Ask HN: What are your thoughts on Parler ban by Big techs?

[striker_axel]

Media is saying the capitol siege was conspired on parler. Maybe they are right. But is it okay for corporations take step and ban the Parler app ( AWS is planning to terminate their hosting)? I mean such as decision should be taken by Court not corporates (like google, facebook and twitter ).

[ganoushoreilly]

The problem I see is it evolves from the free speech arguments (pro / against private companies being held to it) to one of concern about true utilities. I would argue AWS is more inline with a utility than social media ever was. The problem for consumers is that even if you look for alternatives, it's possible and highly probable that AWS is the backend hosting for third parties as well. This makes it very difficult to bypass a tool using their platform.

The issues get even dicier when you start talking about AWS or say cloudflare, blocking content. What happens when the block at the DNS level. Sure you can use other providers, but what happens when those providers, unbeknownst to you, integrate block lists from the aforementioned?

Yes people have a choice in products and can go else where, but when the products are so deeply intwined into the modern version of the internet, it becomes ever so more risky.

Everyone is onboard when its something they feel is morally right, but how long until it flips on them? It's not an if, but a when.

It's an extremely slippery slope we've been headed down for a long while.

[uniqueid]

I approve.

I've commented so much about this in the past I'll just say this: I think the conception of social media as lofty forums for society to wrestle with serious issues is horse crap. Either I'm some genius (I'm not), or what you see online is what you get: 99% garbage.

The way people discuss online censorship is like that scene from Star Wars 'I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.'

Facebook Twitter et al are just companies, and companies come and go. They are a source of amusement, to be sure, but, at their most serious, they spread more darkness than light. Sci-hub is more likely to contribute to a cure for cancer, or heart disease. If Instagram called it quits tomorrow, it would no more detriment the life of the average person than if a restaurant or a disco they liked went out of business.

In short: these social media websites, as designed, are just bad at, for lack of a better phrase, 'enlightenment stuff'. Millions of people use them (sure, someone pooped out a good physics paper on 4chan, even) but they mainly produce memes and self-promotional nonsense. Not worth ruining liberal democracy, and social harmony over.

[bra-ket]

Facebook, Twitter and Google are monopolies. They carry different weight than simply private corporations, and with great power comes great responsibility.

[nabla9]

Companies censoring Parler is completely OK, it's the closed monopolies they have created that is the problem.

If network effect information monopolies would not be allowed, then corporation censorship would not be a problem. These monopolies can be broken by mandatory federation and open API's. (EU legislation is moving towards that direction).

[striker_axel]

Thanks. This is what exactly i am pointing out.

[thinkingemote]

At what point does a platform stop being a platform? Should we expect that lower level internet non profit organisations to also support the bans on abhorrent content?

It feels to me as if that clear line is getting fuzzier recently.

[a3n]

Yeah, I'm ok with it. Parler went too far, aiding and abetting a riot/trespassing/insurrection.

If anything, Amazon, Facebook and Google were too laissez faire for too long.

As any kind of business, beyond protected class discrimination, am I required to host any organization on my infrastructure, publish any blog post or book, create any to-spec work of art or craft, sell any work of art or craft, allow anyone to remain who is offending, frightening or putting people in danger, or planning or coordinating any of that?

Is HN required to host my comments, or not flag my posts, or not shadow ban me? There are an exceedingly small number of "other similar forums" that I could "just move to."

[pcunite]

I disapprove. AWS is an internet utility. The media knows nothing by themselves, they only report what sources say. After proper discovery, arbitrators can decide if a law was broken. Here's the deal. The people see through the pretext. That guilt is what is driving these type of decisions.

[a3n]

An electrical utility is a utility. Should I be able to draw more current than they allow, even if I pay my bill?

There are rules. Some made by the government, some by businesses.

[rmk]

Electrical Utilities are tightly regulated, whereas big tech is not regulated at all. This comparison is really apples to oranges because of this. Electrical utilities can’t remove you for drawing more power than you are allowed to while allowing your neighbor to do the same. They also can not allow you to flout their rules for years with their knowledge (because you are a big customer as a result of drawing more power) and then come down hard on you. This is basically what big tech companies have done here.

[thinkingemote]

The analogy of drawing more current doesn't really work in this case.

[a3n]

I'm breaking their rules, while paying them for the load.

[rmk]

I think it's a reasonable for private companies (such as Twitter) to eject their customers or users as they see fit. But this should be subject to limitations under overarching laws that regulate these companies: something that even democratic candidates campaigned on (Elizabeth Warren et. al.) and Republican candidates are warming to (Lyndsey Graham et. al.).

By tolerating Donald Trump's insane tweeting for so long, only to ban him when he's definitely a lame duck, Twitter and other such companies have lost the moral high ground: they have shown that they have cynically accepted his campaign money, enabled subversive and misleading political ads, but have decided that a tenuous link to 'inciting violence' is reason enough to ban him. I'm sure the public has noticed. Public opinion will turn against these companies, and when the Republicans come back in the next midterms, they will, justifiably, have an axe to grind. We shouldn't be surprised when they pass draconian legislation that will affect not just the giants but also the minnows.

[mandeepj]

@striker_axel - have you ever stepped inside a restaurant or a hotel? They say - "Rights of admission are reserved". It's decided by them, not by a court. Samething with these apps.

[striker_axel]

Got it. But these corporation have alot of influence in our political system. If things will go on like this we might end choosing the govt. (or the political system) they want. Bcz they might filter the other feeds which are impacting them somehow.

[PaulHoule]

This is not a matter of people making a choice, this about people attacking the Congress, killing two cops, etc.

If any kind of filtering is relevant to this it is 'if it bleeds it leads'; if you have decapitation videos on your platform that is great for engagement and clicks.

[bra-ket]

I think it's a blatant free speech violation. As long as Big Tech have monopolistic power they would serve as tools of political censorship.