Parler CEO Complains Vendors 'All Ditched Us Too', While Confused Users Download 'Porn-y' App Parlor (theverge.com) 631
The Verge reports:
The CEO of the conservative-friendly social app Parler said that all of its vendors have abandoned the company following recent bans from Google, Apple, and Amazon. "Every vendor, from text message services to email providers to our lawyers, all ditched us too, on the same day," Parler CEO John Matze said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday...
Matze said that it was having difficulties finding a new vendor to work with. "We're going to try our best to get back online as quickly as possible, but we're having a lot of trouble because every vendor we talk to says they won't work with us. Because if Apple doesn't approve and Google doesn't approve, then they won't."
But the app also has another problem, reports Mashable: The number two most downloaded free app in both Apple's App Store and the Google Play Store is an app called Parlor. That's Parlor with an "o," not an "e."
Coincidence? We think not.
Parlor is a "social talking app" in which people can get on and talk with strangers about different topics. It's been around for 10 years according to the app listing, and, Sensor Tower data indicates it had 40,000 downloads as of December 2020. Its reviews are not great to say the least, and it looks, well, pretty porn-y.
Matze said that it was having difficulties finding a new vendor to work with. "We're going to try our best to get back online as quickly as possible, but we're having a lot of trouble because every vendor we talk to says they won't work with us. Because if Apple doesn't approve and Google doesn't approve, then they won't."
But the app also has another problem, reports Mashable: The number two most downloaded free app in both Apple's App Store and the Google Play Store is an app called Parlor. That's Parlor with an "o," not an "e."
Coincidence? We think not.
Parlor is a "social talking app" in which people can get on and talk with strangers about different topics. It's been around for 10 years according to the app listing, and, Sensor Tower data indicates it had 40,000 downloads as of December 2020. Its reviews are not great to say the least, and it looks, well, pretty porn-y.
No one are forced to (Score:4, Informative)
No one are forced to, you can just build your own vendors!
Re:No one are forced to (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out Obama was right.
You didn't make that.
All these self important, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, individualists, all need a little bit of help after all...
Welcome to society, try to fit in.
Re:Firearms (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Umn...when the article said "vendor" I heard "advertiser" rather than "service provider". If your interpretation is right, he's lying. If mine is right, nobody wants their name associated with him.
Re: (Score:3)
App idea! Make money fast! (Score:5, Funny)
step 1: create a paid app named "Parlure"
step 2: lure in the Parler crowd
step 3: profit!
If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your own lawyers (a group not famous for making decisions based on conscience, ethics etc) ditch you, is it a good idea to try and "get back online as quickly as possible", at least not without some changes?
But we've had enough topics about this. Private companies are free to accept whomever they want as a customer and interpret their own terms of service the way they feel like (nobody complained when they've been doing that forever - Apple rejecting my apps for pretty "ingenious" and ever changing interpretations of their TOS is BAU). And in this case, I would actually side with the many companies who feel like this was more coup/domestic terroris/attack on democracy than any sort of legitimate protest. But it still doesn't matter. For example, "the cloud" is simply somebody else's servers, if you want to do anything you like, get your own servers. etc.
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Private companies are free to accept whomever they want as a customer and interpret their own terms of service the way they feel like
I have posted them before, but Parler's own TOS says (paraphrasing) they owe no obligation to anyone for use of their service or to make posts. In fact, prior to a recent change, their TOS said they could ban you even if you followed their rules.
So yeah. A bit hypocritical for them to whine about no one working with them when they claim the same right.
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not even the funniest part (keep in mind, Parler advertises itself as "conservative-friendly").
A few years ago, a bakery run by retarded "conservatives" pursued a lawsuit, about a gay-themed wedding cake, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And they won. The Supreme Court ruled that a private business can refuse service to anyone, for any reason. The ruling was praised by "conservatives" as a huge win for "religious freedom"
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.
Thanks to that lawsuit, and the Supreme Court, which is also dominated by "conservatives", it is now officially the law of the land -- private companies can refuse to do business with you, for any reason they want. They don't even have to have a reason. And it's all perfectly legal.
You could have just baked the cake and shut the fuck up.
To Parler, and all of the other retards who are now complaining about being "de-platformed" there is only one thing to say: You won. You got what you wanted. What's the problem?
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you talking about the Masterpiece Cake case? The Supreme Court never said what you claim it did. It pretty much said the opposite regarding discrimination against customers, which it that you cannot.
The Supreme court case was about whether the state of Colorado had been actively hostile to religion when it treated Masterpiece Cake differently than it had treated other cake companies who refused to bake anti-gay messages into cakes.
Here is the ruling. Masterpiece Cake is one of the most mis-characterized cases ever.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
In the details you are of course correct but the GP is very much spot on tangentially. The Supreme Court case hinged dealing with a protected class and the ruling hinged on the details of what goes into the creation of said cake. That doesn't change the fact that a conservative business owner wanted to chose with whom they do business.
The GP is still very much on point: conservatives were the ones pushing a picky agenda.
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Informative)
If a gay couple comes to buy a cake off the shelf, they must be allowed to do it, they can't be discriminated against.
They cannot force the baker to accept a commissioned cake that the baker does not want to create.
They can refuse making a cake that depicts a gay couple, or guns, or straight people, or really anything they don't want to create.
Artists are free to turn down any commission for whatever reason, and they really should be free to be that way. The customers are also free to make it well known that the particular artist will categorically refuse certain requests. Social media is free to express how disappointing it is that people would refuse to do such things. But they cannot be legally compelled to custom hand-make something they don't want to.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it was 'understandable' but that doesn't necessarily mean that being less 'understandable' makes it automatically illegal.
I don't think someone should be forced to make a custom cake of anything, so long as the subject matter is legal. If I were making artistic works on commission, I would hate to be forced to create works I disagree with. If someone said "I want a MAGA 2024 cake" I'd really want to be free to decline the business rather than being forced to make something I disagree with.
I think it i
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not even the funniest part (keep in mind, Parler advertises itself as "conservative-friendly").
A few years ago, a bakery run by retarded "conservatives" pursued a lawsuit, about a gay-themed wedding cake, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And they won.
This is a complete mischaracterization of the Masterpiece Bakery case. The owner said they were welcome to buy anything in his shop but he felt that due to his religious beliefs he could not create a custom decorated cake for a gay wedding. The ruling was about religious freedom.
Moreover the impact of his exercise of religion is extremely limited. He was one small shop in a sea of shops. He wasn't trying to prevent their wedding or to prevent them from shopping elsewhere. The reverse is true, the state and various litigants have tried to hound him out of business.
Re: (Score:3)
There were some 50 muslim owned bakeries in michigan that ALSO refused gay wedding cakes.
Reference please.
Re: (Score:3)
What I found distasteful in that whole cake debacle is the media ONLY wanted to talk about this christian bakery. There were some 50 muslim owned bakeries in michigan that ALSO refused gay wedding cakes. But we would never say that on TV, because some jihadist might bomb vest their damn network lobby. Go figure.
It's related to how apologists try to divert threads. Parler had posts advocatin violence and violent overthrow. Now if you want, you can try to relate the cock cake to that.
I know - Hillary's email
Re: If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a pretty significant difference between denying custom service at a small bakery and the largest tech companies in the world working together to destroy another tech company. See US Anti-Trust laws.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a pretty significant difference between denying custom service at a small bakery and the largest tech companies in the world working together to destroy another tech company. See US Anti-Trust laws.
We can argue all day about whether Faceboot is a tech company, but Parler is provably not a tech company. They don't have any of their own tech whatsoever. Hell, they didn't even license the tech they were using to "protect" PII, just used a free trial.
Re: (Score:3)
If you prove collusion, you've got a point. If the independently look at the same facts and make the same decision, you don't. And proving collusion is ALWAYS difficult, even with taped evidence.
it's liability, not political (Score:3)
People have now been killed as a result of prompting by messages transmitted on Parler. The surviving family members' lawyers will pursue lawsuits against Parler, understanding it will likely declare bankruptcy. They'll climb up the chain and add the infrastructure providers who allowed this to happen in violation of their TOS. Apple, Google, and AWS are stepping out of scope of liability by enforcing their TOS.
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What you can't do is build your own internet.
Nonsense! Of course you can build your own internet, Russia did!
More seriously, I don't think their internet access is being blocked, just AWS, which is a very different thing. They can set up their own servers, Amazon employees protested so Amazon dropped them from AWS.
It's these far too lenient terms of service that allow people to be kicked off so easily that is a cause of this.
What definition of "so easily" are you using here? If the discussions and calls for violence on Parler led to the rioters managing to get to the congress members and kill a few, would that be enough perhaps for you? Or you'd want even more?
So long as you are not doing harm
Again, that's your own definition of "not doing harm", which is quite extreme. Regardless, my definition would not apply either, it is up to the actual parties of the agreement.
then common carriers and public accommodations have to serve you.
AWS, Stripe, Google and Apple are neither common carriers nor public accommodations. They definitely don't have to serve you. I don't see why suddenly now you want private companies "to serve you" (or parler), I bet you cry out "communism" whenever there is an attempt to pass a consumer-friendly law.
Internet services are going to fall under one, the other, or both.
I think you are implying every service offered through the internet is an "internet service" that has to be treated like a common carrier. Not sure how you confuse these things. An ISP, an internet backbone provider etc, would be "carriers" and we can argue how they should be treated. I would want them to have common carrier / public utility status, not abuse monopolies, offer the same prices to anyone, and follow net neutrality. As you know, the current President (through that idiot he assigned) was not for that last part at least, while both big parties are fine with abusive telecom monopolies.
But, again, this is completely unrelated to Parler, AWS is definitely not a "common carrier" of anything.
Isn't there a food delivery service that will not charge a fee to "Black owned" restaurants? Have they been sued into oblivion yet? If not then why not? Racism is still racism. I thought we left that behind over a century ago.
I would agree with that at least, reverse discrimination is still discrimination. But racism/discrimination/affirmative action it is a complicated (especially in the US) and unrelated topic.
Re:If your own lawyers.... (Score:5, Funny)
Keep replying to my posts. I get moderated down because a bunch of lefty university students dominate this place but when someone replies and gets moderated up then someone is going to look to see what got moderated down. If people think I'm completely full of shit then mod me down AND don't reply.
This forum seems to have things backwards. I'll go to other places and a down mod is either encouraged or required a reply to state why. As an example if someone gives a dangerous recommendation on wiring up an electrical circuit then they should get moderated down AND get a reply on what they did wrong. On Slashdot a moderation gets tossed if there is a reply by the same person. If there is a mod down and the stated reason is bullshit then people know to mod up and state why the moderation was bullshit.
Go ahead, keep replying, that's what brings people to read my posts.
Re: (Score:3)
Remove 'left-wing', various groups are always exploring legal options to shutting down people they disagree with. This is not a 'leftist' exclusive phenomenon. Don't portray the right as morally superior and above such things when they do the same stuff all the time. Every sufficiently large group has participants that others think are doing things 'beneath' them and then pretend that everyone 'on their side' is perfect and like them, and it's not correct. To the point of presuming that any bad actors seemi
Re: (Score:3)
When youre dead, you dont know you are dead. It is only difficult for the people around you. Its like that when you are stupid too. You should really examine yourself. The last thing you want to do is force all these people to coordinate this shit on the darkweb, out of a watchful view.
While I agree that it's great to have a way to keep track of these people, it becomes a real bitch to deal with. Parler has had a lot of posts that were indeed criminal in nature. So what to do? If you prosecute the criminals, they'll eventually move anyhow.
Let's not forget that Trump and his merry band of seditionists wanted article 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu] struck, making hosts liable for the contents on their site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
So you get a combination of the fact tha
Re: (Score:3)
just as all Germans must be punished forever for starting the two world wars,
Nobody is punishing Germans today for starting two world wars and killing a shitload of Jews (and others) but we are remembering that they did those things because they bear remembering.
all white men and boys must be punished forever.
No one is punishing all white men and boys for the actions of other white men and boys, but they are remembering that white men and boys are the primary sources of certain types and modes of aggression, because it bears remembering.
And don't argue, because THAT is racist and/or sexist.
Argument isn't what's racist or sexist. Specific arguments are racist and/or sexist. And being
Parler is an amateur operation (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember when the source code for it leaked and it was all PHP with the master database password stored on plaintext?
It gets better: https://twitter.com/BirdRespec... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Holy SHIT, it really gets better!
https://twitter.com/RealOGAnon... [twitter.com]
Re:Parler is an amateur operation (Score:5, Funny)
They were running their entire site on an Okta free trial? I'm wheezing.
https://twitter.com/okta/statu... [twitter.com]
Re:Parler is an amateur operation (Score:5, Informative)
They were running their entire site on an Okta free trial? I'm wheezing.
https://twitter.com/okta/statu... [twitter.com]
It gets even better than that:
https://twitter.com/bitburner/... [twitter.com]
Basically, people were able to get into Parler and create admin accounts, which have access to sign info including drivers licenses and deleted posts/uploads/profiles (apparently Parler pulled a facebook and didn't actually delete "deleted" items, just set an indicator). People about to get fuuuucked, and it's glorious.
Re:Parler is an amateur operation (Score:4, Informative)
That's not true. You need to provide a copy of your driver's license (which is also ridiculous). They have an in-app tipping thing. You have to provide your SSN to cash in on those tips. This use actually seems expected and legally required - if they're going to give you money, they'll need to tell the IRS.
There may be a significant overlap between "tippable" and "verified", but I believe they were separate flags.
That said, I never signed up for a Cambridge Analytica backed social network that required a real name, for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Parler is an amateur operation (Score:5, Informative)
Um, someone literally crawled all post, images and video uploaded by every single Parler user - even stuff flagged as deleted. That is... pretty bad?
Amazingly they didn't even bother to strip media metadata from uploads either.
Re: (Score:3)
This is just earlier normal kinds of errors. I remember when it was possible to get to all facebook content just by hitting the correct URL. Lots of mistakes are common and only fixed until someone points them out. They are always found on a large site, but often time to market beats security in the for the first build of large apps, because you need to start making money before venture capital runs out.
No surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
Look at Parler's business: They promote themselves as being a 'pro-free-speech' platform, specifically to attract all of the people who have been banned from more mainstream social media for one reason or another. Of course this is going to lead to a very unpleasant, even toxic community.
If your user community consists mostly of people who have been kicked off of facebook and youtube, don't be surprised when all your own suppliers don't want to touch them either.
Time to go rent a few VMs from some shady outfit in Russia.
Re:No surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
They promote themselves as pro free speech, then hide your posts until you get enough approvals from the moderators.
What is Parler's IT department doing?? (Score:3)
If you go to parler.com right now, you get a "host not found" error. I wasn't really expecting the site to be fully up, but I figured that they would have a splash page up by now at their new hosting provider explaining why the site is down.
AWS gave them 2 days warning. You would think that would have been more than enough time to redirect their DNS entries to point to another web server hosted somewhere else.
Re:What is Parler's IT department doing?? (Score:5, Funny)
Have you ever seen the crap code that runs Slashdot?
De-platforming is a really dumb idea (Score:5, Insightful)
As Technollama writes [technollama.co.uk], de-platforming is a seriously problematic idea.
The article on Ars Technica about Parler has a fascinating comments section. Comment 160 [arstechnica.com] calls conservatives the N-word-we-cannot-post-here, calls for killing them all, and illustrates this with a picture of corpses. This comment is nicely upvoted. Two comments later, we get "They still deserve to be shot twice in the head and once in the heart with a .50 caliber desert eagle". This is not isolated stuff - I only mention this specific example, because so many people deny that liberals would ever promote violence.
Can we de-platform the left now? Does AWS host Ars Technica?
Re:De-platforming is a really dumb idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to repeat what shelby and I have been saying again and again: You don't talk to N.zis. You KILL N.zis and be done with it. N.zis and their imitators (inclusive of the Imperial Japanese cabinet/military) are an existential threat to everyone, inclusive of white people.
[A white-on-blue poster with the following text] "N.zis are people. N.zis are human beings. They were young once. They have parents. Many are parents, or will be. They have dreams. They have feelings. They have human bodies. They sleep. They get sick. They age.
And they still deserve to be shot. That's very fucking important"
I would honestly fix the image to either say that "They still deserve to be shot twice in the head and once in the heart with a .50 caliber desert eagle" or "They still deserve to be killed."
Just shooting them leaves them in an ambiguous state and the engineer in me doesn't like ambiguity.
I'm rather shocked. I would have expected this sort of talk on uncensored sites like Parler or a closed Antifa forum, not in the comment section of Ars technica (and upvoted rather a lot, as well...).
Re:De-platforming is a really dumb idea (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a perfect example of what the left likes to call "othering" in the contexts they favor. They gratuitously classify $PERSON_THEY_DONT_LIKE as an N*, whereupon they can unleash any malediction they want, because in their eyes that person isn't even human and has no rights whatever.
Ars Technica carries some great science/tech articles, but do not under any circumstances read the comments. It's like staring into the Sun.
Re:De-platforming is a really dumb idea (Score:5, Interesting)
The deep (and highly dangerous) ideological rift dividing the USA - as well as many places here in Europe - is perpetuated by both sides. By posts such as those on Ars. By all means criticize, ridicule or even call for bans or boycots if your opponents get out of hand. But once your starting point is that no dialogue, no rehabilitation or reconciliation is ever possible, and that your only option is to pre-emptively kill anyone following a certain ideology (however loosely), you've gone off the deep end.
Re: (Score:3)
That Ars poster does nothing more than point out that 75 years ago fascists got killed. Nothing more.
Look at the comments he quotes, look at the context. This isn't some dry history lesson, this is the usual "all conservatives are n@zis" tripe. However, the calls for death in the comment, and especially in the ones that follow, are rather explicit, and not at all usual.
And it's highly upvoted. No one on Ars seems to have a problem with it.
Regardless of the merits of this... (Score:5, Interesting)
.. it does show up the risk companies have with using cloud based services for their entire operation. For now its just AWS, Apple etc booting off a far right forum which I doubt many people will cry about, but in the future with fickle CEOs anyone could be at their mercy. In fact Tim Cook already blocked a documentary about Gawker on Apple TV simply because Gawker were a bit mean to him. Diddums. Is that the way we want new media going? Its bad enough with the old media doing it.
Re:Regardless of the merits of this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dumb question for anyone that works at Parler or knows someone who does... did AWS actually give you guys a real chance to implement an improved content moderation system, or did they just cut suddenly cut you off with 24 hours notice?
If it was more of the latter instead of the former, I think that anybody who relies on AWS for hosting should be worried about this behavior. I'd rather not have to worry about my business getting shut down overnight because something that one of my users said just happened to piss off Jeff Bezos.
Re: (Score:3)
Dumb question for anyone that works at Parler or knows someone who does... did AWS actually give you guys a real chance to implement an improved content moderation system, or did they just cut suddenly cut you off with 24 hours notice?
They got two days' notice, but it wasn't for failing to implement an improved content moderation system. It was for hosting the planning for a violent insurrection.
If they had implemented a functional content moderation system, they would never have come to this pass. They spent their time removing liberals from their platform instead of insurrectionists, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Why cry for them? They got exactly what they were asking for.
Re: (Score:3)
It’s unlikely we will be able to solve any of these problems until we get down to the core reason we can’t get sensible policy that a vast majority of Americans want.
Whiners can't even complain about not flying (Score:4, Funny)
On top of everything else, people who participated in the attempted overthrow of the government are now finding themselves on the no-fly list. Why? Because they're considered terrorists. This short video [9cache.com] shows their reaction to learning this little fact.
And now they can't even whine about it to all those other "patriots".
Re:Whiners can't even complain about not flying (Score:4, Informative)
They haven't been added to the no fly list. These are individual airlines banning people for their bad behavior. Again, a business can refuse service to anyone. Stores and malls ban people all the time.
Let's all clap for corporate censorship! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is roughly the same as cheering for corona because Trump and Giuliani got it. It's only funny if you don't think about the fact you're likely next on the chopping block.
Re:Let's all clap for corporate censorship! (Score:5, Informative)
If that group organizes an insurrection attempt that attempts to kill the Vice President and members of Congress, then great. Ban the entire lot. However, if you're talking about the left wing group staging a couple of protests that are meant to be peaceful, but where a handful of people riot, then it's a bad comparison and the rioters should be arrested.
Parler was hosting people talking about not only last week's attack, but chatter about an even bigger attack on Inauguration Day. They were talking about going back with more guns and killing more people. Parler showed no signs of caring at all who said what on their site. (Unless you weren't a conservative, that is. For a "free speech" site, they'd ban you if you said negative things about Trump.) It devolved into a planning area for seditionists. Companies are allowed to decide that they don't want to be involved with that - and for good reason. Their legal departments alone likely don't want the headaches of being related to an attempted coup.
When your ideas are this wrong yes, let's (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and for some added fun one of the rioters arrested needed a Russian interpreter. If you think there weren't spies mixed in with the rioters I've got some great beach front property to sell you in Kansas.
The Capital fell under the watchful eye of Donald Trump and the Grand 'ole Party, and it's painfully obvious it was intentional. The only debate is if they thought it would be as bad as it was. This was a failed Coup attempt. We came a hair's breath from ending the Great Experiment. It's not about free speech anymore, it's about if we'll be a democracy anymore.
And just to Godwin this thread, Hitler had a failed coup attempt too, and they went easy on him. Ten years later Germany was a dictatorship.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the capital didn't actually fall. It was invaded, but the defenders were not defeated, and the invaders were eventually repulsed. The defenders could have got rid of them a lot faster, but there would have been blood everywhere.
Everything else you said, OTOH, was completely correct.
And just to Godwin this thread, Hitler had a failed coup attempt too, and they went easy on him. Ten years later Germany was a dictatorship.
Mike Godwin has gone on record saying that it's not inappropriate to invoke Hitler in similar, Trump-related circumstances, not that he's the arbiter.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh shut up. Corporations aren't censoring anyone. This is about refusing service plain and simple.
Re:Let's all clap for corporate censorship! (Score:5, Informative)
First they came for the socialists...
And we stopped them right there.
The people Niemoller was talking against? Those were the ones on Parler. Those were the ones storming up the steps of Congress and rampaging through it's halls. Oathkeepers. Proud Boys. White supremacists. Neo-n@zis. Fascists. Trumpists.
This was Trump's Beer Hall Putsch. And just like the original, it failed. The question is are we going to give them the opportunity to try again.
Re: (Score:3)
First they came for the socialists...
"First they came for the socialists" was a reference to the arrest by the NSDAP of every elected member of the KPD without trial or legal justification. The motivations of the people who recently stormed Congress aren't completely clear yet, but there is some evidence suggesting that the intent of some of them was to arrest elected Democrats and insufficiently loyal Republicans without trial or legal justification.
Contracts (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile in Poland (Score:3)
I Wrote to AWS Asking for an Explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
I have used AWS since its founding to host some non-profit content. After hearing about Parler, I re-read the terms of service again just to refresh my memory. The terms speak of not allowing harmful or illegal content and give examples.
It was not clear to me at all how any of the policies of Parler could be considered a violation of these terms. Either the terms themselves are being interpreted very broadly, or they were not applied evenly.
I went in a request to AWS for an explanation, because naturally I found this quite alarming. Must I now submit all my content to AWS for review? What are the real rules?
My operation is the smallest of the small, but it deserves to be treated as fairly as the big guys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I Wrote to AWS Asking for an Explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Parler hosted people planning a coup against the United States. There were multiple instances of people encouraging violence against anyone on the left. After the attempted coup, Parler hosted people talking about a engaging in a second incident on Inauguration Day, but with more guns. Do you see how this is "harmful or illegal content"?
Re: (Score:3)
The decision is up to Amazon, ask them.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
B) They are exercising their right to free association.
What about the Parlor victims? (Score:5, Funny)
I'd be more incensed if I were looking for porn and accidentally ended up in some conspiracy fruitcake echo chamber.
The celebration and gloating here is surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just goes to show many people are really bad winners.
Re:The celebration and gloating here is surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Other people don't have to like what you say.
Other people don't have to listen to what you say
Other people don't have to give you a platform to say what you want to say
Other people don't have to do business with you if they don't like what you say
Businesses that don't like what you say don't have to do business with companies that give you a platform
Rights are a double edged sword, they cut both ways. What you are whining about is other people exercising their rights to not be associated
Have we forgotten how to host our own services? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is slashdot, so it seems appropriate to ask this here.
It’s not rocket science to run your own secured servers for a simple database backed app. That’s literally what we all did in the 90s. Heck, I still do it on occasion from home.
Scaling, you say? Again, not rocket science. In fact, with nginx it’s even easier than it was back in the Apache days.
Hardware? We used to support 300k transactions a second on hardware that’s less powerful than a typical gaming PC.
Hosting? You don’t need it.
UI? You don’t need apps for this, a browser is just fine.
The only part you need to rely on outside providers for is your connection to the internet. I’m sure there are some Trump supporters out there who run ISPs that would gladly sell some bandwidth. And just to close the last scaling/reliability argument: get a few of these and distribute your severs.
It’s not rocket science.
(For the record, I fully support the deplatforming of Parler... I’m just shocked no one from that side of the political spectrum can setup a basic interactive web site).
Re: (Score:3)
Piratebay seems to have been able to do it.
There are torrent sites galore with tons of illegal content.
And those places that (still) have child pornography on them.
Not to mention that if they made it a Tor service, people would be googling how to get on Tor like mad.
(And, as the OP said, I'm not a supporter of any of the above, or Parler, either, this is purely a technical discussion).
Re:Have we forgotten how to host our own services? (Score:4, Interesting)
The old newspaper in my town (now long defunct) used to have a statement on the editorial page that basically said the publisher and editor reserved the write to edit letters for grammar, content and brevity, or not publish the letters at all. There were of cranky racist malcontents back in the day who seemed to write letters to the editor every day of the week, until finally the publisher said "We will only publish one of your letters for month, and if you don't keep it halfway decent, we won't even publish that one". This was the only newspaper in town. There was, back then, no other means besides the local radio station (which didn't really have an open forum except for birthday wishes at 8am) to get information out to the residents of the city at large. Should that publisher and editor, who represented the owners of the paper, been forced to publish every one of this crank's letters, no matter how bigoted or inflammatory? Does the owner of any piece of private property have to help broadcast anyone's message? Do I have the right to walk into Q Shaman's living room and start shouting my own ideological leanings, and if he tries to stop me, can I then declare that the First Amendment should protect my right to use his private property as a soap box?
It's tough when you hold beliefs so far from the middle ground, so unmoderated or so completely nuts or vile, that no one wants to help you get your message out. That sucks for you. But no one is under any obligation, nor should they be, to give racists and insurrectionists a helping hand. Quite the opposite, they should be applauded for NOT giving aid and comfort to such people.
How long till they realize it's the wrong app? (Score:3)
I think it's ironic that in comparison with the "pretty porn-y" Parlor app, it's Parler which is having trouble with exposure!
Section 230 (Score:5, Insightful)
Vendors for Parler: *Looks at what is being posted on Parler* "Bye bye!" *ends relationship with Parler because of what people are posting*
Parler: "How dare our vendors care about what people post on Parler and stop doing business with us?!?"
People on Parler: "How dare companies care what we post?!? It's not like they are held liable for what we post!!"
Recovery plan (Score:3)
I'm gonna guess they didn't have a viable recovery plan. Womp womp.
But in all seriousness, this is the danger of a few cloud providers and reduced competition. It will only get worse as independent datacenters die off and the options for hosting get further reduced. All the eggs are getting put in fewer and fewer baskets.
Let's be clear though, Parler is in a terrible position because it didn't have robust enough contingency plans in place. If my entire business model depended on hosting content, I would damn well make sure I had plan in place to bring that content up elsewhere as needed, even if self hosted at reduced capacity.
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Informative)
This is your government killing free speech.
You are very confused regarding what "free speech" entails. Evergreen link: https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
If people aren't allowed to say anything offensive then there is no right to speak, because someone will always find something offensive about everything. I find it offensive that Parler is getting shit on here. Doesn't my feelings mean anything?
In this case, sorry, no, they quite literally don't.
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Funny)
The best bit of which is the mouseover text:
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, if you ask the Supreme Court of the US, that appears to be the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And i'm just humoring you here, because the overall point is horseshit. Parler was not banned by the likes of Amazon for "beliefs" but for violations of terms of service. That's what happens when you sign contracts.
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:4, Interesting)
The page you linked disagrees with you.
"Holding: By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Wikipedia also explains what a court's holding is: "The holding is the 'legal principle to be drawn from the opinion (decision) of the court.'" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, it definitely can sue. And lose in court. And possibly even have to pay legal fees for breaching an anti-SLAPP statute, if they don't choose their forum appropriately. Just ask a first amendment lawyer what are the obligations of a private company towards the public. If you start ranting in the middle of a mall the mall owner is not obliged to keep you on the premises.
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Planning serious crime is not covered by free speech. Plotting to overthrow the system of democratic government to install a dictator is serious crime.
The group of racists and genocidal maniacs you are talking about are your side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I may not like what they have to say but I will fight to my death for their right to say what they want.
May your chains set lightly upon you.
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Your right to speak does NOT create an obligation on me, or anyone else, to help you speak or listen when you do.
Re: (Score:3)
And the government isn't suppressing their speech. So what are you complaining about?
Re: (Score:3)
The hammer should fall on the small number who perpetrated the illegal actions, not on the much larger group who merely expressed opinions and did nothing illegal. Punishing those who did nothing wrong for the criminal actions of others is only going to increase the number of people angry enough to cross the line of legality.
As for facilitating, virtually any communications medium can and has been used to facilitate illegal activity of some form. This is why courts can order wire taps when there is sufficie
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Funny)
For those playing the game at home, here's an example of the "free speech" that just "died" when the "snowflake" tech companies deplatformed Parler:
https://i.imgur.com/dTxiwzN.pn... [imgur.com]
First they came for the Qtards, but I said nothing because I wasn't a Q or a tard.
Then they came for the Proud Boys, but I said nothing because being a racist incel fuckwad isn't much to be proud of.
Then they came for the Trumpers, but I said nothing because fuck those guys.
Then they didn't come for me, because I wasn't a raving RWNJ douchebag or a terrorist sympathizer.
Then things slowly got back to normal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:4, Interesting)
I view this as being more related to the street battles between the Weimar Republic and the SA and other groups in the early 1930s. These guys marching on Capitol Hill aren't a million miles away from the Brown Shirts, and like the Brown Shirts, they are being egged on by a leader who pretends to sit astraddle the fence; one one hand their great ideological leader, and on the other try to claim to the government of the Republic and the wider populace that they are for law and order.
I'm not saying Trump is Hit-ler. That would confer upon the man gifts and abilities he clearly does not possess. And indeed Hit-ler wasn't the first man to invoke ideology to achieve power (that template was set by men like Julius Caesar, Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon), but all these historical figures demonstrate certain patterns of behavior in themselves and their followers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I remember when Slashdot was for hot grits.
Re: Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over th (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember when slashdot was for free speech, against authoritarianism, believed in the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.
Wait, so you think supporting a coup to prevent the old head of state transferring power to the duly elected new one is anti-authoritarian? And since they did it while wearing "Camp Auschwitz" shirts I'd say it was a fascist coup. And Parler was one of the chief platforms they used to organize and communicate and they did nothing about it.
I'm about as anti-authority as you can get, but I am not about to stand in solidarity with fascists. The enemy of my enemy and all that. Amazon could collapse tomorrow and I would be dancing on its grave, but I'm glad they flushed these turds.
Re: (Score:3)
These morons are not having their speech taken away. The first amendment only guarantees the government can't take it away.
Re: Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over t (Score:3)
That was back in the days when we also knew the problems that electronic voting machines would bring.
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Informative)
Christ, I'm really beginning to wondernif most of the alt right are Aspies or have serious OCDs. The First Amendment only applies to the government, it doesn't apply to citizens or businesses. Contracts between private parties frequently have clauses, like non-compete, NDAs, and the like which limit one or both parties freedoms. And such clauses are almost always enforceable
Re: (Score:3)
Newspapers used to control dissemination of speech. In fact in some areas a single newspaper might have a virtual monopoly. Nobody suggested that publishers and editors be bound to print every letter or opinion piece.
These are private entities. They are pretty much explicitly not bound by the First Amendment. The First Amendment also protects them, as private interests, from having disseminate speech they don't like. They, like you, are protected in that regard.
What you want would require a constitutional a
Re: (Score:3)
I'll see people just scream at their computer screens that no one is obligated to have access to your platform. Well, actually they do.
My political position is "goatse", so you'll be happy when I put up lots of posters all over the inside and outside of your house. You're obligated to give me a platform.
Everyone knows that the National Socialists successfully sued to be able to hold a rally, right? Even these racists and genocidal maniacs had their right to speak protected in the courts.
Yeah, a rally. Outsi
Re:Fee speech is dead if Parler can't sue over thi (Score:5, Insightful)
Well a business shouldn't be forced to serve them, it's a free country! The business can do what it wants!
Company bans group (that I do like)
Muh free speech!
Re:selfhosting, nope... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd imagine that Parler could find a country that would host their domain. That said, I'm not sure if people would trust going to parler.ru or parler.tk (for example) for political news and commentary.
I would think that finding an ISP to work with in the US would be the hardest part. None of them would want to deal with the political fallout or security threats of supporting that account.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes to all of the above. But you can still buy a gay wedding cake.
Re: (Score:3)
Private businesses have found Trump and his supporters to be too toxic. They are the proverbial turd in a swimming pool now. Nobody wants to deal with the crazy or the backlash from Y'all Queda.
Re: (Score:3)
Political affiliation is not a protected class. Don't talk about politics at work, either, they can legally fire you for it.