Parler

Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/ Regards, Bill HErrin

Re: Parler

While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts o

Re: Parler

Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? - Mike Bolitho On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin wrote: > Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in > search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the > proprietary AWS API

Re: Parler

Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at all. > On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: > >  > Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? > > - Mike Bolitho > >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin wrote: >> Anybody

Re: Parler

Ah, yes... re-enter the experiences of Compuserve. For that, I give you Telecom '96 and section 230 which, they think, makes them exempt from such things. Regardless, there are a whole lot of little triggering pebbles that risk being trodden upon here. From monopolist behaviour to basic discriminat

Re: Parler

Yes, it seems subsection (c)(2)(b) gives them cover, perhaps it’s time that this is revised, less the Internet content become moderated by a small group of private platform owners. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:05 AM, Daniel Jurado wrote: > >  > Government made it political. >

Re: Parler

It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing.

Re: Parler

Internet providers have always been able to regulate who their customers are...that’s why criminals have such a hard time finding a provider to host their platform. It’s why the kkk and nazis have a hard time finding a place to host their crap. This is no different except that they’ve allowed it,

Re: Parler

NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network Operators. > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho wrote: > >  > It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessaril

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to liability

Re: Parler

Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now blocked government communication? > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > >  >> On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com

Re: Parler

Is that illegal though? > On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: > > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block > people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now > blocked government communication? > > >> On

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 15:43, Mike Bolitho wrote: Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? Why not? Seems terribly relevant to us. Mark.

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 16:09, Mike Bolitho wrote: It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then g

Re: Parler

Yes, significantly. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Matt Hoppes > wrote: > > Is that illegal though? > >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: >> >> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block >> people, because h

Re: Parler

* sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 CET]: While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentia

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:32:29PM +0100, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: > * sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 > CET]: > >While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone > >they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 7:13 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: Yes, significantly. Two observations: 1) you know not one thing about the laws of the United States of America 2) a google search for your email's domain name leads to nothing but a blank web page, and a Facebook page for some sort of Philip

Re: Parler

at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying) his own unwise tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself would have been enough for twitter to either restrict his using any mechanism for r

Re: Parler

* w...@typo.org (Wayne Bouchard) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 16:40 CET]: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:32:29PM +0100, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: * sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 CET]: While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want fo

Re: Parler

Funny, you must have found things all which are not me. You are really good at Google. Hahahaha! Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:42 AM, John Sage wrote: > > On 1/10/21 7:13 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: >> Yes, significantly. > Two observations: > > 1) you know not one thin

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:08:12AM -0500, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: > less the Internet content become moderated by a small group of private > platform owners. it already is. it is just that it is moderated in their favour, to create more ad impressions and re-sellable data points. --jim

Re: Parler

They’re a private company. The same statues that give providers the right to refuse spam and block abuse give them the right to fire customers for whatever reason they want. If their contract with Parler says they can be terminated for violations of TOS / AUP or (more likely) for any reason Am

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:03:51AM -0500, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President > couldn???t block people, because his Tweets were government > communication. So has Twitter now blocked government communication? That's not interesting or ev

Re: Parler

While I don’t like it - at the end of the day a private company can make a decision to have or not have a customer (unless somehow it’s racial or sexual orientation related apparently). Nothing is stopping Parler from spinning up their own servers. They willingly chose to use AWS.

Re: Parler

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:03 PM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote: > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block > people, because his Tweets were government communication. Right, the _government_ can’t discriminate in which of its citizens it communicates with, and

Re: Parler

That's my understanding as well, from years of hosting email lists.  As soon as one starts moderating, the rules change, and immunity goes away. It's one of my issues with the whole notion of rules-of-conduct on email lists - particularly when folks get on my case for not "moderating" language

Re: Parler

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:56 PM, Mark Seiden wrote: > > at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the > Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying) his > own unwise tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself would > have been

Re: Parler

Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise. ---rsk

Re: Parler

Well then... that’s a rather disturbing revelation. Out of curiosity, do these big facilities have armed guards of some sort, especially if the facility hosts financial or govt sites? Sent from my iPad > On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:59 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > >  > Given that people on Parler

Re: Parler

Some yes, some no. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:09 PM, Brielle wrote: > > Well then... that’s a rather disturbing revelation. > > Out of curiosity, do these big facilities have armed guards of some sort, > especially if the facility hosts financial or govt sites? > > Sent

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:43 AM Mike Bolitho wrote: > Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins? Hi Mike, While there's certainly an opportunity to get political, there are some obviously apolitical issues worth discussing here as well. First, this would appear to be an il

Re: Parler

Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:38 PM William Herrin wrote: > providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching > impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a > cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to > facilitate cross-platform const

Re: Parler

You can certainly build platform agnostic applications on top of AWS/Google/etc. but it requires more “work”. Using a platform like OpenShift from Red Hat is one solution. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > Peace, > >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 9:36 AM, William Herrin wrote: First, this would appear to be an illustration of the single-vendor problem. You don't have a credible continuity of operations plan if a termination by a single vendor can take you and keep you offline. It's the single point of failure that otherwise i

Re: Parler

>From a business perspective, this clearly helps us understand risk of a single point of failure. Basic ORM tell us What is the Damage if it occurs, how likely is it to occur and then accept, mitigate or transfer. For example in another life, I was responsible for the 'last mile' for a private cit

Re: Parler

Conclusion: Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a customer on the basis of the racial or sexual orientation (or a number of other bases). Companies are permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a customer using other criteria. E.g. "No shirt, no

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 9:55 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:38 PM William Herrin wrote: providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a cloud services product would look like that was actively

Re: Parler

Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:09 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little > attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden. In my experience, moving off Amazon services isn't that much of a trouble, especially if compared to moving

Re: Parler

I’m not sure either Joe. I am a staunch proponent of free expression, but I remember a time when you could just. Totally trust an e-mail header. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications

Re: Parler

Yeah that still hits my “fuck directly off” button. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. > On Jan 10, 2021,

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at > the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't > have automated deployment at all. While the provisioning tools are > provider agnostic, a move f

Re: Parler

Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:18 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > At my previous job, I built a tool which could spin up a server farm > given a platform agnostic design spec from a list of vendors as well as > pricing it out. It was really more of a prototype since it only > supported Chef on the s

Re: Parler

Moving any service to bare metal is not that much of an issue. With some work, it can be accomplished. What is really hard is performance, scalability, reliability. This in my opinion is what AWS and cloud providers provide. On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:21 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > Peace, >

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 10:17 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:09 PM Michael Thomas wrote: Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden. In my experience, moving off Amazon services isn't that much

Re: Parler

Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:22 PM William Herrin wrote: > Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to > run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As > long as you install your own database software in both, you can do > that. But if you want t

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 10:24 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: Peace, On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:18 PM Michael Thomas wrote: At my previous job, I built a tool which could spin up a server farm given a platform agnostic design spec from a list of vendors as well as pricing it out. It was really more of a prot

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't have automated deployment at all. While the provisioni

Re: Parler and the total legality of content moderation

In article <469b70b8-b1f5-bef7-5c03-b1e5d8b2c...@meetinghouse.net> you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >That's my understanding as well, from years of hosting email lists.  As >soon as one starts moderating, the rules change, and immunity goes away. Thanks for bringing it up, because that understanding is

Re: Parler

As with common carriage and net neutrality, the discrimination has to be consistent. Sent from Mobile Device > On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: > >  > Conclusion: > > Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a > customer on the bas

Re: Parler

They have Amazon Aurora versions of many popular databases which are binary compatible with the standard versions. So you can run standard Postgres on one cloud and Aurora Postgres in AWS. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > >  >> On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, W

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 9:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal > activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice > spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a > while back? I don't seem to recall

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:06 AM wrote: > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t > block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has > Twitter now blocked government communication? > > They blocked Trump's personal account, not the White House or

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really concerned with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate. Industry standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice. Note this is not the police/courts coming to the host

Re: Parler

To be fair, AWS has existing contract/service clauses that are very very aggressive for termination. For example, if AWS contacts you regarding the hosting of CPEV, you have 24 hours to remove it and respond, if you dont - they immediately terminate the account. So the 24 hour warning for Parlor

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:05 AM wrote: > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t > block people, because his Tweets were government communication. > So has Twitter now blocked government communication? Howdy, The President is a government official. Government offici

Re: Parler

It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda here. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM wrote: > > NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about > networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue > for Netwo

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: > > > > Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really > concerned > > with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate. Industry > > standards would seem to be at lea

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 12:13 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas > wrote: On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote: > > Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really concerned > with the timing they gave

Re: Parler

It’s gratifying to see the many talented engineers here working on a solution to the underlying problem: Censorship. Don’t confuse freedom of speech (which protects us from government censorship) from freedom of commerce, which is a uniquely American aspect of Internet design. As John Gilmore w

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:29 PM Mel Beckman wrote: > It’s gratifying to see the many talented engineers here working on a > solution to the underlying problem: Censorship. Don’t confuse freedom of > speech (which protects us from government censorship) from freedom of > commerce, which is a uniq

Re: Parler

In article <64d1fe99-a464-8867-92d5-8b1354963...@bryanfields.net> you write: >1. When should a contracted provider be able to discontinue service with >little to no notice to the customer if they find their content distasteful? Whatever the contract says, of course. >2. Where do we expect legit i

Re: Parler

You’ve described capitalism perfectly, and it works just as it should on the Internet, at least so far. Yes, the Internet has been a free market. But it won’t remain that way unless we resist censorship by a few wealthy companies. Parler, fortunately, has some backers who can foot the bill. -m

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 12:40, Matthew Petach wrote: There's easy solutions to the problem--hiring really good engineers to write your own AWS-lookalike where you can host whatever content you want, hosted in buildings you've built on land you've bought. There's also the issue of carrying the packets from

Re: Parler

Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation under the grounds they are an esse

Re: Parler

This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: > >  > No, > > It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to > network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider l

RE: Parler

That all only matters if you (the oppressor) believes that your victim (the oppressed) has the means to "bring peace to their enemy" either by wielding devices of War and Destruction or through the Legal System. This is the case with all "habitual criminals" such as AWS, Twitter, Facebook, Google

Re: Parler

The Courts have never interpreted the free speech rights to be totally without limits. I am pretty sure sedition defined as a concrete threat to take back the country by blocking the vote certification of the incoming President is not protected speech. Just because one does not moderate all cont

RE: Parler

>It's amazing how far the world has stumbled that "fomenting violent >insurrection and calling for the murder of elected officials" now >falls under standard T&Cs against abusive behaviour where this used >to be perfectly fine a year ago. The world is now a different place with the election of t

Re: Parler

Then again as a network operator you don’t discriminate against what is coming through you to a user or customer ... right ? ... :-D Unless it directly impacts you or the actual customer or you’ve been served by our ubermint to do otherwise non-advantageous things whatever they may be ;-) --

RE: Parler

That is an exercise for the reader. Unfortunately I do not have the answer sheet for the exercizes to hand yet. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. >-Original Message- >From: James Laszko >Sent

Re: Parler

This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my own work as an example). On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM wrote: > This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks. > > Sent f

Re: Parler

No, this is a list for Network Operators. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms wrote: > >  > This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other > businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my > own work as an

Re: Parler

Right, it's not a list for content hosting. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM wrote: > No, this is a list for Network Operators. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms > wrote: > >  > This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 13:50, Rod Beck wrote: As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the riot last week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud to the surface, I am very perplexed how to reconcile free speech and the garbage flowing through our social streets.

Re: not a utility, was Parler

In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a >public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that >platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such >importance to public life and discourse as to merit regu

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 4:58 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 1/10/21 13:50, Rod Beck wrote: > > > As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the > > riot last week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud > > to the surface, I am very perplexed how to reconcile

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed > insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional > courtesy. Got links? -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \/ |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:58:14AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks > against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise. Got links? -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \/ |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 3:15 PM, Izaac wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional courtesy. Got links? Ask Google, Apple and Amazon

Re: Parler

sro...@ronan-online.com : > While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want > for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is > now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up > to liability if they fail to susp

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 03:36:18PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of > > > armed > > > insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional > >

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:56:10AM -0500, Mark Seiden wrote: > at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the > Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying) > his own unwise tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself > would have bee

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: sro...@ronan-online.com : While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open th

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 3:40 PM, Izaac wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 03:36:18PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: sro...@ronan-online.com : While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them

Re: Parler

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021, Michael Thomas wrote: On 1/10/21 3:15 PM, Izaac wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional courtesy.

Re: Parler

* iz...@setec.org (Izaac) [Mon 11 Jan 2021, 00:22 CET]: Got links? Your message arrived like five times here but I did the google for you: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws | On Parler, reaction to the impending ban was swift and outraged, with | some discu

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 4:48 PM, Dan Hollis wrote: On Sun, 10 Jan 2021, Michael Thomas wrote: On 1/10/21 3:15 PM, Izaac wrote: On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote: Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed insurrection, I think we can forgive

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 06:15:21PM -0500, Izaac wrote: > Got links? bot. -- Jim Mercer Reptilian Research j...@reptiles.org+1 416 410-5633 Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broa

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 14:06 Keith Medcalf wrote: > > The world is now a different place with the election of the Nazi's. > OK, it's now official. I'm invoking Godwin's Law on this thread. *plonk* Matt

Re: Parler

In article <474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com> you write: >When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and >external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted >based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, >shouldn’t

Re: Parler

I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call out criminality and incitement to violence, for example: https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new territory?

RE: Parler

>The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting >freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell >their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.) You are correct and incorrect. The First Amendment prohibits the Government fro

Re: do we know what laws apply to Parler

In article <2ab9a074-bb67-4e75-1db1-2c7fff87f...@rollernet.us> you write: >On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >> sro...@ronan-online.com : >>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want >>> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting >problem.

Re: Parler

Oh, geez... I was going to ignore this thread, I really was. :( On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:13 PM Keith Medcalf wrote: > >The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting > >freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell > >their services. It is al

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:58 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want. Hi Matt, You've conflated a couple ideas here. Public accommodation laws were passed in the wake of Jim Crow to the effect that any business which provides services to the publ

Re: more bad lawyering about Parler

In article you write: >With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No >organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of >the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over >what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which >is

Re: Parler

On January 10, 2021 at 08:42 sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) wrote: > While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want > for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is > now in the content moderation business, which c

Re: more bad lawyering about Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:13 PM John Levine wrote: > > In article > you > write: > >With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No > >organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of > >the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over > >wha

  1   2   >