14 ms·

> You obviously did not see the material that the company allowed to be posted on their services in contravention to their hosting provider's terms of services.

> You obviously did not see the material that the company allowed to be posted on their services in contravention to their hosting provider's terms of services. Always abide by your host's AUP. AWS AUP: "You may not use.. or instruct others to use, the Services.. for any.. offensive use" "Offensive"? That word is so vague as to be meaningless. This turns into a dangerously simple attack. Just post something you know will offend someone. Et viola: you just killed a company. It's a lot cheaper and easier (and less likely to involve swat teams) than hiring some sketchy DDoS outfit.

judge2020 6y ago
AWS provided multiple times over evidence of violent content that was against their policies and asked Parler to step up moderation, which didn't happen. AWS arguments: https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349200096345296897?s=20 https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349200096345296897?s=20 > Parler itself has admitted it has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violates its (minimal) community standards that it had not yet reviewed https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349203942614335488?s=20 https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349203942614335488?s=20 > When I said Amazon cited many vile and violent examples of posts that it flagged for Parler, I meant it. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjN7U0AEr1gt?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjN7U0AEr1gt?format=jpg&name=... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjPBVEAEs9sg?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjPBVEAEs9sg?format=jpg&name=... https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349202898459115520?s=20 https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349202898459115520?s=20 > Such a requirement also poses a risk to Amazon itself, with posts calling for others to "burn down Amazon delivery trucks" until they "reverse course."
- echelon 6y ago
  I wonder whose side the FSF would take. Amazon shouldn't be making these decisions, and certainly not without giving the other party ample time to make other arrangements. This should have been litigated in court prior to taking deplatforming actions. Imagine if Amazon was a Chinese company and Parler hosted information about the plight of the Uyghur people. Community websites have the right to enforce rules. I'm not so sure common carriers do, and AWS is a common carrier. A good rule of thumb for American hosting companies is if the FBI won't seize the website for the content hosted therein, the website shouldn't be removed. For context, I'm a liberal and dislike the content on Parler. Defending free speech is more important than zapping the republicans. Imagine if the tables were flipped and talking about abortion was what conservatives wanted to ban.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    > Amazon shouldn't be making these decisions, and certainly not without giving the other party ample time to make other arrangements Amazon is still working with Parler to export their data off of AWS. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws#126285512:~:text=We%20will%20ensure%20that%20all%20of,we%20can%20to%20help%20your%20migration https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... > We will ensure that all of your data is preserved for you to migrate to your own servers, and will work with you as best as we can to help your migration
    - dmix 6y ago
      Taking the services entirely offline then giving them a few weeks to access archived data does not entirely cover the definition of (at least in my opinion): > not without giving the other party ample time to make other arrangements Going entirely offline like that can easily destroy a web business. Or at a minimum seriously harm them. Not to say I care much for Parler's technical nor administrative approach to providing free speech.
      - rodone 6y ago
        Why aren't you hosting them?
        echelon 6y ago
        Because they're not Amazon.
      - bonesss 6y ago
        Parler ignored repeated notices of TOS violations from Amazon, were given a chance to address their frequent TOS violations and incomplete enforcement of TOS violation notices, and came back with a very weak plan while still ignoring specific TOS violations AWS had notified them of. Parler had ample time. They ignored warnings, they did not address their TOS violations. Then their contract was terminated, and AWS is helping them migrate after the fact. Parler displayed an ignorance of the law and how web hosting works. Web companies that repeatedly violate the TOS of their hosts deserve to be at the mercy of their failover plans. That responsibility is borne by the web company, not the host.
dralley 6y ago
>"Always abide by your host's AUP." These basically say things like "your users may not use the services to offend others." That's literally impossible to abide by. In fact, it appears to have been a company-ending event in this case, which makes it a devilishly simple attack: post something you know will get everyone worked up, et viola: you just killed a company. The way you're wording this sounds very much like you haven't actually seen the kind of stuff that was going on there. It's not simply a matter of people being offended.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read the AWS response. Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far worse). Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok.
  - dralley 6y ago
    >Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. In this case, they pointed to it weeks prior and it wasn't removed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      Amazon claims this, and Parler disputes that this was brought to their attention. (it's not easy to ramp up moderation overnight -- and FB/Twitter have consistently had far worse, even with far larger moderation teams.)
      - rodone 6y ago
        Doing just easy things isn't much of a business model.
Jugurtha 6y ago
>"Offensive"? That word is so vague as to be meaningless. >This turns into a dangerously simple attack. Just post something you know will offend someone. Et viola: you just killed a company. What's the probability at any given time that someone on HN is offended? YCombinator seems to use Amazon's Route 53 and would therefore be at risk. Domain Name: YCOMBINATOR.COM Registry Domain ID: 147225527_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.gandi.net Registrar URL: http://www.gandi.net Updated Date: 2020-02-15T20:11:05Z Creation Date: 2005-03-20T23:51:07Z Registry Expiry Date: 2021-03-20T22:51:07Z Registrar: Gandi SAS Registrar IANA ID: 81 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@support.gandi.net Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +33.170377661 Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Name Server: NS-1411.AWSDNS-48.ORG Name Server: NS-1914.AWSDNS-47.CO.UK Name Server: NS-225.AWSDNS-28.COM Name Server: NS-556.AWSDNS-05.NET
jasonlotito 6y ago
> Just post something you know will offend someone. Et viola: you just killed a company. Except that's not how it works in the slightest. You have moderation in place to work to prevent that. You are doing your due diligence. You are making an honest effort to solve this problem. Mistakes will happen. Nothing is perfect, but you are making an honest attempt, and it's reasonably effective. Parler was not doing anything close to that. Your comment operates under the belief that these things are binary. Simply post one thing someone can find offensive, and "I win!" But most people, most successful companies, are smarter than that and operate in reality.
tptacek 6y ago
When Parler reviewed the AWS terms, the vagueness of "offensiveness" would have been a good reason for them (of all companies) not to select AWS as a hosting platform. Anyone who pays attention to this space could have warner Parler; similar things have happened to other sites, like Gab, on AWS. They weren't diligent, they selected a provider incompatible with their business goals, and they suffered the consequences.

judge2020 6y ago

AWS provided multiple times over evidence of violent content that was against their policies and asked Parler to step up moderation, which didn't happen. AWS arguments: https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349200096345296897?s=20 https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349200096345296897?s=20 > Parler itself has admitted it has a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violates its (minimal) community standards that it had not yet reviewed https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349203942614335488?s=20 https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349203942614335488?s=20 > When I said Amazon cited many vile and violent examples of posts that it flagged for Parler, I meant it. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjN7U0AEr1gt?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjN7U0AEr1gt?format=jpg&name=... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjPBVEAEs9sg?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErlVjPBVEAEs9sg?format=jpg&name=... https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349202898459115520?s=20 https://twitter.com/KYWeise/status/1349202898459115520?s=20 > Such a requirement also poses a risk to Amazon itself, with posts calling for others to "burn down Amazon delivery trucks" until they "reverse course."

echelon 6y ago
I wonder whose side the FSF would take. Amazon shouldn't be making these decisions, and certainly not without giving the other party ample time to make other arrangements. This should have been litigated in court prior to taking deplatforming actions. Imagine if Amazon was a Chinese company and Parler hosted information about the plight of the Uyghur people. Community websites have the right to enforce rules. I'm not so sure common carriers do, and AWS is a common carrier. A good rule of thumb for American hosting companies is if the FBI won't seize the website for the content hosted therein, the website shouldn't be removed. For context, I'm a liberal and dislike the content on Parler. Defending free speech is more important than zapping the republicans. Imagine if the tables were flipped and talking about abortion was what conservatives wanted to ban.
- judge2020 6y ago
  > Amazon shouldn't be making these decisions, and certainly not without giving the other party ample time to make other arrangements Amazon is still working with Parler to export their data off of AWS. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws#126285512:~:text=We%20will%20ensure%20that%20all%20of,we%20can%20to%20help%20your%20migration https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p... > We will ensure that all of your data is preserved for you to migrate to your own servers, and will work with you as best as we can to help your migration
  - dmix 6y ago
    Taking the services entirely offline then giving them a few weeks to access archived data does not entirely cover the definition of (at least in my opinion): > not without giving the other party ample time to make other arrangements Going entirely offline like that can easily destroy a web business. Or at a minimum seriously harm them. Not to say I care much for Parler's technical nor administrative approach to providing free speech.
    - rodone 6y ago
      Why aren't you hosting them?
      - echelon 6y ago
        Because they're not Amazon.
    - bonesss 6y ago
      Parler ignored repeated notices of TOS violations from Amazon, were given a chance to address their frequent TOS violations and incomplete enforcement of TOS violation notices, and came back with a very weak plan while still ignoring specific TOS violations AWS had notified them of. Parler had ample time. They ignored warnings, they did not address their TOS violations. Then their contract was terminated, and AWS is helping them migrate after the fact. Parler displayed an ignorance of the law and how web hosting works. Web companies that repeatedly violate the TOS of their hosts deserve to be at the mercy of their failover plans. That responsibility is borne by the web company, not the host.

dralley 6y ago

>"Always abide by your host's AUP." These basically say things like "your users may not use the services to offend others." That's literally impossible to abide by. In fact, it appears to have been a company-ending event in this case, which makes it a devilishly simple attack: post something you know will get everyone worked up, et viola: you just killed a company. The way you're wording this sounds very much like you haven't actually seen the kind of stuff that was going on there. It's not simply a matter of people being offended.

skynet-9000 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read the AWS response. Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far worse). Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok.
- dralley 6y ago
  >Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. In this case, they pointed to it weeks prior and it wasn't removed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    Amazon claims this, and Parler disputes that this was brought to their attention. (it's not easy to ramp up moderation overnight -- and FB/Twitter have consistently had far worse, even with far larger moderation teams.)
    - rodone 6y ago
      Doing just easy things isn't much of a business model.

Jugurtha 6y ago

>"Offensive"? That word is so vague as to be meaningless. >This turns into a dangerously simple attack. Just post something you know will offend someone. Et viola: you just killed a company. What's the probability at any given time that someone on HN is offended? YCombinator seems to use Amazon's Route 53 and would therefore be at risk. Domain Name: YCOMBINATOR.COM Registry Domain ID: 147225527_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.gandi.net Registrar URL: http://www.gandi.net Updated Date: 2020-02-15T20:11:05Z Creation Date: 2005-03-20T23:51:07Z Registry Expiry Date: 2021-03-20T22:51:07Z Registrar: Gandi SAS Registrar IANA ID: 81 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@support.gandi.net Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +33.170377661 Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Name Server: NS-1411.AWSDNS-48.ORG Name Server: NS-1914.AWSDNS-47.CO.UK Name Server: NS-225.AWSDNS-28.COM Name Server: NS-556.AWSDNS-05.NET

jasonlotito 6y ago

> Just post something you know will offend someone. Et viola: you just killed a company. Except that's not how it works in the slightest. You have moderation in place to work to prevent that. You are doing your due diligence. You are making an honest effort to solve this problem. Mistakes will happen. Nothing is perfect, but you are making an honest attempt, and it's reasonably effective. Parler was not doing anything close to that. Your comment operates under the belief that these things are binary. Simply post one thing someone can find offensive, and "I win!" But most people, most successful companies, are smarter than that and operate in reality.

tptacek 6y ago

When Parler reviewed the AWS terms, the vagueness of "offensiveness" would have been a good reason for them (of all companies) not to select AWS as a hosting platform. Anyone who pays attention to this space could have warner Parler; similar things have happened to other sites, like Gab, on AWS. They weren't diligent, they selected a provider incompatible with their business goals, and they suffered the consequences.