Will the Parler apps work on a different server?

[JoeH]

C(-)ris wrote:
I heard the app was very poorly written and that there are hard links to AWS all over the code and it will not be easy to update it. It will be impossible to update if their apps get pulled and/or new apps not approved.

This may be what kills things for Parler, a well written app would have no hard links that tie it to specific servers and would let DNS lookups find the current locations.

[Sarcany]

sekker wrote:
Love the ACLU, but if they start defending Trump or Trumoism, I’m out.

There IS a line, and inciting violence is not defensible.

Free speech is a limit of government powers and there are well-known exceptions to it including incitement to violence and the actions of private entities such as Google, Apple or Amazon.

The ACLU occasionally publishes papers on this sort of thing, but seldom gets more involved than that because it's outside of the scope of their charter. (Also, Amazon gives them tens of millions in donations each year.)

You can reasonably expect the result of any ACLU investigation to culminate in a scholarly paper about the need for regulation of companies like these that have the power to silence an entire community by fiat.

...It should worry you that these three companies arbitrarily made millions of voices disappear in the space of a weekend, however despicable the over-arching theme of their community may have been. I look forward to reading the executive summary of the ACLU paper.

[mattkime]

It depends upon which amazon services they were using. Simple file storage? Not a problem. But most Amazon services have custom APIs that can't really be moved to another platform. Companies using cloud services are either forced to accept the risk of a single vendor commitment or write code that would allow them to move easily to another platform. Its not trivial. They're likely out of commission for a while.

[sekker]

Sarcany wrote:
[quote=sekker]
Love the ACLU, but if they start defending Trump or Trumoism, I’m out.

There IS a line, and inciting violence is not defensible.

Free speech is a limit of government powers and there are well-known exceptions to it including incitement to violence and the actions of private entities such as Google, Apple or Amazon.

The ACLU occasionally publishes papers on this sort of thing, but seldom gets more involved than that because it's outside of the scope of their charter. (Also, Amazon gives them tens of millions in donations each year.)

You can reasonably expect the result of any ACLU investigation to culminate in a scholarly paper about the need for regulation of companies like these that have the power to silence an entire community by fiat.

...It should worry you that these three companies arbitrarily made millions of voices disappear in the space of a weekend, however despicable the over-arching theme of their community may have been. I look forward to reading the executive summary of the ACLU paper.
Actually, given the potential implications (loss of life and, potentially, Democracy), I am glad these companies did what they did. And no, it was NOT arbitrary. They have terms of service, and there is NO DOUBT these voices were not complying.

I, too, respect the ACLU. If they have a nice paper that 1) recognizes the importance of dissent 2) while ALSO recognizing that it cannot take years in courts to address some time-sensitive issues, they will do us all a great service.

I will note that the statements by Apple, google and Amazon leave open the door for Parlor to moderate their platform and be back.

I also note that the Orange Emperor's permanent ban is because he broke the rules during his account's suspension. He has 100 other ways to get his message out, including a magical podium outside his bedroom door. Hard to defend that his loss of access to twitter is a ban on his 'free' speech.

[Sarcany]

sekker wrote: They have terms of service, and there is NO DOUBT these voices were not complying.

Selectively enforced.

He's been at this since 2015 when he discovered his ability to incite violence by inspiring two Boston men to murder a man they thought looked "Mexican."

His response to the attempted murder: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again."

They ignored thousands of his posts. They provided a platform until it became politically and financially expedient not to.

This is why you should be worried: Their interest in protecting YOU extends only so far as it profits them.

[sekker]

Sarcany wrote:
[quote=sekker]They have terms of service, and there is NO DOUBT these voices were not complying.

Selectively enforced.

He's been at this since 2015 when he discovered his ability to incite violence by inspiring two Boston men to murder a man they thought looked "Mexican."

His response to the attempted murder: "I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again."

They ignored thousands of his posts. They provided a platform until it became politically and financially expedient not to.

This is why you should be worried: Their interest in protecting YOU extends only so far as it profits them.
I think ALL platforms should have far better regulation and be held to a higher level of accountability.

But I am not going to defend those that are trying to attack fellow citizens or attack our Democracy. This response from platforms may be better late than never, but that doesn't make what they did wrong.

[Sarcany]

sekker wrote: This response from platforms may be better late than never, but that doesn't make what they did wrong.

One time, they did something right.

Selective enforcement is wrong.

Letting 45 have these platforms for all this time was wrong.

There should be room for a judgment call every now and again, but not at this type of extreme. It shouldn't take an armed insurrection to get them to apply the rules to the rich and powerful.

[RgrF]

There should be room for a judgment call every now and again, but not at this type of extreme. It shouldn't take an armed insurrection to get them to apply the rules to the rich and powerful.

I suspect the election in Georgia had as much to do with those decisions. Knowing they were already under attack from the right and would be facing a somewhat unified government - one that could easily take away the legal protections they currently function under.

[sekker]

RgrF wrote:
There should be room for a judgment call every now and again, but not at this type of extreme. It shouldn't take an armed insurrection to get them to apply the rules to the rich and powerful.

I suspect the election in Georgia had as much to do with those decisions. Knowing they were already under attack from the right and would be facing a somewhat unified government - one that could easily take away the legal protections they currently function under.

Yes to all of this.

[GGD]

Big question going forward. Will these social media platforms sell advertising to him? Will they take his money?