I'm a bit conflicted by AWS kicking off Parler: whilst it's probably a good thing that it is being crippled, at the same time it demonstrates that today - where almost all apps are running on "someone elses computer" - you can be censored if the host wants to censor you.
@naxxfish I mean, that's always been true to a degree. Even if not using a Cloud-hosted platform to host your material and are self-hosting it, you're still going to be reliant on an ISP to connect you to the Internet to allow you to serve content. ISPs have always had acceptable-use policies and would pull hosting if their own business was threatened by any potential illegal or troublesome material you chose to host while using their connection.
@TiffyBelle Yeah, that's definitely true. And I guess in this case it's definitively breaking the law so it's less subjective. But then, how come Facebook is still online? Surely there's just as much if not more illegal content there (it's just harder to find)
@naxxfish I don't really think it's a case of actual illegal material being hosted as much it is being willing to moderate it. Any large social media/user-generated content host is going to contain at least a percentage of questionable and perhaps illegal material as a matter of course; I believe the issue with Parler specifically stems from their seemingly poor/non-existent moderation policies and motivation, as hosts of the material, to take action against questionable stuff.
@TiffyBelle Right - so by most counts they have become complicit by negligence. Which is logical. However, that seems to be the argument for the other big platforms as well - people say things like "How can $platform allow $illegal_content on their platform to continue". The difference being, I guess, that those platforms are trying to moderate content, it's just the job is a lot harder because of the volume so more get missed - as opposed to a platform that's definitively not even trying as their USP.
@naxxfish I personally agree with some of those calls also, to an extent. By and large I feel big content hosts like Facebook and Twitter, who certainly have the funding to maintain the resources necessary to do a better job of moderation, have been rather lax on the matter and allowed extremist content to propagate for far too long, even though they've paid lip service to their desire to remove it by way of their ToS. That seems to be changing with time, though, as recent events demonstrate.
@naxxfish That's the diceroll taken, but Parler and others if they were serious about their endeavour would anticipate this, based on past experience of others, and have an on-prem solution waiting in the wings to fire up.
The internet is still open (for now).
AWS are right to drop them, and it's their prerogative, but Parler shouldn't say they're being censored as they can fire up their own hardware and keep spreading their "message".
@InevitableWalnuts or have avoided cloud providers in the first place. I guess the point is that if you're using "someone elses computer" to run your service you should expect to play by their rules.
I believe freedom of speech is important, even for things I personally don't unsavoury or detestable, but I do stand by the similar freedom of private services to chose what they're comfortable doing.
The great thing about the internet is that one doesn't *need* to rely on 3rd parties to be able to make their free speech.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!