3 ms·

> I'm being nitpicky but it feels off to me to call people out on owning their own platform but then use Cloudflare's CDN instead of running their own. Infrast

> I'm being nitpicky but it feels off to me to call people out on owning their own platform but then use Cloudflare's CDN instead of running their own. Infrastructure isn't a platform, and vice versa. If Cloudflare started to make editorial decisions about which web traffic to "promote" to users, there would be hell to pay.

heywoodlh 4y ago
> Infrastructure isn't a platform, and vice versa. I gave this some thought and after a bit I disagree with this. Wasn't Parler an example of infrastructure being used to editorialize _against_ specific opinions and ideas?[1] As I understand it, they were kicked off of AWS and refused by multiple infrastructure providers for hosting content that was perceived as offensive and potentially dangerous. Is that not an example of infrastructure being part of the platform? *I want to make clear I do not use Parler at all and am in no way stating I am either for or against it -- I just think it's an interesting example. I would love to hear your perspective, though, on that. To clarify, though, my original point is that "owning" your "platform" is subject to your values and experience. Do you agree with that? I actually have zero problems with anyone using Cloudflare, CDNs, etc, I just think it feels self righteous to encourage people to call out others for not owning their own content (which the original website does). [1] https://time.com/5929888/amazon-parler-aws/ https://time.com/5929888/amazon-parler-aws/ EDIT: forgot to add the link :)
- webmaven 4y ago
  > Wasn't Parler an example of infrastructure being used to editorialize _against_ specific opinions and ideas?[1] As I understand it, they were kicked off of AWS and refused by multiple infrastructure providers for hosting content that was perceived as offensive and potentially dangerous. Is that not an example of infrastructure being part of the platform? Sure. Businesses have always tried to have it both ways, and really like being necessary infrastructure while still having the option to refuse service. And, to be fair, AWS (and Cloudflare) aren't quite at the point where they are going to be publicly regulated utilities that no longer have the option of refusing to provide service (like an electricity or phone service provider). But they are getting closer to that every day, and eventually we'll stop talking about IaaS and start talking about IaaU (once most other providers give up the Tesla-vs-Edison fight and concede that AWS has defined the APIs that have become the defacto standards they need to copy). But even in a hosting-as-regulated-utility (or common-carrier, which is the relevant term from the transportation and communication industries) world, there are still exceptions and there are lots of things that in the name of public safety etc. you aren't allowed to do when using these services, and limits that are imposed. I don't really expect utility services like compute, storage, edge caching, content replication and distribution, etc. to be exceptions to that.

heywoodlh 4y ago

> Infrastructure isn't a platform, and vice versa. I gave this some thought and after a bit I disagree with this. Wasn't Parler an example of infrastructure being used to editorialize _against_ specific opinions and ideas?[1] As I understand it, they were kicked off of AWS and refused by multiple infrastructure providers for hosting content that was perceived as offensive and potentially dangerous. Is that not an example of infrastructure being part of the platform? *I want to make clear I do not use Parler at all and am in no way stating I am either for or against it -- I just think it's an interesting example. I would love to hear your perspective, though, on that. To clarify, though, my original point is that "owning" your "platform" is subject to your values and experience. Do you agree with that? I actually have zero problems with anyone using Cloudflare, CDNs, etc, I just think it feels self righteous to encourage people to call out others for not owning their own content (which the original website does). [1] https://time.com/5929888/amazon-parler-aws/ https://time.com/5929888/amazon-parler-aws/ EDIT: forgot to add the link :)

webmaven 4y ago
> Wasn't Parler an example of infrastructure being used to editorialize _against_ specific opinions and ideas?[1] As I understand it, they were kicked off of AWS and refused by multiple infrastructure providers for hosting content that was perceived as offensive and potentially dangerous. Is that not an example of infrastructure being part of the platform? Sure. Businesses have always tried to have it both ways, and really like being necessary infrastructure while still having the option to refuse service. And, to be fair, AWS (and Cloudflare) aren't quite at the point where they are going to be publicly regulated utilities that no longer have the option of refusing to provide service (like an electricity or phone service provider). But they are getting closer to that every day, and eventually we'll stop talking about IaaS and start talking about IaaU (once most other providers give up the Tesla-vs-Edison fight and concede that AWS has defined the APIs that have become the defacto standards they need to copy). But even in a hosting-as-regulated-utility (or common-carrier, which is the relevant term from the transportation and communication industries) world, there are still exceptions and there are lots of things that in the name of public safety etc. you aren't allowed to do when using these services, and limits that are imposed. I don't really expect utility services like compute, storage, edge caching, content replication and distribution, etc. to be exceptions to that.