4 ms·

I get that everyone just wants to shit on Parler, but AFAIK they didn't host any content that wasn't present in far greater quantity on Facebook and Twitter. It

by edbob 6y ago

I get that everyone just wants to shit on Parler, but AFAIK they didn't host any content that wasn't present in far greater quantity on Facebook and Twitter. It would have been reasonable to expect to have access to the same platforms as those companies.

dilyevsky 6y ago
The difference here is both your examples have their own DCs ;)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lasagnaphil 6y ago
However, given the predictable circumstances they might be in , they should at least expect every cloud provider to pull the plug at them, and should have gone the route of self-hosting. Instead, they have created a social media website out of Wordpress (out of all things), that performs ridiculously slow and eats up all of their maintenance budget, on AWS. It’s baffling how the right populists cannot find or hire any competent engineers; heck, on the leftist side people do far better with much less money (for example, look at Extinction Rebellion, where they manage to self-host their entire communications system: https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11008-server_infrastructure_for_global_rebellion#t=3388 https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11008-server_infrastructure_for_...)
- edbob 6y ago
  I'm baffled by their choice of WordPress. No wonder they need so many servers. I don't understand why they should have expected everyone to deplatform them. Facebook hosts the same content in far greater quantity and has clearly demonstrated that they can't moderate effectively, but there's no bulls-eye on them over that. What's different about Parler besides the ownership?
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    > What's different about Parler besides the ownership? Facebook is 233x larger, profitable, and self-hosting - they don't have to keep their cloud service provider happy. Parler was dependent on AWS for services but didn't comply with their terms.
  - Applejinx 6y ago
    Depends on who you ask. I would be delighted to see a bulls-eye on Facebook for their complicity in what's been going on. I don't see them as significantly better in moral terms than Parler, and Facebook's body count for willingly collaborating with seditionists and genocide instigators is WAY WAY higher than Parler's. Facebook is bigger, and has power. That means that (a) they're harder to attack, and (b) they have purposes beyond ONLY fomenting insurrection and genocide. That means they'll operate in more of a gray area by intention, and will in fact try to self-moderate when the cost of fomenting insurrection and genocide risks becoming more expensive than the profit (ideological OR financial) for fomenting insurrection and genocide. The difference between Parler and Facebook is, Facebook will take your money but then throw you under the bus if you're malicious and endangering their platform. Parler went down with the ship because it was more important to them than just taking the money.
dralley 6y ago
As a proportion of the total amount of content, Parler is/was vastly more violent and hateful than either of those platforms. And in any case, they own their own DC's.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> It would have been reasonable to expect to have access to the same platforms as those companies. Wait, which of those companies is using the publicly offered terms of any public cloud vendor?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- edbob 6y ago
  You're right, they don't. We don't know what Twitter's contract with AWS says, but it's likely that Twitter doesn't have to play by the same rules as their much smaller competitors.
rodgerd 6y ago
You mean building out their own datacentres?
- edbob 6y ago
  Obviously not. They contract with cloud providers as well.

by edbob 6y ago

dilyevsky 6y ago

The difference here is both your examples have their own DCs ;)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lasagnaphil 6y ago

However, given the predictable circumstances they might be in , they should at least expect every cloud provider to pull the plug at them, and should have gone the route of self-hosting. Instead, they have created a social media website out of Wordpress (out of all things), that performs ridiculously slow and eats up all of their maintenance budget, on AWS. It’s baffling how the right populists cannot find or hire any competent engineers; heck, on the leftist side people do far better with much less money (for example, look at Extinction Rebellion, where they manage to self-host their entire communications system: https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11008-server_infrastructure_for_global_rebellion#t=3388 https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-11008-server_infrastructure_for_...)

edbob 6y ago
I'm baffled by their choice of WordPress. No wonder they need so many servers. I don't understand why they should have expected everyone to deplatform them. Facebook hosts the same content in far greater quantity and has clearly demonstrated that they can't moderate effectively, but there's no bulls-eye on them over that. What's different about Parler besides the ownership?
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  > What's different about Parler besides the ownership? Facebook is 233x larger, profitable, and self-hosting - they don't have to keep their cloud service provider happy. Parler was dependent on AWS for services but didn't comply with their terms.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  Depends on who you ask. I would be delighted to see a bulls-eye on Facebook for their complicity in what's been going on. I don't see them as significantly better in moral terms than Parler, and Facebook's body count for willingly collaborating with seditionists and genocide instigators is WAY WAY higher than Parler's. Facebook is bigger, and has power. That means that (a) they're harder to attack, and (b) they have purposes beyond ONLY fomenting insurrection and genocide. That means they'll operate in more of a gray area by intention, and will in fact try to self-moderate when the cost of fomenting insurrection and genocide risks becoming more expensive than the profit (ideological OR financial) for fomenting insurrection and genocide. The difference between Parler and Facebook is, Facebook will take your money but then throw you under the bus if you're malicious and endangering their platform. Parler went down with the ship because it was more important to them than just taking the money.

dralley 6y ago

As a proportion of the total amount of content, Parler is/was vastly more violent and hateful than either of those platforms. And in any case, they own their own DC's.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> It would have been reasonable to expect to have access to the same platforms as those companies. Wait, which of those companies is using the publicly offered terms of any public cloud vendor?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
edbob 6y ago
You're right, they don't. We don't know what Twitter's contract with AWS says, but it's likely that Twitter doesn't have to play by the same rules as their much smaller competitors.

rodgerd 6y ago

You mean building out their own datacentres?

edbob 6y ago
Obviously not. They contract with cloud providers as well.