5 ms·

The way I see it, Parler wasn't deplatformed. Parler could have rented a building, bought servers, racked and stacked those servers, networked them and gotten

by Aloha 4y ago

The way I see it, Parler wasn't deplatformed. Parler could have rented a building, bought servers, racked and stacked those servers, networked them and gotten connectivity to the world. They didn't, they leased servers as a service from others, and then got burned when those services decided they were uncomfortable with the vitriolic anonymous speech being hosted on their hardware. Had they truly built their own platform, no one could have taken from them. (It'd be lots harder anyhow)

Manuel_D 4y ago
Right, but the point remains: AWS kicked Parler off of their platform. It's fine to be of the opinion that AWS was in the right to do this, but your comment seems entirely contradictory: Your first sentence claims they weren't deplatformed, the rest of your comment explains how Parler should have built their own platform from the ground up after getting kicked off of AWS's platform.
Stupulous 4y ago
And if their office building evicted them, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still buy some land and build their own office; it was their own fault for leasing office space as a service and getting burned. And if their ISP cut their access, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still start their own ISP; had they truly built their own platform, no ISP could have taken that from them. And if the power plant wouldn't give them electricity- okay I'll stop.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I don't think a power plant can refuse, and an ISP shouldn't be allowed to refuse. And I don't think it's that hard to get office space with a real contract?
  - Aloha 4y ago
    I'd broadly agree with you. There is a discussion to be had about what services should be available under common carrier or common carrier like terms, and what should not. I'd argue that at least in the internet sphere, at least DNS, Access (either ISP or peering), and probably payments of some measure should be. I don't think PAAS systems ought to be, you can do without them, nor do I think hosted services (email, simple hosting, whatever) should be either. We have an issue online where unfettered anonymous free speech is largely untenable in the current regulatory environment, I think that should be changed. I also hold the view that unfettered anonymous free speech is broadly unworkable because it removes the feedback loop between speech and response to it - but that's a separate issue for society to work out, and shouldn't really be up to big corporations to fix (often poorly) on their own.
    - Stupulous 4y ago
      Anonymous speech is an essential facet of free speech- maybe the most important. Getting rid of anonymity means removing the voice of the trans woman stuck in a conservative town or in the year 2000- or the Satanist, the Muslim, the ex-con, the furry, or the BDSM enthusiast. It means making corporate whistleblowers put their livelihood on the line. It means telling John Fryer, the (at the time) anonymous gay psychiatrist who spoke out in 1972 against their treatment of gay people, to sit down and shut up. It means stopping the author of African Slavery in America (probably Thomas Paine, but left anonymous) from speaking out against slavery in 1775. In another vein, Scott Alexander needed (partial) anonymity not to speak truth to power but to keep his patients from finding him, finding a disagreement, and treating him as an enemy. Even if it were just him in that situation, you'd be robbing me of books worth of philosophy, politics, and science- stuff that has made me a better person and a better thinker. And you'd be removing me from this conversation, because I have friends and family across the political spectrum who I would prefer not to offend, and I have heterodox views that would upset the right with leftness and the left with rightness. Perhaps you think I should be prevented from speaking openly, but you certainly can't say it's because I am avoiding feedback- I'm seeking feedback for positions I would otherwise quietly go on believing. What is the value added that would justify taking away the rights of so many powerless? Of suppressing any ideas that are not already mainstream?
      - Aloha 4y ago
        I dont think you can or should get rid of anonymous free speech, but I that because of the nature of their platforms - the platforms publishing it have a right, if not obligation to exert editorial control. I'm also fairly heterodox in my views (and queer on top of that) but when you have a random dude on a couch who can reach an audience of millions at the press of a button, the math changes - algorithmic amplification of hate, wingnuttery, etc - is a serious problem for the stability of democracy. The issue isnt anonymous speech persay, that always has existed and should - it just used to cost something before, you had to have money for a printer, convince the printer to print your screed, distribute it widely enough to have an impact. Those costs lessened the impact, and reduced the societal risks. Elsewhere on here, I proposed a federated karma system that extends the idea of community reputation (a norm in closed communities, like HN, Furry, etc) as a transparent replacement for direct editorial control, while still persisting anonymity.
  - Stupulous 4y ago
    My point is that all of those things would be deplatforming even though they could replace the platform themselves for more independence, which means the argument doesn't hold. Regardless of whether Amazon deplatformed, the distinction is not based on whether Parler could have built their own servers.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      It depends on what your definition of "deplatforming" is but if it's so broad to count a twitter ban then "deplatforming" isn't very dangerous in general.

by Aloha 4y ago

Manuel_D 4y ago

Right, but the point remains: AWS kicked Parler off of their platform. It's fine to be of the opinion that AWS was in the right to do this, but your comment seems entirely contradictory: Your first sentence claims they weren't deplatformed, the rest of your comment explains how Parler should have built their own platform from the ground up after getting kicked off of AWS's platform.

Stupulous 4y ago

And if their office building evicted them, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still buy some land and build their own office; it was their own fault for leasing office space as a service and getting burned. And if their ISP cut their access, they still wouldn't have been deplatformed because they could still start their own ISP; had they truly built their own platform, no ISP could have taken that from them. And if the power plant wouldn't give them electricity- okay I'll stop.

Dylan16807 4y ago
I don't think a power plant can refuse, and an ISP shouldn't be allowed to refuse. And I don't think it's that hard to get office space with a real contract?
- Aloha 4y ago
  I'd broadly agree with you. There is a discussion to be had about what services should be available under common carrier or common carrier like terms, and what should not. I'd argue that at least in the internet sphere, at least DNS, Access (either ISP or peering), and probably payments of some measure should be. I don't think PAAS systems ought to be, you can do without them, nor do I think hosted services (email, simple hosting, whatever) should be either. We have an issue online where unfettered anonymous free speech is largely untenable in the current regulatory environment, I think that should be changed. I also hold the view that unfettered anonymous free speech is broadly unworkable because it removes the feedback loop between speech and response to it - but that's a separate issue for society to work out, and shouldn't really be up to big corporations to fix (often poorly) on their own.
  - Stupulous 4y ago
    Anonymous speech is an essential facet of free speech- maybe the most important. Getting rid of anonymity means removing the voice of the trans woman stuck in a conservative town or in the year 2000- or the Satanist, the Muslim, the ex-con, the furry, or the BDSM enthusiast. It means making corporate whistleblowers put their livelihood on the line. It means telling John Fryer, the (at the time) anonymous gay psychiatrist who spoke out in 1972 against their treatment of gay people, to sit down and shut up. It means stopping the author of African Slavery in America (probably Thomas Paine, but left anonymous) from speaking out against slavery in 1775. In another vein, Scott Alexander needed (partial) anonymity not to speak truth to power but to keep his patients from finding him, finding a disagreement, and treating him as an enemy. Even if it were just him in that situation, you'd be robbing me of books worth of philosophy, politics, and science- stuff that has made me a better person and a better thinker. And you'd be removing me from this conversation, because I have friends and family across the political spectrum who I would prefer not to offend, and I have heterodox views that would upset the right with leftness and the left with rightness. Perhaps you think I should be prevented from speaking openly, but you certainly can't say it's because I am avoiding feedback- I'm seeking feedback for positions I would otherwise quietly go on believing. What is the value added that would justify taking away the rights of so many powerless? Of suppressing any ideas that are not already mainstream?
    - Aloha 4y ago
      I dont think you can or should get rid of anonymous free speech, but I that because of the nature of their platforms - the platforms publishing it have a right, if not obligation to exert editorial control. I'm also fairly heterodox in my views (and queer on top of that) but when you have a random dude on a couch who can reach an audience of millions at the press of a button, the math changes - algorithmic amplification of hate, wingnuttery, etc - is a serious problem for the stability of democracy. The issue isnt anonymous speech persay, that always has existed and should - it just used to cost something before, you had to have money for a printer, convince the printer to print your screed, distribute it widely enough to have an impact. Those costs lessened the impact, and reduced the societal risks. Elsewhere on here, I proposed a federated karma system that extends the idea of community reputation (a norm in closed communities, like HN, Furry, etc) as a transparent replacement for direct editorial control, while still persisting anonymity.
- Stupulous 4y ago
  My point is that all of those things would be deplatforming even though they could replace the platform themselves for more independence, which means the argument doesn't hold. Regardless of whether Amazon deplatformed, the distinction is not based on whether Parler could have built their own servers.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    It depends on what your definition of "deplatforming" is but if it's so broad to count a twitter ban then "deplatforming" isn't very dangerous in general.