Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose.
I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believe that Amazon's lawyers are so stupid that they set out a TOS for the world's largest hosting provider that didn't give AWS the right to boot customers, which is something AWS --- really, every hosting provider --- has to do all the time. You almost have to not know anything about the hosting business to think there could be a case here.
But if you need to read a judge laughing Parler's claims off, well, now you can. Real "based" energy in excerpting the AWS AUP in their complaint and clipping it right before the clause that gives AWS the right to terminate service without notice to customers who violate their AUP. The judge, uh, noticed.
(As the judge points out, among the many problems with Parler's restraint of trade argument, there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed.)
> there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed
This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it's only technically correct.
They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that's set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter's content with respect to AWS' ToS? It's not like twitter just signed up for an AWS account like the rest of us do. There was a bidding and negotiation process. Sales teams on both sides worked on that contract. I don't think it's so unreasonable to take the existence of that contract as evidence that AWS reviewed twitter's content and deemed it acceptable content.
Why does this matter? Legally, I don't think it does. I don't see any good reason why AWS shouldn't be allowed to selectively enforce their ToS.
But Parler sought to compete directly with twitter. At the time of account termination, they were growing at a rate of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users per day, and in a way where it's not hard to imagine it being zero-sum (twitter users terminating their accounts and going to parler).
I don't think the case would succeed, but I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser.
This is one of the cases where technically correct is actually the best kind of correct, because it goes directly to Parler’s claim that Twitter is a similar situated entity hosted on AWS being treated differently.
> They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that’s set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter’s content with respect to AWS’ ToS?
(1) Because if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone else. Bringing someone on on those terms simply means you have the same trust as you’d extend to a random member of the public that they won’t break your TOS.
(2) Since they just “negotiated a fat contract”, they may or may not even be under the same TOS as are offered to people who just want to pick up hosting without negotiation. Which would be even farther from an endorsement of their content adhering to the general TOS.
> I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser.
Its possible that they could do so in the abstract, but they have made an argument along those lines, and its pretty clear that that concrete argument, as opposed to any hypothetical one they could have made, was, in the context of the particular evidence they’ve profferred to support it, unconvincing to the judge.
Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence during that summer. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted.
The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie.
Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Literally only issue here is that you dont care about left wing radicals being censored, which is fine, but then you pretend it does not happen which is not fine.
Amazon did not required perfection from Parler. Amazon is taking down Parler, because Parler did not even pretended to care about the issue. They have not done even token effort. Amazon is not taking down Parler for few bad message Parler did missed or were ambiguous.
Instead, Parler refused to take down messages Amazon pointed at few weeks ago. If Amazon sends twitter similar messages and twitter will ignore the Amazon for weeks or will respond with "we cant take them down, impossible", then it would be the same. That did not happened.
Why Parler? There are lots of other social media platforms out there using AWS with the same kind of rhetoric so that's not a good explanation or reason.
Why did someone decide for that specific case and not the numerous others by ex. Twitter that are still there.
Picking on the little guy just because they are little seems to be a pretty questionable move.
1.) Twitter was not there and is not there yet. They will be there tho.
2.) Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted.
Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Twitter does much more then that.
3.) Parler is not little guy, they have Mercer money.
Am I getting your argument right?
Parler was the most gratuitous because:
1. They had a combination of very tight censorship of dissenting voices, and complete laissez-faire for violent and racist rhetoric as long as it was right wing.
2. It was used to organize a violent and very public revolution against the United States of America, which resulted in five deaths.
You almost certainly knew all these things already. The likely reason you are supporting Parler in this comment is because you agree with their political stance.
I don't care about Parler or crazy righ-wingers. I just care about the inconsistency with which these big platforms seems to be acting and so far I haven't seen anything provide a proper explanation for why Parler and not some of the other social networks out there.
You don't care about fairness, you are just trying to convince people that there was inconsistency - by ignoring massive differences between how the two platforms operated. Parler was acting differently then Twitter.
Well, first off, it's not necessarily the case that AWS's contract with Twitter is the same as AWS's contract with Parler.
But more importantly, whether or not a company chooses to enforce violations of contracts with third parties has no bearing on whether it can enforce violation of contract against you. The best you can argue is I think equitable estoppel: by not enforcing it on others, maybe they gave you a reasonable impression that your conduct wasn't violating. But AWS has a clause that says effectively "we don't waive any rights by not enforcing terms against you", and furthermore, AWS and Parler were already in communication about Parler's issues complying with the terms, which destroys any equitable estoppel claim.
What happened to Parler is not routine when you exclude all of the cases of blatant abuse of the service.
There are religious web hosts that will terminate you for not following their Statement of Faith, so I don't think Amazon would have any issues in requiring its customers to have a particular stance on gay marriage in the very unlikely event it wanted to.
Your analogy is shitty because there was no violent revolution conducted by Parler against Amazon.
The correct Analogy is the airline pilot kicking off any Parler employees traveling for business. That’s it.
It doesn't much matter; this case is dead in the water.
If you want to argue that travel isn’t essential to a business’s employees, that’s fine. My original question still stands though. How often does Amazon kick off tenants when they haven’t broken laws or abused technology (e.g. spammers)?
Technologists on message boards who are shocked and offended at Amazon's decision are generally tipping their hands that they don't ever have contracts reviewed, or really even think about them in their day-to-day work. A plain reading of Amazon's terms --- not to mention having paid attention to how cloud providers handled Gab --- made it clear that Parler's position was untenable.
Parler was widely distributing violent content from major leaders (c.f. Lin Wood calling for Pence's execution) in a movement that reality showed was a real and not theoretical threat (c.f. the mob chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" in the rotunda).
I really, genuinely, truly don't understand why people insist on understanding this only in the context of partisan censorship. Parler had been around for years, uncensored. Almost all it's major accounts had history on Twitter for years before that (often having been kicked off for similarly violent content, btw).
If Big Tech really, truly wanted to censor conservative opinions for partisan benefit... why did they wait until months after the presidential election to do it?
It's motivated reasoning. It's how you can get to the conclusion that Amazon cutting ties with Parler is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily think all people who follow this line came up with it spontaneously. I'm sure there's a lot of propaganda to this effect swirling in conservative media, pushed and promoted by bad faith actors for various short term partisan ends. I'm pretty sure that's why the specious comparisons between BLM and the capitol attack became so widespread.
Now that's motivated reasoning. You are choosing to dehumanize those who disagree with you, because that's more comfortable than acknowledging that they might have a legitimate grievance somewhere beneath all the ruckus around the election results.
It's logical to conclude that there will be blowback from a coordinated campaign to shut down the largest platform favored by "the other side".
What now? I pretty explicitly humanized them, and even shifted the blame a way from them. Personally, I think a lot of them are being shamelessly used and exploited.
> It's logical to conclude that there will be blowback from a coordinated campaign to shut down the largest platform favored by "the other side".
Not really. The largest platform favored by "the other side" (which I'm assuming is conservatives/Republicans) was and is Facebook.
Parler was only favored by a much smaller, radicalized subset of conservatives, mainly those who wanted to spread false claims of election fraud (because, IIRC, it only got popular in response to Twitter putting warning labels on such claims, which offended this radicalize subset). I'm totally fine with any blowback from such people, since their cause of championing lies needs to be utterly defeated, for the good of the country.
This patronizing belief that "those" people need to be protected from manipulation is used as more fuel on the fire. Thus the cycle of radicalization is amplified. Any victory gained by force will create the will within the defeated to build an opposing force.
Instead we have to look for the underlying causes (e.g. opioid epidemic, loss of opportunities, counterproductive cultural aversion to education, etc.) that drive people to rally together under the first cause that promises to help them, and address those.
Parler seems to have been caught completely unaware that there was a risk of AWS cancelling their service, so presumably there wasn't any serious attempt by Amazon to seek corrective measures. It seems unlikely there was even an attempt to understand Parler's moderation process, because having those conversations and raising/addressing concerns takes time.
It is clear that the process to remove Parler wasn't slow and deliberative. The question in my mind is whether it was explicitly political, implicitly political or if someone powerful in AWS was just panicking. None of the 3 situations bode well for anyone trying to use AWS as infrastructure for communication. Which is a number of their major customers.
That is an interesting exhibit, thanks. It has swayed me on the time-frame, I'm not sure it changes my basic view - the AWS rep is talking about literally 3 posts in mid November, one of which seems to have 450 views in 5 days if the eye icon means what I think. From politely raising 3 horrible posts to extinguishing a business in a month and a half still leaves me questioning if the TOS was enforced politically.
While you are working though this the customer is used as a platform to organize an attack on the government of the the country you are based in. 5 people died as a result and there is every indication that if the attack had gone the way the attackers wanted it to that more would be dead including the Vice President of the United States.
Suddenly the cost calculation changes. It has become evident over the several months of negotiation that the customer has 0 intention of coming into compliance. The speech they are hosting has already resulted in a very large and very visible terrorist act. They have ceased to be profit center and become a liability. What do you do?
But, as chalst argues, there are interpretations where they were acting reasonably.
BTW, "you're biased" is not, in and of itself, a reason to entirely shut down an argument as invalid.
A coup that, if successful, has the potential to endanger their entire business, their wealth, and possibly their lives.
> BTW, "you're biased" is not, in and of itself, a reason to entirely shut down an argument as invalid.
No argument on that particular point, but it is a decent reason not to try and use a certain infrastructure provider for communication tools or artistic content. Most people are looking for a dumb pipe when they pick an infrastructure provider, not a back-seat moderator with a twitchy trigger finger.
"This site we host was just used to plan a violent revolution. It's more trouble than it's worth, let's dump them."
Is this what you mean by "bias"?
Bias in this case works both ways. It makes some ignore the evidence that was already present. Businesses aren't courts that need to prove guilt. This was about getting rid of a high risk client who had made clear that they will not be changing their high risk behavior. There is no reason AWS needs to share in that risk after giving them the opportunity to change.
If I became convinced the expulsion had nothing to do with Jan 6 and was part of a standard process of review that AWS conducted for all their customers then that'd be sufficient.
There were, generously, a few hundred people involved in the Capitol storming. It isn't obvious how organised they were organised since they lacked guns and riots sometimes start spontaneously from protests. AWS didn't have time to work out who they were, what they were trying to achieve, how they were organising, what there motivations were or what was going to happen next. Using that as a trigger to ban Parler - when they could easily have been organising on Facebook or in person - would be strong evidence of political bias.
> Businesses aren't courts that need to prove guilt.
I don't mind if AWS is biased, but part of the fun of kibitzing is assessing whether decisions are good or bad. AWS making decisions on bias rather than rational thought process would be bad. People who use evidence and can think in a consistent manner have a big advantage.
Twitter made the mistake of trying to rationalise their bias, giving us a memorial of them trying to rationalise "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." as a call to violence. It is a legitimate concern that the same sort of evidence-free thinking could take root in AWS's leadership - they might easily be drawing their leadership from similar pools of people to Twitter since the big tech companies are acting in the same direction at the same time.
Whoosh. The entire point of the evidence that exists is that Jan 6'th dramatically changed the risk calculation. Without Jan 6'th I can imagine that Parler might still be online. But if you ignore Jan 6'th and it's impacts you ignore a large part of the calculation going on for a business. Jan 6'th took Parler from hypothetically risky to proven risky.
You keep attempting to dodge or downplay those events but they happened and they had a very dramatic impact on the political landscape.
Some humans who run a biz serving other humans stood up and announced "you and you camp Auschwitz shirt friends are odious, we don't want that stank on us".
Is it political ? Maybe. Or maybe they are simply decent humans calling out some pieces of shit.
Other times and places in history people haven't stood up to the evil. In some, they did.
Amazon is fighting the good fight here. Facebook has been an open collaborator. Amazon drew a line in the sand and said " we are on this side, hope you join us"
Amazon was late, but ended up on the right side of history. Evil needs to be told that the rest of us think they are wrong. They can't figure it out on their own.
The more interesting question is why Parler were willing to risk being shut down in this way. I see two possibilities: either they did not have a realistic understanding of their situation, or they preferred to have Amazon pull the plug rather than being responsible for unpopular moderation of their users.
Read Amazon's reply to the case. They warned Parler for Weeks that posts were a massive violation of their TOS and Parler did exactly jack shit.
Finally they were kicked off.
Because the same content exists on Facebook and Twitter (for the same reason: moderation is hard) but nobody is trying to disconnect them.
> If Big Tech really, truly wanted to censor conservative opinions for partisan benefit... why did they wait until months after the presidential election to do it?
They didn't. Twitter locked out the New York Post for reporting on the Hunter Biden story before the election.
What this appears to be about now is that the backlash from that sort of behavior was enough to cause a right-leaning social media site to become popular, and it continuing to grow in popularity would prevent them from doing similar things going forward.
Parler hoped to do moderation on a volunteer basis.
The two services simply aren't comparable.
You can run a service like Parler on all-volunteer (or, like Gab, no-volunteer) moderation. You just can't do it on Amazon's infrastructure. Plenty of companies that aren't organizing mass shootings or insurrections manage just fine without AWS, for a variety of reasons --- some of which even include cost savings.
The constant comparisons between Facebook and Parler are talking points, and insulting to our intelligence. We know better than to buy into this stuff.
Which appears to be less effective -- paid moderators aren't members of individual communities -- with the result that most of the planning of the riot happened on Facebook.
> Parler hoped to do moderation on a volunteer basis.
So does Reddit, doesn't it? Moderator of a sub is the creator, a user? And it seems to be less bad than Twitter and Facebook.
The reason people compare to Facebook and Twitter instead of Reddit is because they're worse.
> You can run a service like Parler on all-volunteer (or, like Gab, no-volunteer) moderation. You just can't do it on Amazon's infrastructure.
What happens if you can't do it on anybody's infrastructure who has the capacity to host a site that size?
But you're changing the subject.
Reddit would have killed the toxic sub and been done with it. Parler couldn't, because they were the toxic sub.
They were adding six digit numbers of users a day. Was a temporary backlog that unreasonable?
> Reddit bans whole subs when they get too out of hand to moderate, while Parler effectively is one of those banned subs.
Reddit (per Wikipedia) has 330 million users and 138,000 subs. Parler had 10 million users, equivalent to more than 4000 subs, not one.
And I think that's the root of it. "Nuke from orbit" against something that had the capacity to be saved through measures dramatically less drastic than that.
But Parler _didn't even try_ any of these less drastic measures. They could have properly moderated, or if that's not possible because they were growing so fast they could have limited posts from new users, or added moderation bots, or could have blanket-banned the most problematic subgroups. They didn't do these things.
They did have restrictions on new users. People accused them of suppressing leftists by doing this.
> But Parler _didn't even try_ any of these less drastic measures.
Prior to the riot their failure was no greater than that of Facebook. Parler (but not Facebook) was forced offline almost immediately after it before being given any meaningful opportunity to do anything different in response.
It's also not obvious that their existing measures wouldn't have been as effective as alternatives once their user base stabilized and the backlog was cleared.
IIRC, Parler billed itself as an unmoderated "free speech" space . IIRC, what little moderation it had was done by unpaid volunteer moderators, which in this case is akin to letting the inmates run the asylum.
 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/technology/parler-apple-g...: "Over the past several months, Parler has become one of the fastest-growing apps in the United States. Millions of President Trump’s supporters have flocked to it as Facebook and Twitter increasingly cracked down on posts that spread misinformation and incited violence, including muzzling Mr. Trump by removing his accounts this past week. By Saturday morning, Apple listed Parler as the No. 1 free app for its iPhones."
That's about 1/3 the size of /r/askreddit, and comparable to /r/politics. Your approach to the math here is silly for a variety of reasons (users can be members of multiple subs, membership isn't split evenly among all subreddits, there's a long tail of subs with 1 or 2 members, etc.) Parler was equivalent to a mid to large subreddit. It would have been around the 50th largest.
/r/politics, for comparison, has a moderation team of ~60, most of whom have years of experience moderating the subreddit, and is assisted by a number of bots (automoderator, as well as some /r/politics specific bots) developed and tuned over the years to help. They also have direct lines to the admins (most major subreddits do) for when they need more official assistance. The sub also has a fairly well understood set of rules, and users who are willing to report offending content.
Parler had none of those things. I've had the pleasure of moderating a (much, much!) smaller community. I once encountered a situation where it got viral for a very controversial reason. I and the rest of my moderation team was unable to keep up with the quantity of content being posted, so we did something very simple: we locked the subreddit temporarily, preventing anyone without a history in the community from participating.
I stand by that decision having been the responsible thing to do. I can understand why, for profit reasons, Parler didn't want to do the same thing, but it would have been the responsible thing to do.
> "Nuke from orbit" against something that had the capacity to be saved through measures dramatically less drastic than that.
I've yet to see any evidence that this was the case. "Saving it" in the way Amazon wanted seems to be entirely anthitetical to the approaches Parler was willing to take. Even now, the best approach Parler has been able to come up with is to use some AWS ML scanner to detect bad content.
Funny you should bring those news stories up, because they are often focused on how understaffed these efforts are. On a moderator to 100k user ratio, Facebook and Parler had effectively the same (0).
Just because Facebook pays a few hundred people to suffer ongoing psychological trauma doesn’t mean they are doing anything more than paying lip service to the complaints.
Well the fact that the riots were organized on Facebook for the month leading up to it certainly looks inconsistent.
You mean until right after the elections that took away all of the Republican power to regulate tech? Seems like a great time to do it.
That's misleading. While there was definitely unacceptable activity that slipped through Facebook's moderation, they were making attempts to stop it.
IIRC, a lot of the organization activity on Facebook acted as a funnel to places like Parler. E.g. a protest event on Facebook, calculated to comply with its policies, which linked to Parler or Gab where more illicit planning could take place.
You don’t have to be perfect at content moderation. You do, however, need to be very responsive to the hosting provider. If they contact you about a piece of content in violation of the AUP, you better take it down ASAP.
Ultimately I think that is the core distinction between Parler and Twitter. Twitter has a professional moderation program that is responsive; Parler was not responsive, according to Amazon (and I’m sure they have the receipts).
Parler made this specific allegation under the Sherman Act. It was rejected because "Parler...proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation. AWS, in contrast...submitted sworn testimony disputing Parler’s allegations." That said, Parler "has not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery," so maybe there's a bombshell text somewhere.
Well, tried to. They didn't do a good job of it at all. What they actually alleged (relevant towards this theory) was:
* There was set to a mass exodus of Twitter users to Parler
* AWS also hosts Twitter
... They didn't even allege that AWS conspire with Twitter. Sure, they don't have any evidence of that conspiracy without discovery, but they didn't even allege a fact that could be proven with discovery.
These two facts are supposed to sustain the theory that AWS had no other reason to kick off Parler other than a conspiracy to keep Twitter the dominant platform. Despite the complaint itself opening up by alleging that AWS kicked off Parler because Parler espouses conservative views and later conceding that Parler knew that its content violated AWS's terms, albeit Parler was attempting to rectify it.
There's another issue with Parler's claims that I haven't seen anyone else bring up: if Parler was expecting the influx of Twitter users as a result of Twitter banning Trump, how would kicking off Parler keep these users on Twitter or otherwise buttress Twitter's dominance?
No, the second of those is not a fact. Twitter does use AWS for some things, but the actual service is not hosted on AWS.
And that's pretty much the end of it. As the judge rightly points out in today's filing, all of Parler's talk about Twitter is just a bunch of hot air.
That could change if this lawsuit proceeds, and discovery reveals evidence of conspiracy. But that is all highly speculative at this point, and I would not be surprised if a company as lawyered up as Amazon has taken steps to make it all but impossible for such a thing to occur.
This case may not succeed but I can see it being re-used as part of a larger antitrust lawsuit. Though I doubt a democrat DOJ will actively drive such a lawsuit against big tech.
Twitter content isn't on AWS now though, and there's no way to know what Twitter has agreed to remove in the move over to AWS, so essentially this argument says that Parler should be allowed to stay on AWS because it's possible that AWS might host similar content in the future. That argument obviously doesn't work. A business can't be judged on what might happen in the future.
[citation required] This is an absurd claim.
After that there is a major divergence between the type of content they host, moderation processes, and documented outcomes of moderation (eg: people espousing left-wing views being banned from Parler) that show the real difference between the two products and why one was booted and the other wasn’t.
Judging by how weak their infrastructure was in the first place, getting any kind of resilient hosting in place after all the industry behemoths turned their backs on Parler was clear not a viable option. If you can't get your site to work well with all the best tools, you really have little hope in the wild west.
If your customer base is doubling every few weeks, that's simply not enough time to hire more engineers, onboard them, and get their resources focused on optimizing the stack to improve efficiency. It's also way more realistic to scale up your infrastructure in the short run until you know you've stabilized at a point where you can purchase and operate dedicated hardware to offset the steep margins cloud providers charge.
On top of it all, their product itself seems off-putting to a large portion of tech workers, which would make hiring talented individuals even harder.
It seems they did not set a sufficient foundation for such a possibility, and got caught unprepared.
My understanding of the scraped data is that some APIs used both sequential keys, and ignored both permissions and their soft delete flag. It’s not clear to me whether or not that API was permanently unauthenticated, or if it failed open once Okta locked them out.
They will pay far more for bandwidth than they ever will for hardware.
Unless you are building your webservice like it's 1998 (And webservices in 1998 sucked), you can't really disentangle from hosted solutions.
Count 1 (antitrust) fails because you need to actually allege a conspiracy, not just say "Twitter is also a customer of AWS!" I mean, I immediately realized it was deficient on their initial brief, because they didn't even back up enough evidence to satisfy their own citations, let alone explain how they can pass the big citation they conveniently omit (Twombly).
Counts 2 and 3 fail because the gravamen is that AWS violated its own contract by not giving 30 days' notice. Ignoring the very next paragraph that says AWS can terminate with no notice. Their own response to that point in the reply brief was pitiful.
Actually, their response was so pitiful they tried a second reply brief (that's the "supplemental authority" brief) where they instead changed their argument to "this is our reading of the contract, and you have to endorse it because it's a contract of adhesion." Which instead comes across as "we totally missed that part in the contract, and now we're trying to legal fu our way out of not reading a contract." Changing your argument on the fly doesn't tend to go very well in the courts.
The quality of their legal briefs is not impressive, and when you're going up a large corporation with deep pockets and competent legal attorneys to defend themselves, you're going to have a very rough time of it.
This is the part I don't understand. Did they really think no one would notice it?
Their previous attorney apparently dropped them as a client sometime around the 8th, and I suspect this lawsuit was put together in extreme rush on the 10th to keep Parler running. It absolutely wouldn't surprise me if neither Parler nor the attorney actually reviewed the agreement in enough detail to notice that AWS had the right to terminate immediately. Admittedly, this theory doesn't explain how the antitrust count gets added.
Argument from authority is one of the weakest forms of argument. If you want to weaken it, you turn it into argument from claimed authority that no evidence was offered for. If you want to weaken it even further, you set that weak argument against a judge's decision and the reasoned analysis of other people who clearly have read the legal briefs and have pointed out specific problems with the arguments made.
This is exactly what you did. Now maybe you are exactly what you say and you are exactly right. However based on your current content, you are indistinguishable from a troll. And that is exactly how people are responding to you.
If you don't want people to treat you as a troll, you need to provide enough actual meat that it is clear that you are not a troll. But until you are willing to do that, you should expect the response that you are getting.
If your expectations are different, then that is your mistake. You should learn how the internet works and adjust your expectations accordingly.
If you want an example to look at, see https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rayiner. He is a respected lawyer who often posts opinions that run counter to the average opinion on this site. But when he speaks about the law, people listen. Not because he claims to be a lawyer, but because he speaks in a way that demonstrates his knowledge of the subject.
If tptacek, security researcher, says a case is no real case (even with arguments) and an attorney contradicts him then that is evidence tptacek is wrong.
Realistically, I still expect Ptacek to be right - I don't see how Amazon could be forced to host something they don't want to. Nor why it would make sense to make them to. So I hope this lawsuit fails. But the way Parler was assassinated seems a bit questionable and there might be some cause for complaint there. It may be that AWS's terms of service are overruled by some law somewhere and they'll owe someone money.
Or, put more simply, to me, reasoning from a non-expert trumps non-reasoning from an expert.
> If tptacek, security researcher, says a case is no real case (even with arguments) and an attorney contradicts him then that is evidence tptacek is wrong.
There is no evidence lest it's explained why the former is wrong. I know for a fact that a judge with actual credentials didn't think the case had merit. Now LiquidmetalFish claims otherwise, without any supporting arguments or reasoning.
If you wanted to write a "long form" (?) reply then you could have done so. In the meantime the hand wave above has to stand on its own merits; or more specifically fall on its lack thereof.
I also think this entire thread will be worth revisiting upon appeal.
This only further highlights how unnecessary the original low value reply was. Instead of responding with something of substance that took five additional minutes to write, you told us your qualifications instead of your views.
> I also think this entire thread will be worth revisiting upon appeal.
I don't really see why. None of the reasons you got downvoted have anything to do with this specific case (low effort comments, arguments to authority, complaining about the response to the forementioned, and then arguments that are poorly explored/rely on erroneous facts).
Even if Parler ultimately won via an entirely new theory of US law as you have argued, it wouldn't change that your comments here today could have been better and would have been received better if they were.
Your subsequent comment avoided all of that by having something tangible which can be evaluated.
I find it interesting that you think you can read minds as what expectations downvoters have about their downvotes’ effect on your behavior.
As you say, “That’s not how anything works…”
Is that how you talk to the judge in court?
If you actually offered an analysis that demonstrated your expertise you would have probably gotten upvotes instead of downvotes.
Packinghan v North Carolina (2017) - Access to social media and digital infrastructure cannot be prohibited by the state.
Marsh v Alabama (1946) - Constitutional protections of 1st and 14th amendments applicable within confines of “town” owned by a private entity.
Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning a digit company owned town. If data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure and a private organization provides those services, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town.
As Justice Ginsburg said during oral argument regarding private digital networks, “the point is that these people are being cut off from a very large part of the marketplace of ideas. And the First Amendment includes not only the right to speak, but the right to receive information.”
And as Justice Kagan stated during Packinghan oral argument, "whether it’s political community, whether it’s religious community... these sites have become embedded in our culture as ways to communicate and ways to exercise our constitutional rights.”
Moreover, AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel. A party does not need to have majority market share to function in coordination with other dominate players in order to form a cartel that can manipulate the market.
Also, they may or may not have provided sufficient notice (a contract issue).
Either way, it's definitely relevant to industry and likely to be litigated on appeal following the trial court's ruling (whatever it is).
Manhattan Community Access Corp. finds that _public access television stations_ aren't subject to the First Amendment, let alone private web hosts.
I mean, as an attorney, I think it would be kind of interesting to see what happened if the Supreme Court ruled that private web hosts in general, or Amazon in particular, are somehow state actors. It would be one of the most practically disruptive-to-society court decisions I can think of, about as interesting to watch as declaring that all warehouses are now public parks. But it's against both recent precedent and common sense.
They operate under the extremely valuable liability protection granted them in section 230 of the CDA.
If I were to take government funds to build my warehouse, there's a pretty decent case that it is at least a public forum, if not a park.
>“In sum, the financial participation of the City in the Mall’s progress, the arrangements with the City police substation, and the active presence of other governmental agencies in the common areas of the Mall, constitute governmental involvement in the operation of the Mall,” the court noted. Thus, it concluded the mall’s “open and public areas ... effectively function as a public place,” and that mall owners couldn’t restrict distribution of political pamphlets or signature gathering in the mall’s common areas without violating the state Constitution.
Also, General Dynamics absolutely operates under many contractual obligations in which the federal government directly dictates how they shall run their business.
The Marsh line of decisions you're referring to was disposed of upthread. It's dead, Jim. SCOTUS just last year said you can't expect to pretend social networks operate as public squares; you can only claim functions that are normally exclusively the province of governments.
The basis for title 9 regulation is that universities take Federal grants.
Amazon isn't the state.
> Marsh v Alabama (1946) - Constitutional protections of 1st and 14th amendments applicable within confines of “town” owned by a private entity.
Which doesn't apply here, as Amazon isn't a company town/acting in a quasi-governmental capacity.
> AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel.
The court ruled on this, and pointed out that the accusations were factually erroneous.
> Moreover, they may or may not have provided sufficient notice (a contract issue).
The court ruled on this, and sided with Amazon (zero notice in this circumstance). If anything Amazon giving them 24 hours was above what the contract required.
I suggest reading the court's opinion before replying, since it undercuts many/most of the points you've tried to make.
> Packinghan v North Carolina (2017) - Access to social media and digital infrastructure cannot be prohibited by the state.
- Correct. My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the industry.
Seems like the core of your argument is that private companies could be subject to constitutional protections if they got too big enough/powerful.
Even ignoring that you've essentially invented a new interpretation of US law/ignored all existing precedent, the fact that AWS (32% market share) isn't a monopoly by either common definition or as defined by federal law completely undercuts even such a novel legal theory.
So you're on the outskirts of both law and basic facts here.
i) Antitrust - AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel. A party does not need to have majority market share to function in coordination with other dominate players in order to form a cartel that can manipulate the market. There's case law concerning market manipulation, access to industry and consumer protection issues where parties didn't need to directly coordinate to be considered a cartel.
ii) Practical dependence on service providers for access to critical digital infrastructure. To what extent do we depend on particular services for participation in society and the marketplace will influence the analysis. At what point does a data service provider begin to resemble a common carrier (i.e. cable, phone or internet provider) and in what context would common carrier laws apply?
iii) Contract issues - A few of the foreseeable issues include sufficient notice, contract breach, degree of harm (irreparable harm?), performance obligations.
In reality they will be able to do neither thing, because we are all aware that Twitter is not in fact worried about Parler, and that Amazon could give 3/5ths of a flying fuck whether Twitter is worried about Parler regardless. It's a fantasy which has taken on a cloak of plausibility because we have other antitrust concerns about Amazon. But that cloak will not do Parler any good in this trial, nor will our other entirely reasonable concerns about tech consolidation.
Similarly, the judge didn't so much poke holes in Parler's contract claims so much as singlehandedly demolish them, pointing out that Parler's claim about their rights under Amazon's contract were directly contradicted by the very next paragraph after the last one they cited in their complaint.
It would be helpful if you could acknowledge the ruling we're commenting on rather than continuing to argue as if this was entirely abstract. We have some (imperfect) authority to rely on now, in the form of today's ruling.
Additional briefs following the TRO, replies, nor responses have been filed.
There has been no discovery, no fact finding, no expert witnesses, no oral argument, no jury trial and no opinion. The case has not been adjudicated by the District Court. It has not reached a stage where it can be appealed to the Circuit Court and it certainly has not reached post appellate petition for cert to the Supreme Court.
It's a short document! It's well written! I recommend it.
Further: some of what you said upthread is contradicted by facts now acknowledged by the court. There may be some barely-colorable argument about antitrust or contracts of adhesion or something, but there is not in fact a colorable argument that Amazon was required to give notice to Parler before terminating them for violation of their AUP; that's in the plain language of the contract, which is on the record in the case, but is also the easily-downloaded AUP a Google search will provide you. Your arguments would be more credible if they acknowledged those facts, rather than implying that they were somehow still up in the air.
Well, neither was Standard Oil by that definition.
Of course, we already know how to solve the problem of companies having too much leverage due to owning too big verticals - namely to break them up. Not to institute everything-goes rules.
Courts have never as far as I can find used antitrust on an actor controlling a market at the low level Amazon has here. Can you find such a case?
Correct, but as part of the TRO process, the court is asked to view the merits of the case given what it knows, as part of the determination of granting a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits.
The courts opinion, quite plainly, is that Parler is unlikely to succeed on the merits:
> In short, Parler has proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation.
> Parler has not denied that at the time AWS invoked its termination or suspension rights under Sections 4, 6 and 7, Parler was in violation of the Agreement and the AUP.
> Parler has failed to allege basic facts that would support several elements of this claim. Most fatally, as discussed above, it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS’s actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means.
> IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town.
This argument will fail, for reasons I outlined in a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25781560. To briefly reiterate: Marsh v. Alabama concerned a privately owned town using state force (e.g. police) to enforce trespassing law.
But nothing about those rulings prevents the town from putting up a fence and a gate, and banning people from re-entering.
Twitter (and AWS) have a fence and a gate, and a guard who checks your ID anytime you try to enter the area.
How on earth is Amazon kicking them off "monopolistic behavior"? There are literally thousands of hosting providers in just about every country on this planet. Parler was quick to point out none of their infrastructure is in any way tied to Amazon.
The contrary is the case here. If anything, AWS is helping its competition by giving them Parler's users.
While the former has some lofty language about central social media has become in society, it's still a decision about state action.
Marsh seems like a reach as well - PragerU tried that and it didn't work. I'm not convinced Parler would fare any better here.
Judge Rothstein stated it quite plainly in today's order: "It is important to note what this case is not about. Parler is not asserting a violation of any First Amendment rights." (Page 2, lines 4-5)
But digital communities do not trap individuals, there is no practical limit except of mental effort to the number of accounts or social media networks a person can simultaneously use. Instead, the costs are borne by the networks themselves, which scales with the number of users.
This is an inversion of the scenario as the public is a passive participant, nothing is forced upon them. This is why I think the argument is not a good fit.
Parler and AWS, as business entities, can only act in their own interests as there is no duty between a corporation and the general public, only their customers through either a uniform or contractual relationship. Wouldn't you agree? It would be dangerous to assume that a corporation has a specific duty to the general public beyond existing customers. That is, AWS only has to deal with Parler, not Parler's customers. That is on Parler.
And I don't think the state enters into this at all.
Parler is a Russian company so it should be easy to sign up with local providers.
The only surprising things here are a) it took the judge a week to deny this motion, and b) AWS hasn't asked for the case to be transferred to arbitration (given the mandatory arbitration clause in the TOS somewhere).
This was the most surprising angle to me - that the case didn't fail prima facie on this clause alone. I guess at least it serves to really emphasize how bad of a case they brought.
Well, actually, they said that it could pass on irreperable harm, but that was somewhat mitigated by the fact that much (but not all) of the harm could be addressed by money damages.
It did fail the the other 3 elements, and the balancing test in the alternate Ninth Circuit criteria.
I wouldn't call that a laughable claim...
Also, can you draw a direct causal line between AWS hosted Parler posts and actual violence that took place on Jan 6th?
Amazon argues that Parler had a role in the insurrection, so banning them is in the public good. Given the amount of content from the insurrection on Parler, it seems more likely than not that at least one person there was influenced by Parler. There is no requirement that absolute proof be shown, the judge is weighing probabilities here. It also helps Amazon that injunctive reliefs are considered an extraordinary measure, so Amazon wins by default unless Parler can reach a significant bar.
This was a moonshot, and Parler knew it. They're asking for a strong legal response based on a pretty flimsy case. Even if what they are saying is true (which I strongly doubt, but what if), they simply don't have the evidence they need to get this relief.
I think that the real, concrete harm done to Parler's by their instant removal from Amazon is definitely not balanced by whatever "harm" in some Parler client's head before 6 Jan. I don't think it's a close call, and it is scary that federal judges are willing to make such a judgement.
The standard here seems to be that any unsubstantiated theoretical harm from user-uploaded content can be used as a basis to instantly kill any AWS client's business, if Amazon suddenly feels like doing so.
† We'll all know soon enough, since Parler got dumped by a trivial IDOR vulnerability almost the moment AWS gave them notice they were going to be taken offline.
Parler failed the first test.
Clearly Parler will suffer irreparable harm here, but they failed by a good margin to meet any of the other tests here.
This is the winner right here. It's a rather brilliant play, it keeps reminding their users that they exist. If they can find new hosting before they run out of ways to get in the headlines, they stand a good chance of keeping many of their users.
I would expect to see another wild filing after discovery. They'll find a quote from low-level employees from Amazon and Twitter talking to each other, inflate their credentials so they seem like they have authority, and then make a Sherman Act claim out of it.
I'm curious what lawyer would be willing to file these. The judge even takes the time to point out the places where Parler undermines their own case. This seems like it's just sacrificing your legal career; who would hire you after showing up in court and arguing this with a straight face?
I absolutely agree with you. This is as true now as it has ever been, since the earliest days of purely commercial httpd hosting operations in like, 1994 or thereabouts.
Long before the existence of individual virtual machines that anyone with a credit card could rent, hosting companies and colocation/datacenter type places have regularly declined to do business with customers they perceive as toxic, and have ended hosting relationships with customers they no longer wanted.
They haven't released the actual contract itself but from what Parler said in their lawsuit, they had a clause in their contract that if AWS wanted to terminate their contract with cause, AWS would have to give Parler 30 days notice to cure the contract breach or get booted. AWS did not do this instead giving them 24 hours.
Reading AWS terms does appear to give them the right to terminate. not ashamed to be proven wrong.
As mentioned above, they don’t have to give you 30 days before suspending for violating the AUP.
Now it's possible that the contract has some other wording, or that Amazon will argue that they didn't need to be as formal as Parler thinks. But as this goes through the courts, we will find out more.
They provide context for a lay audience, and while their language isn't simple, it is understandable to a non-native speaker like me.
Is this usual? or is it that for such cases with high publicity, the courts select judges that are know as good writers?
There’s an extensive body of specialized knowledge and terminology in the law, and a lot of that comes through making short-hand out of bits of decisions or enactments for the convenience of having brevity in reference, but with decisions clarity, both of results and reasoning, is a pretty big goal.
> the courts select judges that are know as good writers?
These aren't generally written solely by the judge. The judge's clerk will often draft some or all of it, which the judge can then edit or sign off on. The judge may also consult it with other people or judge's if they want or need to.
Robert Barnes, on the Parler lawsuit
Viva Frey, a lawyer did a breakdown on the lawsuit.
Robert Barnes, On section 230, and the tech lawsuits
Their take on it is that the tech companies have gone too far, and are too arrogant. And now the political climate has shifted. So they will start losing some of these section 230 related cases.
Uncivil Law is a friend of theirs and he goes over the contract here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhWDKx9myI0&t=6187s
He's a conservative lawyer, so he doesn't have a political bias against Parler. They just don't have a case. I think Parler's lawyers misread the contract and thought the 30-day notice applied to termination for cause.
Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand and pretend the risk of de-platforming never existed.
To believe that Parler would have been viable on AWS to begin with, they had to actively avoid reading the AWS terms of service. And, I mean, I'm sure they didn't, just like they apparently didn't authorize anonymous HTTP requests for their users assets. The whole effort seems clownish and performative.
In that light, I think I object to the notion of a "digital death sentence". They chose an incompatible provider for the services that they needed, and suffered the consequences. Gab, a service that is objectively far worse than Parler, appears to be doing just fine; in fact, they went through something similar to this after the Tree of Life shooting was planned on their service, and Parler had to have not paid any attention whatsoever to what happened to their most important competitor to have believed they had a chance on AWS.
Amazon can enforce their contracts selectively. The contract isn't a statute; it's an agreement between two parties. Amazon could presumably strike up a side agreement with a customer that overrode the "master" contract. I'm not a lawyer, but stuff like that happens in consulting somewhat regularly, where you have an MSA governing all your projects, and specific contracts for weird projects.
Not necessarily because I enjoy having this speech hosted, but because isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence.
As I said in my other comment, when the disenfranchised can't speak, they get violent. If you disagree with these people, say that to them. Cutting them off from the mainstream public squares like Twitter and Facebook just creates a new generation of radicals.
Silicon Valley used to stand for freedom of speech for a reason.
Can you provide references that back up this claim?
Bear in mind that the deplatforming began after January 6th of this year, so any escalating violence which may have occurred on or before that point is not evidence of your claim. And after the events of the 6th I imagine it’d be difficult to compose a compelling argument that not deplatforming prevents violence.
In any case, the only news on the topic that I’ve seen has been that election misinformation on Facebook/Twitter has dropped by 70% since the deplatforming happened on those platforms. That isn’t directly about violence, but presumably will result in less alt-right radicalisation, since their ability to reach new people is reduced. Though obviously it’s much too early to have a good understanding of the long-term impact of actions like this.
Which is why I’m so curious about how you’re making statements like this as if they’re plain facts. I’m super interested to see any references you can provide!
One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online.
Of course we all know about The Streisand effect, and one article suggests that censorship just draws more attention to the banned content. If we assume that ideas are somehow "contagious" or "infectious" then we're just exposing people to them even more.
> In any case, the only news on the topic that I’ve seen has been that election misinformation on Facebook/Twitter has dropped by 70% since the deplatforming happened on those platforms.
But the deplatforming didn't make those people go away, it pushed them to platforms like Gab and Parler, right-wing echo chambers. This is like an extreme version of a filter bubble. Remember, millions of people supported what happened at the capitol, and there is zero hope of de-radicalising people if the left and right aren't talking. If anything, both sides will get more extreme.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Twitter (see references)
You should re-read it. It offers that as a possibility, with terms like "may" and "could have". It does not conclude it did happen; it notes that some users migrated, but that's not at all surprising.
The hardcore folks are likely to always wind up somewhere, but driving them off Reddit likely makes it more difficult to recruit less initially strident users. As the study indicates, "the ban worked for Reddit".
It has the effect of preventing violent content from using adjacent nonviolent content (i.e. baby and pet pictures, nonviolent political advocacy) on the mainstream platforms as a kind of "human shield".
Of course, this is a disappointment for anyone who finds the normalization of violence-provoking content desirable.
The problem is that there already exist plenty of forums on the internet for non mainstream but non violent speech. The only speech seeking a home is the violent speech.
That doesn't seem to be working in a post-truth world. Not sure what the solution is, but this isn't nearly enough.
When the white nationalists did not have a platform, was the escalation higher or lower than it is now? Granting them platforms seems like the issue that started the escalation to me.
What I've seen is basically some screenshots of some bad posts, which doesn't tell me anything about what was really going on in a very large and complex system.
Filing: Amazon warned Parler for months about “more than 100” violent threats
[...] Amazon provided "more than 100 additional representative pieces of content" advocating violence on Parler over the following seven weeks, the company said. Another document in the filing (PDF, also with content warning for racial slurs and threats of violence) lays out dozens of examples of posts Amazon reported to Parler, beginning in mid-December. Those posts call for, among other things: killing a specific transgender person; actively wishing for a race war and the murder of Black and Jewish people; and killing several activists and politicians such as Stacey Abrams, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and former President Barack Obama.
Exhibit D (contains racial slurs, etc):
Come back to me when AWS drops Twitter's new contract. Then we'll talk about whether or not Twitter has any moderation. We'll discuss whether Twitter is designed specifically to facilitate child trafficking. And every other formulation of this narrative.
The issue is not that someone somwhere posted something bad and Parler merely failed to notice. The issue Amazon claims is that Parler had not done even bare minimum - taking down few dozens of posts that Amazon told them about.
I saw a violent insurrection against the US government unfold on live TV, incited by Trump himself, with the goal of overthrowing the results of a fair election, armed sedition justified by disproven lies, which was planned and promoted and published in real time on Parler.
I also saw a map of the GPS data from Parler users who posted live videos and photos of themselves storming the US Capitol and murdering a police officer and attempting to murder Vice President Pence and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
So yeah, there's a lot more evidence than screen snapshots that you're conspicuously ignoring.
Parler Users Breached Deep Inside U.S. Capitol Building, GPS Data Shows
I have no doubt that some Parler users went into the White House. I haven't seen any evidence that Parler had no moderation. I haven't seen any evidence that Parler was any different than Facebook or Twitter with regard to users planning illegal/violent acts, making violent comments, etc.
From a practical standpoint, your opinion (and mine for that matter, which I haven't expressed for this reason) is irrelevant.
As such, it seems to me that all we can really say is that the judge's refusal to grant the TRO (given the tests applied in deciding such things) while not dismissing the case outright, isn't a positive development for Parler.
Further, the judge's ruling appears to have questioned the legal basis for Parler's claims. That doesn't bode well for them either.
All that said, claiming that one side or the other is factually correct without having all the evidence seems both biased and premature.
I'll wait until the truth comes out. Because in the end, it always does.
There's plenty of reason to be skeptical about lots of things. There's plenty of reasons to dislike mainstream social media companies and the large companies that do business with them. But not everything is a conspiracy.
spoken as if there is just one cloud hosting provider in the world; it's parlers job to take care of their own security and resilience
Let's say I call Jim's taxi every day, I am his client, and one day Jim refuses to serve me, can I sue him or should I just call another taxi?
Parler wasn't dropped for making Amazon look bad. Parler was dropped for repeatedly failing to address blatant terms of service violations.
AWS still hosts the National Enquirer, the magazine that literally tried to blackmail Jeff Bezos. AWS is hardly in the habit of removing sites that make them look bad.
Parler has gained a reputation for being some sort of free-speech platform, but it was anything but. They had heavy-handed moderation that routinely banned people and removed content for not agreeing with the popular sentiment. They made a deliberate choice to continue to leave explicit calls to violence on their website, and they were removed from AWS for it.
Twitter doesn't have perfect execution of their moderation across all of their tweets, obviously, but they are at least making a good faith effort to remove content that has explicit calls to violence.
EDIT: to add, this is just his take. There is obviously 2-sides to the story, so hard to know the full truth here.
And I wouldn't expect them to do so! They're a tech rep, not a legal rep.
Facebook and Twitter don't own their data centers. If the DCs responded to the same pressure about hosting illegal content, the social media giants would disappear too.
Edit: the downvotes and rate limits are about to push me away from HN for good. This is ridiculous.
My platform is anti-fascism. I'm tired of people on both sides trying to shut down the other side.
Facebook certainly owns quite a few.
They lease some, but some are definitely custom built just for them:
Not true, they do have own data centers.
Imagine if the power company, that provides the electricity for those data centers decided to stop working with them, tommorow.
Surely, you could recognize the issues with doing this? (Lets ignore common carrier laws for a moment, because it is not relevant to the main thrust of the argument, which is that this would be bad)
Which further underscores the perils of architecture built around a central point of failure once more, so far from what I've heard about Parler makes me think it was a den of mainly boomer aged crack-pot Qanon and Trump supporters.
In a way its a lot like 8chan, which also got censored after the last racist shooting, Hotwheels outright condemned this and went on record from the Philippines where he lives now and said he wished he didn't create the thing as the worst things he could ever imagined came out of there in masse, but he had no choice as a person living the US with a disability and no access to medical care and limited employment opportunities.
With that said, I'm indifferent to Qanon BS, and the latest storming of the Capitol underscores how pervasive the cancer that is social media is in deteriorating the social fabric in the US for so many (mainly disenfranchised, and poorly educated people) which makes me want to blame you FAANG types even more. I'm sure Russia and China have a hand in all of this, but that is to be expected after how the US intelligence agencies have weaponized every technology for nearly the entire last century around the World.
But in the end, people have agency and the choice to not use your algo optimized survielence based apps/platforms and fall trap to these abysmal outcomes. And the truth is so many of you people default to the 'If I didn't do it, someone else would' rationalization.
And as I've come to learn in my time in tech, especially in my (limited) time in Silicon Valley, many of you are immigrants on employer sponsored Visas or 1st generation migrants with family back home who need the money to survive, so I can't hate you as a person if that's your situation. I just want to clarify that I hate the system you operate with a passion because it lures you in with the delusion of prestige tied with bloated salaries for focusing your attention on the most pointless, and in modern times clearly dangerous, use of your collective talents and skills at these places when we have so many more real problems to solve.
What I can say is I just sincerely wish you do something worth redeeming you as a Human being as a side project.
Yes. Abuse and copyright violation doesn't get a pass, so why should extremism?
You take calculated risks in these industries when you're using a service provider. Depends on your goals. Sucks to suck.
Either way, without knowing the full picture from both sides (like a court case going through discovering to fully put out the communciations between Amazon and Parler), we don't know the answer. We see that Amazon canceled Parler with little external communication. And we see what Parler is saying. Amazon could share what they communicated with Parler (assuming they legally can), then we could see another side to this story.
It would be nice for this court case to go through discovery, then we'll know who said what and when. But until then, we have very imperfect data and have to weigh it as best we can.
“In mid-November 2020, AWS received reports that Parler was hosting content threatening violence, in breach of the agreement. Executive 2 Decl. ¶ 4. On November 17, 2020, seeking to better understand Parler’s approach to content moderation, AWS provided Parler two representative examples, asked whether “this type of content ... violate[s] [Parler’s] policies,” and asked for “more detailed information on [Parler’s] policies and processes for handling and mitigating” such content. Id. & Ex. D. Two days later, Parler responded that it had referred one of the examples to its “regular contact for investigation.” Id. Ex. D.
Over the next seven weeks, AWS reported more than 100 additional representative pieces of content advocating violence to Parler’s Chief Policy Officer, including...”
And some emails, from the Exhibits:
As well, these are just responses, not actually discovery. I'd be interested exact timelines of things and how emails played out within Parler and within Amazon. Amazon's response is just their take on it trying to justify their own actions.
Amazon bring up some examples of posts that concern them. Parler say they will look at the post that constitute actual threats but have a policy of not removing content like the post that's just a long, content free screed of racial abuse. That alone can easily be considered violation of Amazon's conveniently broad AUP.
Amazon appear not to have chosen to terminate or threaten to at the time, presumably on the basis they were getting plenty of money and relatively little grief for hosting them, but it puts a very different perspective on the idea that Parler was caught completely by surprise, and would have cleaned up everything they could if only they'd had more time and resources.
> The first example, as hateful as it is, would not be deemed a violation of our terms of service. Following Nadine Strossen (New York Law School, ACLU), Parler does not ban "hate speech" insofar as it would be protected by the First Amendment.
By the time of the filing, Parler realized this was mistaken on both counts. As noted in the judge’s denial:
> “Parler is not asserting a violation of any First Amendment rights, which exist only against a governmental entity, and not against a private company like AWS. And indeed, Parler has not disputed that at least some of the abusive and violent posts that gave rise to the issues in this case violate AWS’s Acceptable Use Policy.”
Just to underline that first sentence, for end users on Parler, or Twitter, or AWS, “First Amendment rights” are not a thing.
And keeping National Enquirer doesn't make Amazon "look bad"... you are mixing issues here. National Enquirer itself may not be pro-Amazon, but they'd be that way whereever they are hosted. Their existence on AWS, though, does not impact Amazon one way or the other, because even those who dislike what they publish, aren't generally claiming they should be denied hosting.
It's a big club, and you ain't in it.
This is like saying that society wasn't ok with Trump when almost half voted for him.
Trying to rewrite history because there's a Ideological and political control of tech companies doesn't mean you're right.
The same goes for law. Just because something is legal or you don't win a case, it doesn't mean it's right or fair.
In my experience, rabid attitudes come up whenever you don't toe conventional lines regarding the good Vs the bad American parties.
You're not allowed to an opinion that's not the right one.
It's that the subjects of multiple anti-trust probes and companies known for on the down colluding in the past happened to be the ones pulling the plug.
You can argue it was "everyone" having a problem with it, but keep in mind that the Valley is not "everyone". That's the funny thing about conspiracies. Everyone whose in on it flatly denies it, even when it is obvious.
Not saying there was one mind. Just pointing out that assuming "management in the Valley" who have go/no-go on firing customers equates to "everyone" not being okay with it. It does not build confidence to many when unilateral decisions by execs shape the landscape for everyone else. Also yes, some of that population who aren't okay with that likely buy in to more conspirarial thought as well. Doesn't change the facts of the matter.
No conspiracy is needed. Same thing happens in neighborhoods - assholes tend to get a reputation as "the asshole neighbor" pretty rapidly. There doesn't have to be a neighborhood meeting to decide this; it just happens.
Iirc it was dropped from the two app stores about 12h apart.
Isn't that mainly due to their amount of revenue? Are newer services supposed to be shut down because they can't(yet?) compete with Twitter on budget for moderation?
I mean, moderation or no moderation, your overall costs are going to roughly correlate with your number of users. If you can't come up with some kind of revenue stream -- be it subscriptions, advertising, or donations -- your site is going to be a money pit.
Besides, depending on what kind of site you're operating, moderation can sometimes be managed by volunteers. Some high profile sites like 4chan make that work pretty well. But it depends on having dedicated volunteers who can agree to enforce rules, which isn't always easy.
Then you stop chasing growth at all costs or you go under/lose business partnerships/etc. Sounds like the free market to me - I don't get the idea that a business is entitled to existence no matter what, whether or not it can afford to pay labour (or even get enough volunteers) to do its work.
Then you're fucked, because you overextended past your available resources, and you crash and burn.
Hollywood, Silicon Valley, academia, and the news media all lean left. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to do anything in these areas that might counter their preferences.
I think all this soft power actually hurts the left in America, because our country's default state is a bit of an echo-chamber. It's possible to go to university, watch movies, read the news everyday, and have no idea what the other half of the country is thinking or saying.
The Senate and electoral college favor them massively. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to change any laws that might counter their preferences.
Your objection really seems to be engagement in culture wars.
Did you accidently respond to the wrong comment?
What the person said was that a chemical manufacturing company should not be "biting their nails" over some random Marijuana decrimininalization speech, that a random candidate is making.
Turns out being `apolitical` is kind of a myth.
If Valve bans me from Steam for my language is that also violation of my free speech or is it their right to protect their platform?
You do realize both ABC and CNN literally went live and said they won't air his speech, right?
Why? That's a serious question.
The reason liability protections exist for information services is because information services can't exist without them. It's not possible for an information service provider to be strictly liable for what their users post while having anything like a reasonable quality of service or cost. Think 10 hour moderation queues to post on Instagram, which costs $15/month, and requires using your driver's license or other photo ID to sign up so they can forward libel suits to you.
Requiring strict liability on the part of information service providers will likely drastically reduce the amount of free speech. Because they're going to aggressively take down/reject anything that has the slightest possibility of them getting sued. They won't suddenly morph into the town square because an unmoderated Internet town square is a filthy, ugly place that repels users and advertisers and hurts the bottom line.
I would propose that moderation decisions be logged and reviewable on demand (at the plantiff's cost) in front of a reputable arbitrator of the platform's choice.
What part of Section 230 do you think had any bearing on the issue being discussed?
That makes no sense, since the entire, explicit purpose of Section 230 was to free platforms from preexisting disincentives si that they could be free to “restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” without incurring liability that would otherwise attend such editorial control.
You are literally suggesting that the price of Section 230 protection ought to be not doing the things to which Section 230 protection applies in the first place.
Also, I think it's wrong, in any cases, to think of Section 230 as a special grant of liability protection, any more than the preexisting different liability of distributors from that of publishers is a special grant. It's a recognition that online media enables models that would not be practical with the media for which the traditional liability roles for content developed, and that venues for content which wasn't pre-screened in detail but over which largely reactive editorial control was exercised was all of technically and economically practical on the internet, inconsistent with the premises of the classic publisher vs. distributor liability analysis, and already, at the time the Act was considered, starting to be stifled by application of the traditional publisher vs. distributor rules. We don't force bookstores to be neutral platforms to be free of publisher liability, because we recognize that bookstores aren't naturally going to be pre-screening content at the detailed level print publishers will, and it doesn't make sense to stifle them by forcing them to. 230 is the same idea, just for a business activity that didn't exist when the common law of liability was evolving.
Plenty of conservatives left on Twitter.
Second, the other is accountable to the same laws as anyone else.
Are they, though?
> the other is largely unaccountable
No the market will hold them to account.
If voting in this country wasn't suppressed at the local level by Republican state governments, the federal government would look very different. It would be much more diverse and representative of real Americans, not just white male Americans.
1992,Bill Clinton,44909806,George H. W. Bush,39104550
1996,Bill Clinton,47401185,Bob Dole,39197469
2000,Al Gore,50999897,George W. Bush,50456002
2004,John Kerry,59028444,George W. Bush,62040610
2008,Barack Obama,69498516,John McCain,59948323
2012,Barack Obama,65915795,Mitt Romney,60933504
2016,Hillary Clinton,65853514,Donald Trump,62984828
2020,Joe Biden,81268867,Donald Trump,74216747
This is all pointless anyway for a union of states. Germany is underpowered compared to Luxembourg in the EU by design -- the same is true in the US. Should California ever go back to being conservative, as it was until Clinton, it will disadvantage Republicans just the same.
I think we're operating on different definitions of "favored". The definition I'm using (and which most of the English-speaking world uses) is "have a fundamental advantage". He won the electoral college narrowly. He won the popular vote handsomely. That's a sign of a thumb on the scale in a pretty fundamental way.
He didn't though. He won 57% of the electoral vote and 51% of the popular vote.
"Favor" only matters to extent it helps a candidate get over 270 EV.
The electoral college was decided by about 40k votes this time, and about 80k votes last time. The popular vote margin was in the millions. That should tell you something about how far the EC is from reality.
The 50 senators who represent semi-conservative states represent the same number of states as the 50 who represent more liberal states.
I'm aware of that. And that structure favors one side more than another. This is not a controversial statement - the numbers (y'know, facts and logic) back that up.
States are lines on a map. In the current setup they have more influence than the actual people living in those states. Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some views?
Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic.
Dollars are just numbers in a database. Will you give me all your money? Or is it only certain "made-up" things that are important to you?
> Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some views?
Yes, and straight up popular vote leads to the same thing. That's why we have a system that is a combination of popular vote and state vote.
* The People are represented by the House.
* The States are represented by the Senate.
* Both are represented by the President.
Seems like a well-balanced system to me.
Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state?
What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the people it governs? Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented?
Moreover, if this was really and actually true, why was the 17th Amendment passed? Why aren't senators still chosen by state legislatures, or nominated by governors and confirmed by legislatures? Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance?
> Seems like a well-balanced system to me.
Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.
The United States is a union of states. The people have representation at the federal level, and the state level.
> Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented?
No. The people of the state are the state, not the government of the state. Again, the state gets representation because we are a union of states. And local governments get representation at the state level. There are many concerns of a people, and we have people representing those concerns at different levels of government, from local to state to federal. Otherwise we could just have a single person represent everyone.
> Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance?
The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC). The EC is the House + Senate. So no, it's not an imbalance.
> Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.
I don't have a side. I vote for policies that I agree with, which has changed over time. Party support of certain issues has changed over time as well.
I am pretty tired, however, of people crying about foundational aspects of my country because they lost an election. I think the increasing concentration of power in the federal government is a bad idea.
It's more a genuine concern that continuing on this path will result in a federal government whose policies don't reflect the views of the vast majority of the nation. You can already see this on issues such as cannabis.
> The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the EC adequately represents the people, since it takes the Senate numbers into account.
Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.
As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?
If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.
It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.
* electoral districts are represented by the House 
* states are represented by the Senate
* who represents the people as a whole (if anyone) ?
* who or what does the President represent?
So that you can understand how your contribution is being consumed by others: when I came to that sentence fragment I stopped reading and down-voted your post. The remainder of your contribution might have been insightful... but I'll never know.
The state level representation of the senate is very arbitrary
We can do that all day to no real effect.
The electoral college does not matter. They go the way their states go as was made quite clear in the last election.
EDIT: Of course it matters how the voting system was designed. The EC votes the way their State votes.
The forefathers intended for states to have some say in the matter. We are a representative democracy. That is how the system was designed.
You are arguing that the Democrats cheated more than the Republicans, or "better". Do you have any evidence of this? This needs to be evidence from the past election, not Chicago in 1962 or something.
> I cannot possibly prove any of this to you.
So why bother saying it?
You have no evidence that USPS function "favored" Democrats.
You are perpetuating the lies that have been told by the former president and his supporters for the last 2+ months.
This is false, and the core of the criticism of the EC. Each state gets 2 votes independent of its population, which is biased toward small population states, and for over a century the definition of states was constrained by a compromise to protect slavery.
The same approach (all states having two senators) biases the Senate in favor of low population states.
This appears to have been intentional on the part of the founders, but that doesn't make it right.
[ EDIT: s/two/three/ ]
So big states couldn't bully around small ones.
How is that not "bullying"?
How does that play any role in an actual democratic nation, as opposed to some pre-Lincoln concept of the US a series of independent states merely "unioned"? The answer is obvious: it doesn't.
39,510,000/55 = 718363.636364
In addition, there's 0 reason for the house to be as malapportioned as it is. 435 house members isn't written in the constitution.
Third, the entire concept of smaller states having an outsized voice in the federal government comes from the slave owners from the South in 1789. There's no rational basis for it any longer.
People like to pretend the founders were deities and the constitution is handed down from god. But they weren't and it wasn't. A lot of their ideas were really stupid. I mean JFC, we couldn't even get through 3 elections before they had to redo it.
Vermont has a lot more in common these days with California than it does North Dakota. The EC and Senate are outmoded relics from a stupider time that should be abolished.
No. It had to do with Connecticut, New Jersey and other small population states who wouldn't have ratified the Constitution unless there was state representation (as we have in the Senate) to balance out the representation by population (cf. The Connecticut Compromise).
The southern states had (or expected to have) large populations, and as such, wanted representation by population.
History and facts matter.
The Southern States were underrepresented in the Senate compared to the House by the initial apportionment in the Constitution, represented at very close to the same ratio in each House in the apportionment for the 1790 Census (largely reflecting that they had been overrepresented relative to population, in the House, in the Constitutional apportionment), and substantially overrepresented in the Senate compared to the House after the 1800 Census.
They were well aware of the imminent demographic trends and acted accordingly.
> History and facts matter.
Indeed they do, but the history and facts aren't on the side of “the Southern States had large initial and expected future populations as counted for apportionment in the House and, so by-State representation in the Senate was contrary to, rather than designed to serve, their regional interest.”
That's orthogonal to the concerns of small population states, in 1787, when the Connecticut Compromise was adopted.
What's more, the results of 1790 and 1800 Censuses didn't impact support or opposition to that compromise, as they hadn't been performed yet.
>by-State representation in the Senate was contrary to, rather than designed to serve, their regional interest.”
Which is the flip-side of the coin to what I said.
The key term is "now". After getting about 40m more votes. Be honest. Is that balanced?
To say the Republicans have any kind of advantage right now except for maybe the courts is incorrect.
As another user said: "The Senate is split 50-50, but the 50 Democrats represent 41 million more people than the 50 Republicans"
You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.
The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.
And the argument is that this democracy isn't sufficiently "representative", since it doesn't represent everyone equally. Indeed that's an explicit non-goal.
> You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.
But you can agree that the rules of the game are rigged against one side. You don't get to deny that just because you're winning.
There are many other representative democracies that do not have any of these "features".
Also, I thought a reply ago, you stated that the left was winning, not losing.
This has nothing to do with Orwell. Im not sure why you bring him up.
The forefathers designed the system this way. I agree with the way it was designed. It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.
I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.
Because saying "it's a representative democracy" is doublespeak. If you have one person representing tens of millions and another person representing a small city (~150k people), and they have the same vote, it's not meaningfully "representative". Saying "it's a representative democracy" doesn't tell you anything about the fairness of the system.
> I agree with the way it was designed.
Because it favors you. It would be a bad system even if it was the other way around (i.e. it favored the other side).
> It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.
I'm still to hear a good argument for why it's better for small states to call shots instead.
> I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.
I'm fine with that. They were as fallible as anyone else and could not have foreseen that their system might have flaws. There's no need to deify them and think that everything they did was right.
Similar logic applies to the Senate: regardless of population every state gets two senators. Right-wing senators have received fewer actual votes (by individual voters) than left-wing senators for years, yet in that time right-wing control of the senate has been more common than left-wing control. Right now the split in the Senate is 50-50 (Vice President, a Democrat, breaks the tie) but the total number of votes cast for Democratic senators was much higher than the number cast for Republicans.
You literally have to deny reality when you deny that the electoral college and the senate represent a structural advantage for Republicans right now.
Reality is we are representative democracy. The forefathers deliberately designed it that way.
Reality must line up with your arguments. It does not.
If what you say is true, Trump would most likely be president right now.
Dems own entire cities with the largest population centers. Dems have better organized grassroots. Dems have California and New York, the main stream media.
What advantages you speak of are moot compared to those ones.
We are a representative democracy and we always have been.
The EC was more than a compromise, it was an integral part of a system that prevents too much power being handed to any one institution or demographic. And forcing national candidates to appeal to a multitude of states rather than a handful of cities has a moderating effect.
If anything, what's outdated about the EC is we need more checks on the political influence that is centralized in cities because the founders didn't anticipate urbanization.
I believe it is because to be break out successful in any medium that demands an array of skill you must not discriminate against people: The company must not have or create a forum for a culture of exclusion.
That is to say, it should not matter if a person is gay if they are skilled in acting, coding or teaching. They are welcomed for their talent.
However, these “right leaning” groups typically are at best on the back foot of accepting the reality of diversity. And are often financially backed by people who seek to make laws that restrict the freedom of others to protect some existing homogeneous power structure.
So lack of traction in these industries is because you can’t constrict the talent pool to fit a narrow idea of what a completely equally protected human is and expect to get enough talent to be very successful.
This 2004 article includes discussion of the benefits of acceptance: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/02/26/the-case-for-ga...
Silicon Valley is right-wing on economics and defense of monopoly, and left when you talk about race and gender equity in the board room.
You can see echoes of this on HN where many people support restrictions of speech if they come from a private platform ("laissez-faire" approach to private property), but still call for a shut down of hate speech and a correction of "misinformation".
The Democrats' cultural mores center around postmodernist principles of "language makes reality" "there are power imbalances" "the power imbalances intersect around race and gender" and finally "correcting how we talk about these topics will help the marginalized." ... But, we're reminded, Twitter and AWS and Facebook are private property, and you should read and follow the TOS ("laissez-faire").
actual bonafide leftists have very little real political power in ths u.s afaik...
Hollywood (the industry funded by the US Military to put pro-military-industrial-state advertisements into movies) is not "left leaning" in any meaningful way. "News Media" all lean either slight-right (MSNBC, NPR) to hard-right (Fox News, NYT, WSJ). Silicon Valley is primarily driven by right-leaning "libertarian" conservative types (at both big corps and small startups). Democrats are largely all conservative (in that, Democrats of 2021 mostly all hold identical views to what Republicans used to hold in the year 1998)
We do have a few centrist politicians and groups (Bernie Sanders / AOC+Squad, etc), and a few centrist movements (rights for LGBTQ+, or "Defund the Police", for example, is largely politically-centrist initiatives).
But I'm not aware of even a single left-leaning politician in any federal elected office. For example, no elected federal politician is advocating for the nationalization of all private corporations, or elimination of all for-profit entities, or for a complete cap on individual wealth, or for giving Hawaii back to the aboriginal Hawaiians, or anything like that, that could be considered a full-left position. (But meanwhile, on the right, there is a meaningful ultra-far-right political movement arguing that we should ignore replace democratically-elected officials with dicatorships, for example. And that group has elected members sitting in the House + Senate today)
so, given this, that NPR is right-leaning, and bernie/AOC are 'centrist', am I correct in your assessment that basically just about only bolshevism counts as 'left'?
> NPR is right-leaning
> bernie/AOC are 'centrist'
Yes. Though I would describe Sanders as left-of-centre (apart from her stance on the environment, Ocasio-Cortez is quite the centrist).
> am I correct in your assessment that basically just about only bolshevism counts as 'left'?
No. There is an entire range of actual leftist politics and economics that Americans tend to utterly refuse to engage with in good faith - the Cold War really did a number on that country's collective sense of a political spectrum. Left/right are instead essentially reduced to only being about social issues like abortion or LGBTQ rights, with some lip service paid to the environment.
"Imperialist capitalism, but make the marginal tax rate somewhat higher and appoint more minorities" is not leftism.
Geopolitically speaking, opposition to colonialism and imperialism (and their neo- variants) are generally considered to be leftist ideals. Internationalism skews left and globalism skews right, despite American conservatives' pearl-clutching in that regard. Decentralisation of power (with the extreme including advocating for anarchic/acephalous societies) also skews heavily left, with the flaw that without strong systems this often leads to the re-centralisation of power in the hands of one or a few (conversely, hierarchism which skews heavily right often leads to codification of power in de facto aristocracies).
Economically, capitalism is unambiguously a right-wing economic theory (note that capitalism is not the same think as markets - another thing that people would rather remain cheerfully ignorant about). If your politico-economic system involves capitalism, you'd be very hard pressed to describe it as anything further left than centrist at best (as most mixed economies are). Actual leftist economics would include the somewhat vague blob that is left-libertarianism, encompassing everything from Georgism (often criticised as capitalism lite) to syndicalism, mutualism, anarcho-collectivism and the (of particular interest to me) various schools of African socialism. Opposition to capital/private ownership/wage theft takes many forms, not only that of the communist bogeyman.
Why do people want to think of themselves/be thought of as being on the left so badly when they're completely unwilling to actually engage with what leftism means?
Yeah, no. If someone is going to call AOC or Bernie Sanders as "centrists", then I am going to need you to point to an actual, real life example of a true "leftist" government to understand wtf you are talking about.
Examples are needed so you can't make a bunch of stuff up, and wash you hands with the actual, real life examples of how your "ideals" turned out in real life.
> unwilling to actually engage with what leftism means
Hey, I did try to give examples of actual leftist governments, so we can evaluate how those real life, not made up in your head, examples actually turned out.
When talking about this stuff, the only actual thing that I will except is real life examples of your ideal government. Because, if I don't do that, then leftists will just make a bunch of stuff up, that is not grounded in reality.
Unfortunately the gap in what a leftist will claim that they want, and how they claim things will turn out is miles and miles away different from how actual leftist governments attempt to implement their ideals.
It doesn't make claiming that I'm making stuff up when I'm referring to actual, much-written-about schools of thought that have been critiqued and analysed by people all over the spectrum any less intellectually barren. Reading is free, and many of the works in question are in the public domain.
> and wash you hands with the actual, real life examples of how your "ideals" turned out in real life.
As if you don't?
All your boogeymen (boogeymen that I'm willing to wager have never actually had an effect on your life) are communists. All _my_ boogeymen are capitalists, to this very moment: the UK, France, the Western world in general, first with literal colonisation and currently with a decades-long trail of neocolonialism and outsourcing the cruelty and inequity needed to sustain their economic systems to the parts of the world nobody really cares about. It's incredibly telling which of the atrocities of the 20th century get dragged out all the time and which get swept under the rug.
> When talking about this stuff, the only actual thing that I will except is real life examples of your ideal government. Because, if I don't do that, then leftists will just make a bunch of stuff up, that is not grounded in reality.
You know the funny thing about this? My proto-ideal society (cannot really be described or named as a government, because it was acephalous communalism) did exist, and fragments of it still remain. But then the British came.
And that's essentially the story of the late 19th and the 20th century - nascent right-wing politics and economics running roughshod over nascent leftism, particularly violently so. First with a new wave of colonisation in Africa and Asia to fuel the growth of imperialist capitalism, squashing and integrating various societies that traditionally leant left along the way. And a few decades later with the fascism that swept Western Europe (the quote that free speech advocates like to bring up does not start out with "first they came for the socialists/trade unionists" apropos of nothing). The leftist movements that survived were the ones that were big enough and violent enough to resist destruction, and like I have already said without strong systems such movements were doomed to turn totalitarian. Much like right-wing economics was doomed to turn into this current mess of cronyism, de facto oligarchy, and murder for profit.
But, again, understanding that would require engaging in good faith and recognising that there are multiple factors that influence this topic, which you seem somewhat loath to do.
> If your stance is that leftism is evil
You are hyper focused on that one word that I used, when that wasn't really my main point. If you don't like that word, then how about I'll rephase. So how about this: "You did not provide any examples of a major leftist government that did not go horrible wrong, and have lots of problems."
> I'm making stuff up
By "making stuff up", I was saying that you were not referencing actual examples that I can look at, that exist in the real world, and are instead talking about hypotheticals that do not reflect how those hypotheticals exist in the real world.
> to this very moment: the UK, France, the Western world in general
And I am going to say that I would much rather live in any of these countries, than any real life examples of leftist governments.
Based on that, and based on comparing real world examples, I am going to say that I would deal with less problems by living in a western country.
> My proto-ideal society did exist, and fragments of it still remain. But then the British came.
Sounds like your ideal society didn't work out so great then and has a lot of horrible problems. If all the leftist governments implode because they can't defend themselves, then it sounds like that is a pretty big problem, and I would never want to live in such a society.
> Much like right-wing economics was doomed
Well at least it is a lot better to live in than the alternative leftist governments! I would still much prefer living in the right wing economies than in any of the leftist ones.
No one advocates a monarchy either, but that doesn't mean no one is "right-leaning".
The reality of the US is: 33.7% of Americans didn't even vote in 2020, 34% voted "left", 31% voted "right" (the rest of the votes went to third party candidates). Those who voted on the right are further subdivided into even smaller groups. One of those smaller groups on the political right side includes extremists who attacked the capitol.
Distaste for Parler, due to the actions of some of those extremists who were using it actually crossed political boundaries: folks who didn't vote, folks on the "left" and even folks on the "right". The shunning of Parler isn't about "soft power" on the left its about the fact that a small group of people managed to do something so reprehensible that a LOT more than just 50% of people felt that association with them was tainting.
This is not technically true. (1) politics is a spectrum (2) the US is generally left leaning as a whole, but the largest demographic designation of people in the US is generally considered moderate.
> This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to do anything in these areas that might counter their preferences.
The population of the US leans left - those outlets are simply a reflection of that. It's absurd to think that all of these elite people who run those companies get together and conspire to keep left ideas alive. If you know anything about the Democratic party you would know they are horrible at creating a coordinated strategy. To think that same party is somehow regurgitating a coordinated theme through commercial means while at the same time having an uncoordinated government strategy is absurd.
> It's possible to go to university, watch movies, read the news everyday, and have no idea what the other half of the country is thinking or saying.
I agree with this but not for your aforementioned reasons. Those echo-chambers exist because communication is no longer at the town square but on social media and messaging apps.
I don't think American news media or academia or Silicon Valley skews left. It skews ... urban and educated? Silicon Valley seems libertarian-ish, news and media seems like they do in every other country. From here it doesn't even look like the US has organised, left-wing political actors.
Silicon Valley is a monument to capitalism and most if not all entrepreneurs lean libertarian.
As for the news media, as an example, Fox News has the highest viewership in the US. And for the others, ever thought about why you're not seeing a lot of coverage about unions/worker rights/worker strikes? Don't mistake anti-Trump rhetoric with 'left leaning'..
So I'm not sure we're you're getting your 'data' from.
But MSNBC viewers self-identify as Democrat at the rate of 95%, NYT as 91%, NPR at 87%, CNN at 79%.
You need to compare aggregate numbers if you're trying to be fair.
The source for the above is Pew Research Center, Sept 12, 2020, published in this Tweet: https://twitter.com/pewresearch/status/1304908656543178752
Saying 'all media is left leaning' is factually false.
> As for the news media, as an example, Fox News has the highest viewership in the US.
Yes one channel is different than every other, of course viewership is concentrated there -- all the lefty viewers are spread out over the remaining channels.
If the other news channels aren't "left-wing" then Fox isn't "right-wing", and everything is meaningless. There isn't a large population of commies or nazis in the US, despite what the media would have you believe. Both parties are pretty near the center, with some individual outliers.
That being said, they did not have the engineering expertise to even make a resilient stack on top of AWS. If you're running a free trial version of Okta to secure your assets in production , all of what you're proposing is a distant dream.
If your company gets put on an terrorist list, you'll be removed from US services very quickly.
Gab after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting?
The only way forward in my view is to actually change laws. Anything short of that, is a fool's errand. All this is already settled law and has been litigated previously multiple times. You have to change the law in order to reclassify these entities if you want things to change.
What orgs like Parler keep doing right now is spitting into the wind.
It would have made sense if their belief system (ie, Trump and alt-right moving mountains to make them viable) were in place. Clearly that wasn't the case and they will be a footnote in history.
> Parler wanted to be taken down so that they could fight this legal battle
What will we feel if Microsoft and Apple start deciding what kind of contents can be generated and saved in their operating systems? It feels like time is ripe for a cloud provider that simply provides a platform.
Im with everything your post says, but I’m not even fully convinced this is an issue.
Twitter can argue a good faith effort and point to millions of accounts and posts it has removed–from all political persuasions. It can also point to constant policy changes to address what Amazons policy sees as a very real problem.
parler on the other hand has had its ceo say quite clearly that they have zero intention as a company to even address this problem.
Don't know if sentiment analysis ML algorithms are powerful enough to do something like this, but there has to be some scientific consensus on the relative hateful content that each site allows right? Or at least some pretty graphs.
Twitter also hosts lots of content that's way better. Among the highly relevant, when it comes to AWS decision making, AWS evangelists like Jeff Barr and Andy Jassy use Twitter to communicate with customers. AWS itself has a Twitter account for status updates. There's just a ton of stuff on Twitter that is absolutely fine and would be collateral damage were Twitter shut down.
In the realm of taking down providers for copyright violations, the courts recognize a standard of "substantial non-infringing use" as a way to minimize that collateral damage. A provider like YouTube, which had a ton of both legal and illegal content prior to the Google acquisition, was allowed to stay up whereas a provider like Napster was shut down because they found it to be almost entirely copyright violation.
It seems like directly equating Twitter and Parler is a false equivalence. Twitter is a generic platform that some users use for problematic political discussion. Parler is a platform specifically targeted at problematic political discussion. You can't target the problematic stuff and expect the same protection as someone who casts a wider net.
The first trouble is that you are opening the doors to all sorts of extremists. Whether they're far left, far right or simply personally unhinged, they are as predatory as spammers. They have no qualms about abusing your good will and s**ing in the punch bowl.
Same thing happened with Gab and Minds, but also smaller bulletin boards I've seen over the years. You set up a free speech site, and next thing you have a bunch of Nazis festooning it with swastikas. They're just like spammers, except they're spamming ideology instead of work from home scams.
The second trouble is that Parler is a competitor to established media corporations, who have a strong incentive to shut them down. That's a reality that every new business needs to face: established firms do not want competition.
All the people running amok provide the established firms with plenty of ammo to tar the upstart's reputation. And while they are biased by their incentives, they feel they are acting justly because they see all the extremist lunatics there. AWS didn't fabricate those incidents on Parler, all those were real posts.
It doesn't make a lot of business sense to say, "we invite everyone in" and then plan on kicking out a lot of users.
There are loads of simpler reasons why lefties thought they were getting booted, especially incompetence on Parler's part.
AWS didn’t see Parler as competition, just a liability.
Nonsense. Parler was created to host content which Twitter blocked and users which Twitter banned. Not suggesting Twitter was in the clear here, but suggesting Twitter was worse is BS. Parler tolerated much worse content, and on average content on Parler was much more incendiary.
If it was the left being censored I would be outraged on their behalf as well.
Edit: Not if, when the left gets censored by big tech, I will stand for freedom of speech with them, but I don't think many conservatives will be left to stand with us.
What about the Summer violence from BLM? Dozens of people died, with Twitter being used as a communications hub to attack specific individuals.
One group is using violence to maintain their power, while the other is using anything they can to make their lives better.