which AWS employees corresponded with Parler.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > as the innocent victim of a liberal conspiracy It's fair to say that tech is majority liberal and it'd be simply dumb to contradict liberal orthodoxy to say unconscious bias doesn't exist. So it's certainly fair to say that tech has an unconscious liberal bias and their actions are going to be harmful towards conservatives.
    - throwaway19937 6y ago
      I was referring to the comments by Parler's CEO that Amazon, Apple, Google and others banning them or ending service within a narrow window was the result of collusion. I think it's a combination of avoiding liability and Parler's failing to comply with moderation policies.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> "Parler had no moderation!" and "Parler wouldn't moderate!" are clearly untrue. If the complaint is "not enough moderation" that could be legit. Has anyone been saying otherwise? I've always heard it reported that violent/bigoted posts stayed up too long, thus leading to the platform being awash in them. Not that there's literally zero moderation, but just too little. Parler's own marketing works against their reputation here, since they liked to talk up being a 'free speech app', which implies a more 'anything goes' attitude towards moderation. > Parler notes 3 times AWS complained about specific messages and Parler removed all of them within 24 hours each time, some within a few hours and each time AWS noted they were satisfied. I mean c'mon man, that's just not great reasoning. Of course they're going to quickly remove the things AWS specifically points out to them. The real issue is how quick they are to remove rule-breaking content in general. A better test would be AWS employees or whoever noting rule-breaking content themselves, then seeing how long it takes Parler to remove them. Or simply seeing how common rule-breaking content is to start with.
- thu2111 6y ago
  But the standards being promoted here, Twitter and Facebook itself would clearly fail at. None of them claim to have instant perfectly precise moderation and most of them got planet-scale when they had basically no company-driven moderation at all, just user flags. The double standards here are plain to see :(
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    This isn't a double standard; it's just the natural tendency of rules, regulations, and market requirements to become stricter over time. It's quite common for early entrants to a market to get away with behavior that late arrivals are accountable for. Facebook and Twitter probably couldn't be introduced today with the level of moderation they had at the time. The bicycle is a nontechnical example of this phenomenon. You couldn't bring it to market today because of liability concerns and safety laws.

derision 6y ago

Sounds like the issue was AWS had to keep complaining, effectively using them as their moderation review, rather than doing it themselves

freedomben 6y ago

Parler's CEO was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on her podcast a couple days ago, and if what he said is true, AWS is not being truthful. Of course we don't know who is telling the truth, but Parler is asking to release all the correspondence between the two companies, and AWS will not consent. It could very well just be standard legal best practice (since there is a lawsuit in progress), but it does give Parler some credibility. As soon as there is evidence I will re-evaluate where I can stand (not that it matters of course, but to me personally it does :-) Among the big mistruths from AWS alleged by Parler, Parler does do moderation. They have a company principle of not surveilling every single thing their users do and vacuuming up data on them (which I would think most on HN would praise). They have a group of about 600 moderators that review and take down reported posts. Over the last couple months given the in flux of new users and violent content, they did develop some machine learning tools that would identify potential violent posts and send them to a moderator for pre-approval. AWS told them that wasn't good enough. So Parler said, "how about we just use AWS Rekognition, your own product?" To which AWS said, "no, not good enough." I wonder, what is "good enough" to AWS? They clearly don't apply the same standard to Twitter. He also talked about how just a week prior the AWS rep was doing the standard AWS rep thing of, "we love you, what can we do to get you deeper into AWS ecosystem?" Per Parler's CEO, Amazon had previously been satisfied but suddenly after the capitol riot, nothing would satisfy them. It's remarkable to me how much disinformation there is out there over this. Although after the CentOS disinformation fiasco, I shouldn't be all that surprised. I hope they release all of the correspondence soon so we can know who is telling the truth. It is a matter of great consequence in my opinion.

throwaway19937 6y ago
> Parler's CEO was interviewed by Megyn Kelly on her podcast a couple days ago, and if what he said is true, AWS is not being truthful. Of course we don't know who is telling the truth, but Parler is asking to release all the correspondence between the two companies, and AWS will not consent. It could very well just be standard legal best practice (since there is a lawsuit in progress), but it does give Parler some credibility. As soon as there is evidence I will re-evaluate where I can stand (not that it matters of course, but to me personally it does :-) I don't think this adds to Parler's credibility. I'd say it's consistent with their self-portrayal as the innocent victim of a liberal conspiracy. Parler's moderators were fine with content like https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png - it's not surprising that Apple, AWS, and Google found it unacceptable. Making these emails public (even in a censored form) could expose AWS employees to doxxing, harassment, and worse. An email system administrator, for example, could use the text of an emails to identify which AWS employees corresponded with Parler.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > as the innocent victim of a liberal conspiracy It's fair to say that tech is majority liberal and it'd be simply dumb to contradict liberal orthodoxy to say unconscious bias doesn't exist. So it's certainly fair to say that tech has an unconscious liberal bias and their actions are going to be harmful towards conservatives.
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    I was referring to the comments by Parler's CEO that Amazon, Apple, Google and others banning them or ending service within a narrow window was the result of collusion. I think it's a combination of avoiding liability and Parler's failing to comply with moderation policies.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- caseysoftware 6y ago

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> "Parler had no moderation!" and "Parler wouldn't moderate!" are clearly untrue. If the complaint is "not enough moderation" that could be legit. Has anyone been saying otherwise? I've always heard it reported that violent/bigoted posts stayed up too long, thus leading to the platform being awash in them. Not that there's literally zero moderation, but just too little. Parler's own marketing works against their reputation here, since they liked to talk up being a 'free speech app', which implies a more 'anything goes' attitude towards moderation. > Parler notes 3 times AWS complained about specific messages and Parler removed all of them within 24 hours each time, some within a few hours and each time AWS noted they were satisfied. I mean c'mon man, that's just not great reasoning. Of course they're going to quickly remove the things AWS specifically points out to them. The real issue is how quick they are to remove rule-breaking content in general. A better test would be AWS employees or whoever noting rule-breaking content themselves, then seeing how long it takes Parler to remove them. Or simply seeing how common rule-breaking content is to start with.

thu2111 6y ago
But the standards being promoted here, Twitter and Facebook itself would clearly fail at. None of them claim to have instant perfectly precise moderation and most of them got planet-scale when they had basically no company-driven moderation at all, just user flags. The double standards here are plain to see :(
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  This isn't a double standard; it's just the natural tendency of rules, regulations, and market requirements to become stricter over time. It's quite common for early entrants to a market to get away with behavior that late arrivals are accountable for. Facebook and Twitter probably couldn't be introduced today with the level of moderation they had at the time. The bicycle is a nontechnical example of this phenomenon. You couldn't bring it to market today because of liability concerns and safety laws.