Hindsight and all that. Parler has hosted content no worse than Twitter or Facebook or thousands of other sites. Their banning from AWS could not have been reasonably anticipated. It was an unprecedented act of censorship in response to an unprecedented moment in American history. The world will learn and AWS will likely loose a few customers though not enough to change its policies.
> Parler has hosted content no worse than Twitter or Facebook or thousands of other sites.
Nonsense.
Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook were moderating content. If Twitter and Facebook hadn't been moderating hate speech, Parler would not exist. Posting voices and content which is banned on Twitter and Facebook is the single unique "Feature" of Parler.
Over the months, Amazon has been in contact with Parler's management about moderating violent content and speech.
Facebook and Twitter have hosted content which incites violence and hate speech, but it's far less common and they make (often grudging and half assed) efforts to remove it. On Parler, it's accepted, arguably encouraged.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't some of the Parler violent content and speech that violated the TOS still on Twitter in the form of screenshots? Or have there been efforts by big tech to remove them too?
> Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook were moderating content.
> If Twitter and Facebook hadn't been moderating hate speech, Parler would not exist.
I don't think it's fair to claim Parler was created because Twitter and Facebook moderate hate speech. For example, the Hunter Biden story was actively suppressed on both Twitter and Facebook, essentially confirming long-held beliefs that social media platforms curate based on political ideology.
Twitter and Facebook both have done a horrible job moderating hate speech. Both in terms of over-moderating in some places and under-moderating in others.
But they actually moderate their content, and while there have been a few knee jerk reactions, they've mostly erred on the side of leaving things up rather than the reverse.
Parler has knowingly left threats of rape, murder, and torture on their site indefinitely. The contrast is stark here.
Only if you choose to think it's based on ideology. Fact is, 90% of the top links on FB are right-wing nonsense and conspiracy theories. Doesn't sound like curation to me.
For example, the Hunter Biden story was actively suppressed on both Twitter and Facebook, essentially confirming long-held beliefs that social media platforms curate based on political ideology.
I don’t think anyone can in good faith deny that if Don Trump Jr had allegedly done one-tenth of what Hunter Biden is accused of, the media would have it on 24/7 rotation.
Yes, because doing something and being accused of something don't meet the same bar of evidence.
Meanwhile, the Trump and children have been a Masterclass of nepotism and corruption. Let me know when one of Biden's children become an Aide to the President or put in charge of pandemic response, middle east peace, federal government reform, or the dozen other things Javanka was put in charge of despite being absolutely ignorant and unqualified in those topics.
Not gonna disagree too much because the nepotism bothered me too, but you absolutely cannot deny the progress Jared Kushner made in his role of coordinating ME peace agreements.
Yes you can. Kushner got some Arab states sharing no border with Israel to concede that Israelis are human beings in trade for sweetheart deals on arms. That's not peace, its token agreements backed by arms deals.
I think you are mis-informed here, or perhaps your definition of hate speech is different from mine. Parler was created because there was a perception that the moderation at Twitter was heavily slanted against conservatives. Many respectable people joined Parler, though, again perhaps we have different definitions of respectable. Parler has a moderation mechanism which is manual, not automatic as in Twitter, and like everybody else they ban hate speech, though perhaps not quite as fast.
What likely happened is that Amazon/Google/Apple did not want the risk of being accused as enablers if Trump managed to get on Parler and they decided to pre-preemptively cut Parler loose. Since in this day an age no one gets fired for canceling conservatives it was a winning move no matter what.
> I think you are mis-informed here, or perhaps your definition of hate speech is different from mine.
My issues with Parler are pretty much in line with what Amazon lays out in their court filing against Parler.
> "This case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services ('AWS') content that threatens the public safety," Amazon wrote, "such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
Maybe you think "inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination..." is an Ok sort of thing for public discourse. That kind of speech is banned here on HN, and as I suggested, nearly every other public discussion group.
> Parler has hosted content no worse than Twitter or Facebook or thousands of other sites.
I disagree. There were open calls for murder on the platform where Parler was notified by Apple, by Google, by Amazon - and nothing happened. Which is the key thing here.
Twitter and Facebook are extremely fast with the ban-hammer, in contrast.
> Twitter and Facebook are extremely fast with the ban-hammer, in contrast.
Twitter and Facebook have recently grudgingly picked up the ban hammer and use it, often too late or ineffectively. But yes, they will eventually act which is the big difference.
