Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The premise of Parler directly contravenes the AWS AUP, which demands that companies ensure their users comply with AWS's AUP and that companies kick users that don't. The whole point of Parler is to host Twitter users who violate Twitter's TOS, which is a cohort significantly comprised of people who are also violating AWS's TOS.

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.

Does anyone know how the AUP of Amazon and other services interacts with E2E encryption? For example, Signal uses AWS to host many of there servers, if Amazon discovers that people are using Signal to share unsightly content, can the demand that Signal kick those users off the platform? If Signal's processes and technology aren't capable of doing so, can AWS demand they change that?

I think the right mental model to have here is that AWS can boot any customer that becomes problematic for them, including Signal. It seems unlikely that you can skirt their AUP terms by constructing a service that makes it impossible for you to comply with their terms.

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.

I get it, companies do not legally have to provide these services to right-wing groups persecuted off of Twitter. I'm saying that it's _morally_ wrong to deplatform.

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.

> If you disagree with these people, say that to them

That doesn't seem to be working in a post-truth world. Not sure what the solution is, but this isn't nearly enough.

We live in a post truth world because of social media algorithms, which made that content successful. I think we need to heavily regulate those ASAP.

Government having the power to dictate which information should be spread more is not less of a problem...

> isolating and pushing out so called "deplorables" is escalating the current American political conflicts to serious violence.

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[1]. 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!

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinfo...

The deplatforming has been going on for years, since at least 2016 when Trump was elected in the first place. In Twitter's case[0] they went after smaller users (edgy "russian bots") until ~2018, when they really ramped things up. This even hit left wing (anti-establishment) activists[1].

One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online[2].

Of course we all know about The Streisand effect, and one article suggests that censorship just draws more attention to the banned content[3]. If we assume that ideas are somehow "contagious" or "infectious"[4] 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[5], 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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Twitter (see references)

[1]https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba...

[2]http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

[3] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://th...

[4]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00546-3

[5]https://www.statista.com/chart/23886/capitol-riot-approval/

> One of the conclusions of a recent purge by Reddit was that it just pushed the banned users into even more radical spaces online[2].

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".

Actually, there is a lot of weak evidence out there that de-platforming actually worked as intended. It did push some users to more radical spaces, but it also made it very difficult for weakly-interested users to be pushed into the space and become further radicalized. When 'the algorithm' can no longer suggest a slightly more radical version of the content you are currently viewing because that version has been de-platformed then it seems we start to see the norm drift back towards center rather than being pushed further to an extreme.

I think you're agreeing with me?

Yes, probably should have been a bit more clear about my point. It was not just Reddit and I think the evidence is a bit stronger than you hint at. The fundamental problem facing the 'free speech uber alles' crowd is that there is a growing body of evidence that shows how de-platforming works to limit and contain the most violent and toxic online actors.

> But the deplatforming didn't make those people go away, it pushed them to platforms like Gab and Parler, right-wing echo chambers

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.

This is spawning a lengthy subthread but because you asked me, just for the record, I don't care about the competing moral claims. I'm just interested in what the law says here. The moral stuff never seems to converge to any kind of real insight on HN, but the legal stuff has a right and a wrong answer that we can hope to reach by debating it.

It's also _morally_ wrong to plot violent insurrections and publish death threats, and if that's what you're doing, then "deplorable" is an apt description of you.

Is it platforming or deplatforming that is causing the escalation though?

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.

I think a big part of this is accepting Amazon's claims as fact, which I would not. For example, Amazon claims Parler was not moderating when in fact Parler had some pretty strict moderation enforcement. One could make an argument of whether or not it was successful "enough" and you'd have to compare it to other industry leaders like Facebook and Twitter which both have copious amounts of child pornography, calls for violence, etc.

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.

Parler had some pretty strict moderation enforcement against progressive views, just not against racism, death threats, and successfully planning violent insurrections against the government.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...

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):

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...

I addressed those claims in my last paragraph.

I saw a lot more than screenshots.

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.

https://gizmodo.com/parler-users-breached-deep-inside-u-s-ca...

Parler Users Breached Deep Inside U.S. Capitol Building, GPS Data Shows

Great. Now provide the same analysis for Twitter, Facebook, iMessage, etc. The livestreams I watched which were streamed from within the WhiteHouse during the event were all on Periscope (Twitter).

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.

You haven't earned the right or respect for me to bother proving anything to you, since you're obviously a troll arguing in bad faith. None of your replies to anyone even bothered to address the points they raised to counter your frivolous arguments. You're as non-sensical and delusional as any of Trump's supporters. The Gish Gallop doesn't work here. Give it up, buddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The issue there is not that those messages existed somewhere hidden on the platform. It is that Amazon found them and told about them to Parler. Parler refused or was unable to take them down.

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.

If by "addressed" you mean "mentioned and ignored", then yes.

Here is Twitter failing to protect a sex trafficked child despite multiple written requests. Twitter just signed a very big contract with AWS.

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/21/doe-v-twitter-twitter-fails...

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.

Nobody's going to "come back to you" because you're just trolling, not arguing in good faith, so nobody takes you seriously.

Whether or not your (that is Parler's) statements or Amazon's statements are correct are issues of fact to be adjudicated in the litigation.

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[0] 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.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

The document states that Parler agreed they had a massive backlog of reported content to review that "potentially promoted violence". Even Parler isn't making the claim here that they were doing a good job of moderating. They are arguing that it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it.

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.

> it was a breach of contract not to give them more time to fix it

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?

Not sure what you're getting at here. I wasn't supporting Parler's lawsuit. I'm simply responding to the parent comment that was claiming that Parler has good moderation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com