7 ms·

> It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues They booted Parler off for violence issues. One may personally disagree about wher

> It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues They booted Parler off for violence issues. One may personally disagree about where to draw that blurry line, but I think there's more than enough plausible deniability here. This is not the trigger of a grand slippery slope. If Amazon drops a company purely for non-violent political differences, by all means, lets raise those pitchforks.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Apparently mostly facebook was used, not parler.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Sure, maybe? Doesn't mean parler wasn't a toxic violent place. If you want to hold facebook to a higher standard, by all means, I agree.
- snoshy 6y ago
  This smacks of whataboutism to me. No doubt Facebook hosted large amounts of this activity, but it does not negate the fact that Parler did so as well. Amazon's court filing detailed hundreds of incidents that they had given Parler months to fix.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    Crying "whataboutism" is just a meme-y way to shutdown claims of hypocrisy. Husband: Two glasses of white wine in one night honey? You need to cut back for your health's sake Wife: But dear, you drink a handle of vodka every night and have refused any attempts at intervention. Husband: A-ha, classic whataboutism edit: I'd love to respond to the people below me, but HN has decided that one post an hour is too much (despite having a 10 year old account and 4000+ karma)
    - snoshy 6y ago
      Facebook isn't even a party in this legal proceeding. The only ones are the court, Amazon, and Parler. Facebook could commit genocide tomorrow, and it would not affect this lawsuit.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Where's the hypocrisy? Should AWS drop facebook as a customer? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Facebook is free of guilt, but there is evidence that Facebook does at least try to keep their site clean, and for the most part they do. Its certainly possible that Facebook had (in absolute terms) more violence and planning than Parler, but as a percentage of the overall content, it's much smaller. This doesn't excuse Facebook, they can do better, but it isn't hypocritical to say "the group with 10% violent content that tacitly encourages it isn't okay, while the group with .1% violent content that actively innovates in trying to keep things clean is okay". Of course, that's only true if FB is actively innovating, and, well, that's questionable (Yann Lecun has made some concerning statements about Facebook's role, or lack thereof, in radicalization).
      - takeda 6y ago
        Facebook and Twitter also have their own data centers, so it's not like AWS had to chose between Facebook, Parler or Twitter.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  Wait till you hear what us leftists want to do with Facebook! I will say that my preferred solution to the problem of Facebook (nationalization and open criminal investigations into its leadership) actually raises serious constitutional issues. The Parler case really really doesn’t - it doesn’t even raise good philosophical issues about free speech, just a bunch of dumb arguments.
  - repeatafterme1 6y ago
    I would like to hear.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- duskwuff 6y ago
  You're conflating two different issues. Some of the specific, concrete planning of violence may have taken place on Facebook. That doesn't appear to have been taking place as much on Parler -- possibly because it was less private -- but there was plenty of generally violent rhetoric on Parler, just less specific. "We should kill this person" (Parler) versus "Let's all meet up with our guns here" (Facebook).
- cma 6y ago
  But what percentage of Facebook activity was used for it within getting moderated vs what percentage of parler activity?
throwawayboise 6y ago
These things always start with moves that sound completely reasonable. Only time will tell if they expand their moderation demands.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Sure. And yet, completely reasonable things overwhelmingly tend not to lead to extreme outcomes. Only time will tell, but the point is that this is hardly an urgent warning sign.
  - svachalek 6y ago
    Indeed, this line of thinking is known as the Slippery Slope Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- multjoy 6y ago
  What are these things, specifically?
  - Y-bar 6y ago
    > First they came for the nazis and qanon extremists threatening democracy, and I said nothing because fuck those people, they are the reason this verse exists.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      I would note, the original line is something along the lines of "i did nothing because I wasn't one of them". The line genuinely doesn't hold up as especially powerful when its "I did nothing because they self identify as a hate group against people like me"
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
  So, stop doing completely reasonable things then?
zamalek 6y ago
> They booted Parler off for violence issues. It baffles me how often violence issues become conflated with speech issues. You are absolutely correct, this is a violence issue. America has likely the most free speech protections in the world, but fighting words (violence) are not protected. There is a huge amount of precdent to support Amazon's actions here, dating back decades. Furthermore, just because Facebook did nothing is no reason for Amazon to sit idly by doing nothing. Is the advocation for Amazon to become another bystander? Is the superior situation to have all platforms supporting and enabling insurrection and possible sedition? Get off it. Amazon can make the right choice irrespective of their peers making the worst choice.
- fjabre 6y ago
  If that's true then pretty much every social media platform today should be banned from AWS.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Because violence to advance a cause the powers agree with is suddenly protected under free speech all the same. Many have pointed out that the storming of the capitol was not too dissimilar to many of the b.l.m. riots which were also often coördinated and featured chants of killing police officers. And it very much seems that whichever side one be on very much dictates how both are treated with both sides claiming that it is about violence irrespective of speech, but it's quite clear that the tolerance for violence is quite a bit lower when it concern an ideology one does not agree with.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    The sentiment you're trying to express here is empathy. There is more empathy for people protesting racial injustice and the murder of minority groups than there is for people waving hate group symbols and trying to kill political leaders. I don't see a need to demand a system void of empathy. It's not a one side issue. It's not right vs. left. In the case of parler, it's largly Nazi vs. not Nazi, and that's a particularly easy case to judge. Parler does not represent conservative America, even if the extremists at the rally claim otherwise. It represents a mix of violent hate groups and conspiracy theorists. The small proportion of BLM activists that were actively violent do not represent liberal America. Everyone has a choice. Everyone identifying as conservative can point at the white supremacists in DC and say "Those are my people" or "Those are not my people".

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Apparently mostly facebook was used, not parler.

klmadfejno 6y ago
Sure, maybe? Doesn't mean parler wasn't a toxic violent place. If you want to hold facebook to a higher standard, by all means, I agree.
snoshy 6y ago
This smacks of whataboutism to me. No doubt Facebook hosted large amounts of this activity, but it does not negate the fact that Parler did so as well. Amazon's court filing detailed hundreds of incidents that they had given Parler months to fix.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Crying "whataboutism" is just a meme-y way to shutdown claims of hypocrisy. Husband: Two glasses of white wine in one night honey? You need to cut back for your health's sake Wife: But dear, you drink a handle of vodka every night and have refused any attempts at intervention. Husband: A-ha, classic whataboutism edit: I'd love to respond to the people below me, but HN has decided that one post an hour is too much (despite having a 10 year old account and 4000+ karma)
  - snoshy 6y ago
    Facebook isn't even a party in this legal proceeding. The only ones are the court, Amazon, and Parler. Facebook could commit genocide tomorrow, and it would not affect this lawsuit.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Where's the hypocrisy? Should AWS drop facebook as a customer? I don't think anyone is suggesting that Facebook is free of guilt, but there is evidence that Facebook does at least try to keep their site clean, and for the most part they do. Its certainly possible that Facebook had (in absolute terms) more violence and planning than Parler, but as a percentage of the overall content, it's much smaller. This doesn't excuse Facebook, they can do better, but it isn't hypocritical to say "the group with 10% violent content that tacitly encourages it isn't okay, while the group with .1% violent content that actively innovates in trying to keep things clean is okay". Of course, that's only true if FB is actively innovating, and, well, that's questionable (Yann Lecun has made some concerning statements about Facebook's role, or lack thereof, in radicalization).
    - takeda 6y ago
      Facebook and Twitter also have their own data centers, so it's not like AWS had to chose between Facebook, Parler or Twitter.
ojnabieoot 6y ago
Wait till you hear what us leftists want to do with Facebook! I will say that my preferred solution to the problem of Facebook (nationalization and open criminal investigations into its leadership) actually raises serious constitutional issues. The Parler case really really doesn’t - it doesn’t even raise good philosophical issues about free speech, just a bunch of dumb arguments.
- repeatafterme1 6y ago
  I would like to hear.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
duskwuff 6y ago
You're conflating two different issues. Some of the specific, concrete planning of violence may have taken place on Facebook. That doesn't appear to have been taking place as much on Parler -- possibly because it was less private -- but there was plenty of generally violent rhetoric on Parler, just less specific. "We should kill this person" (Parler) versus "Let's all meet up with our guns here" (Facebook).
cma 6y ago
But what percentage of Facebook activity was used for it within getting moderated vs what percentage of parler activity?

throwawayboise 6y ago

These things always start with moves that sound completely reasonable. Only time will tell if they expand their moderation demands.

klmadfejno 6y ago
Sure. And yet, completely reasonable things overwhelmingly tend not to lead to extreme outcomes. Only time will tell, but the point is that this is hardly an urgent warning sign.
- svachalek 6y ago
  Indeed, this line of thinking is known as the Slippery Slope Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
multjoy 6y ago
What are these things, specifically?
- Y-bar 6y ago
  > First they came for the nazis and qanon extremists threatening democracy, and I said nothing because fuck those people, they are the reason this verse exists.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I would note, the original line is something along the lines of "i did nothing because I wasn't one of them". The line genuinely doesn't hold up as especially powerful when its "I did nothing because they self identify as a hate group against people like me"
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 6y ago
So, stop doing completely reasonable things then?

zamalek 6y ago

> They booted Parler off for violence issues. It baffles me how often violence issues become conflated with speech issues. You are absolutely correct, this is a violence issue. America has likely the most free speech protections in the world, but fighting words (violence) are not protected. There is a huge amount of precdent to support Amazon's actions here, dating back decades. Furthermore, just because Facebook did nothing is no reason for Amazon to sit idly by doing nothing. Is the advocation for Amazon to become another bystander? Is the superior situation to have all platforms supporting and enabling insurrection and possible sedition? Get off it. Amazon can make the right choice irrespective of their peers making the worst choice.

fjabre 6y ago
If that's true then pretty much every social media platform today should be banned from AWS.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Because violence to advance a cause the powers agree with is suddenly protected under free speech all the same. Many have pointed out that the storming of the capitol was not too dissimilar to many of the b.l.m. riots which were also often coördinated and featured chants of killing police officers. And it very much seems that whichever side one be on very much dictates how both are treated with both sides claiming that it is about violence irrespective of speech, but it's quite clear that the tolerance for violence is quite a bit lower when it concern an ideology one does not agree with.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  The sentiment you're trying to express here is empathy. There is more empathy for people protesting racial injustice and the murder of minority groups than there is for people waving hate group symbols and trying to kill political leaders. I don't see a need to demand a system void of empathy. It's not a one side issue. It's not right vs. left. In the case of parler, it's largly Nazi vs. not Nazi, and that's a particularly easy case to judge. Parler does not represent conservative America, even if the extremists at the rally claim otherwise. It represents a mix of violent hate groups and conspiracy theorists. The small proportion of BLM activists that were actively violent do not represent liberal America. Everyone has a choice. Everyone identifying as conservative can point at the white supremacists in DC and say "Those are my people" or "Those are not my people".