7 ms·

Parler wasn’t “linked” to that any more than any other social media company. There’s a lot of misinformation on what Parler was.

eejit_compiler 6y ago
What Parler was, was bad for business. It's not a good look for AWS to be hosting websites with violent content linked to the Capitol insurrection, and apparently doing nothing about it. So they pulled the plug.
- ng12 6y ago
  The elephant in the room is Facebook. There's lots of evidence they were the most directly responsible [1]. Parler wasn't bad for business but scapegoating it was good PR. 1. https://www.salon.com/2021/01/16/despite-parler-backlash-facebook-played-huge-role-in-fueling-capitol-riot-watchdogs-say/ https://www.salon.com/2021/01/16/despite-parler-backlash-fac...
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Facebook quite possibly was more responsible because they're more popular. But they also appear to be a actively fighting the misinformation that these groups spread and thrive on. Whereas Parler is the opposite: they practically celebrate how little they care about undermining democracy with misinformation.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      appearances can be deceiving
    - tartoran 6y ago
      Actually FB let it fester and didn’t do anything about it until recently. Sure, Parler exists to provide this needed freedom of expression to extremists and does not represent what it is but in terms of impact, FB has had a lot more and did nothing about it
- throwaway_6142 6y ago
  Only bad for business because of political dealings. The AWS name was not associated with Parler. In my view, the more likely actual reason for the cancelling of Parler, as well as for their seemingly excessive hardware requirements, is that Parler wants a shot at competing with Twitter for real, and has convinced their investors that is possible. The latest chaos must be one of the best free marketing anybody in their line of business could hope for. If realDonaldTrump moves to Parler, and some popular republicans already have, that would potentially bring in a floodwave of new users, and risking that kind of business opportunity by having underpowered servers would be professional malpractice. Parler is also likely to face months-long DDOS attacks.
  - eejit_compiler 6y ago
    The AWS name wasn't associated with Parler and the Capitol insurrection, but it likely would have been. This is all about getting ahead of the story and limiting any potential brand damage. It's similar to when Cloudflare booted 8chan, after the latter was linked to the white nationalist terrorist attacks in Christchurch and El Paso. I don't understand the rationale for your view. Why would slapping down a potential Twitter competitor be any concern of AWS?
dataangel 6y ago
Yes it was, the Parler leak revealed it was actually a rioter favorite: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdmm8/developer-makes-interactive-map-of-parler-videos-from-capitol-hill-riots https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdmm8/developer-makes-inter... Parler's entire point was being an alt-right platform, whodathunk the far right would be using it?
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  > Parler's entire point was being an alt-right platform I don’t think this is a fair statement. From past interviews, it’s clear that the CEO of Parler and its founding team intended for it to be politically neutral and a destination for those of all ideologies. They may have attracted those on the political right, but that’s because Twitter is by default a bastion for the political left and naturally those seeking alternatives would have a different lean. But I don’t think that’s the same as the entire point being an alt-right platform. Also, Twitter and Facebook definitely played a role in the riot story, and likely a much bigger role than Parler because of their scale. See https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-federal-authorities-activity-twitter-capitol-hill-attack https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-federal-authorities-a... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/facebook-role-in-capitol-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/faceboo... for more on that. But of course Apple and Google haven’t taken any actions against Facebook or Twitter. If the argument is that “most content on these services is fine”, that was also true of Parler.
  - Kaze404 6y ago
    Twitter is definitely a bastion for the left, that's why Steven Crowder has a blue checkmark.
    - Number157 6y ago
      Every medium wants to reach as many people as possible. So they limit the visibility of what they don't like, but they don't completely get rid of people they don't like since they would no longer reach those groups. Open basically any media and you'll see three categories: (1) Opinion pieces. (2) Attempts at appearing neutral by allowing opposing views, but always together with a commentary provided either by themselves or someone else to clearly provide objections. (3) Safe easily sharable info. Like cute / funny pictures you can send to your friends which will get people into the site.

eejit_compiler 6y ago

What Parler was, was bad for business. It's not a good look for AWS to be hosting websites with violent content linked to the Capitol insurrection, and apparently doing nothing about it. So they pulled the plug.

ng12 6y ago
The elephant in the room is Facebook. There's lots of evidence they were the most directly responsible [1]. Parler wasn't bad for business but scapegoating it was good PR. 1. https://www.salon.com/2021/01/16/despite-parler-backlash-facebook-played-huge-role-in-fueling-capitol-riot-watchdogs-say/ https://www.salon.com/2021/01/16/despite-parler-backlash-fac...
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Facebook quite possibly was more responsible because they're more popular. But they also appear to be a actively fighting the misinformation that these groups spread and thrive on. Whereas Parler is the opposite: they practically celebrate how little they care about undermining democracy with misinformation.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    appearances can be deceiving
  - tartoran 6y ago
    Actually FB let it fester and didn’t do anything about it until recently. Sure, Parler exists to provide this needed freedom of expression to extremists and does not represent what it is but in terms of impact, FB has had a lot more and did nothing about it
throwaway_6142 6y ago
Only bad for business because of political dealings. The AWS name was not associated with Parler. In my view, the more likely actual reason for the cancelling of Parler, as well as for their seemingly excessive hardware requirements, is that Parler wants a shot at competing with Twitter for real, and has convinced their investors that is possible. The latest chaos must be one of the best free marketing anybody in their line of business could hope for. If realDonaldTrump moves to Parler, and some popular republicans already have, that would potentially bring in a floodwave of new users, and risking that kind of business opportunity by having underpowered servers would be professional malpractice. Parler is also likely to face months-long DDOS attacks.
- eejit_compiler 6y ago
  The AWS name wasn't associated with Parler and the Capitol insurrection, but it likely would have been. This is all about getting ahead of the story and limiting any potential brand damage. It's similar to when Cloudflare booted 8chan, after the latter was linked to the white nationalist terrorist attacks in Christchurch and El Paso. I don't understand the rationale for your view. Why would slapping down a potential Twitter competitor be any concern of AWS?

dataangel 6y ago

Yes it was, the Parler leak revealed it was actually a rioter favorite: https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdmm8/developer-makes-interactive-map-of-parler-videos-from-capitol-hill-riots https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdmm8/developer-makes-inter... Parler's entire point was being an alt-right platform, whodathunk the far right would be using it?

throwawaysea 6y ago
> Parler's entire point was being an alt-right platform I don’t think this is a fair statement. From past interviews, it’s clear that the CEO of Parler and its founding team intended for it to be politically neutral and a destination for those of all ideologies. They may have attracted those on the political right, but that’s because Twitter is by default a bastion for the political left and naturally those seeking alternatives would have a different lean. But I don’t think that’s the same as the entire point being an alt-right platform. Also, Twitter and Facebook definitely played a role in the riot story, and likely a much bigger role than Parler because of their scale. See https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-federal-authorities-activity-twitter-capitol-hill-attack https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-federal-authorities-a... or https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/facebook-role-in-capitol-protest/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/faceboo... for more on that. But of course Apple and Google haven’t taken any actions against Facebook or Twitter. If the argument is that “most content on these services is fine”, that was also true of Parler.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  Twitter is definitely a bastion for the left, that's why Steven Crowder has a blue checkmark.
  - Number157 6y ago
    Every medium wants to reach as many people as possible. So they limit the visibility of what they don't like, but they don't completely get rid of people they don't like since they would no longer reach those groups. Open basically any media and you'll see three categories: (1) Opinion pieces. (2) Attempts at appearing neutral by allowing opposing views, but always together with a commentary provided either by themselves or someone else to clearly provide objections. (3) Safe easily sharable info. Like cute / funny pictures you can send to your friends which will get people into the site.