3 ms·

But why? Why give away any money which you could take? Is it due to Amazon believing in morals(which is seemingly absent in the way they treat their own employe

But why? Why give away any money which you could take? Is it due to Amazon believing in morals(which is seemingly absent in the way they treat their own employees)? Is it because there are business who would caution away if there are specific content hosted there(which seems very unlikely as unlike social network all content are basically separated)? Or is it due to government pressure or regulation?

guerrilla 5y ago
> Is it due to Amazon believing in morals(which is seemingly absent in the way they treat their own employees)? What, no, that's insane. The theory I hear on here often is that they're trying to avoid regulation. I don't know if that's true but whatever they're doing, it's to avoid exposure potential costs. They've calculated that the lost business is worth less than the cost of whatever risks they forsee. Either that or they have some extremely powerful ideologues in control.
tablespoon 5y ago
> But why? Why give away any money which you could take? Is it due to Amazon believing in morals(which is seemingly absent in the way they treat their own employees)? F-ck no. It's because they don't want to end up in the news, getting called out for hosting that stuff. From the OP: > Activists and human rights groups are increasingly holding not just websites and apps accountable for harmful content, but also the underlying tech infrastructure that enables those sites to operate, while political conservatives decry the curtailing of free speech. Last week there was a Washington Post article about how they were hosting an ISIS website that celebrated the recent Kabul suicide bombing, and earlier this year they were getting flak for hosting Parler. They probably want to prevent that from happening again, or at least have something better to say when they get in the news for it.
revicon 5y ago
This is addressed in the article. It’s about avoiding public relation issues when they’re found hosting stuff that someone will find offensive… “ Better preparation against certain types of content could help Amazon avoid legal and public relations risk. "If (Amazon) can get some of this stuff off proactively before it's discovered and becomes a big news story, there's value in avoiding that reputational damage,"
- holler 5y ago
  This is frightening as I've been building a new social network heavily reliant on AWS services. Of course the goal isn't to build a bastion for bad content, but this seems like a major risk in building on AWS, particularly when there's user generated content. That said from the article it says they're primarily going to be focused on proactively identifying things like terrorist groups versus sifting through customer data. That doesn't sound too bad but we'll see how it plays out.

guerrilla 5y ago

> Is it due to Amazon believing in morals(which is seemingly absent in the way they treat their own employees)? What, no, that's insane. The theory I hear on here often is that they're trying to avoid regulation. I don't know if that's true but whatever they're doing, it's to avoid exposure potential costs. They've calculated that the lost business is worth less than the cost of whatever risks they forsee. Either that or they have some extremely powerful ideologues in control.

tablespoon 5y ago

> But why? Why give away any money which you could take? Is it due to Amazon believing in morals(which is seemingly absent in the way they treat their own employees)? F-ck no. It's because they don't want to end up in the news, getting called out for hosting that stuff. From the OP: > Activists and human rights groups are increasingly holding not just websites and apps accountable for harmful content, but also the underlying tech infrastructure that enables those sites to operate, while political conservatives decry the curtailing of free speech. Last week there was a Washington Post article about how they were hosting an ISIS website that celebrated the recent Kabul suicide bombing, and earlier this year they were getting flak for hosting Parler. They probably want to prevent that from happening again, or at least have something better to say when they get in the news for it.

revicon 5y ago

This is addressed in the article. It’s about avoiding public relation issues when they’re found hosting stuff that someone will find offensive… “ Better preparation against certain types of content could help Amazon avoid legal and public relations risk. "If (Amazon) can get some of this stuff off proactively before it's discovered and becomes a big news story, there's value in avoiding that reputational damage,"

holler 5y ago
This is frightening as I've been building a new social network heavily reliant on AWS services. Of course the goal isn't to build a bastion for bad content, but this seems like a major risk in building on AWS, particularly when there's user generated content. That said from the article it says they're primarily going to be focused on proactively identifying things like terrorist groups versus sifting through customer data. That doesn't sound too bad but we'll see how it plays out.