Hacker News Reader

Comment by moate | Hacker News Reader

One major difference: Rosa Parks was an individual attempting to use a private service. Parler is a business attempting to use a private service to do business. Rosa Parks getting kicked off for being black is one thing, but what if she was on the same bus trying to sell candy bars? Weirdly, that's still a reason you can get kicked off a bus.

I mean the question of the era is what "rights" do we have online.

Do I have the "right" to have my site hosted by a private company, or is that a service? Do platforms have a "requirement" to act as neutrally as possible, or is it just better for business?

View on HN

>Do I have the "right" to have my site hosted by a private company, or is that a service?

It's a good question, and I think we need to figure out where that line is.

Because I agree, AWS should be able to say they don't want this customer. At the same time, when we live in a world where everything is privatized (and monopolized) you very quickly run out of options. Host it yourself? What if all server companies refuse to sell to you, or the internet service providers refuse to provide you with connectivity? Do you need to lay your own fibre and fab your chips? Where do you get those supplies? It's tough.

That is quite the hypothetical. Given that the internet is a worldwide phenomenon, it seems incredibly unlikely that all server companies and internet service providers would refuse their business.

In particular, the 'bulletproof hosting' market is still going strong. For example, just look at The Pirate Bay, who have managed to stay online and operational despite years of attempts by powerful corporations and nation states to take it down.

>Given that the internet is a worldwide phenomenon, it seems incredibly unlikely that all server companies and internet service providers would refuse their business.

I can agree that getting up and running is, probably, always possible. But that is no consolation if you're a business that can arbitrarily be shut down on a whim, perhaps without even being given a warning. The financial circumstances might make restarting or moving around untenable.

>In particular, the 'bulletproof hosting' market is still going strong.

Yes, and if there's anything good to say about this mess, it's that this particular kind of service is likely to grow.

Yes but considering the business Parler are in, i.e. publishing the sort of controversial content that gets its users banned on more mainstream social media sites, they would have been wise to have a disaster recovery plan for hosting that covered this possibility.

>they would have been wise to have a disaster recovery plan for hosting that covered this possibility.

I agree, and don't feel upset about their particular circumstances.

However, as others have noted, Twitter (moving to AWS) has vastly more controversial content. What are the guidelines as far as what content is tolerable and/or needs to been moderated, and at what rate of "urgency", for them versus Parler? These things aren't spelled out. How can a small business comply?

I think the general guideline is, don't provide your hosting provider with incentives to enforce their terms of service against you, to the point where you're denied any further business from them.

> That is quite the hypothetical

Until two days ago, being booted from your hosting provider for ideological disagreement was also quite the hypothetical.

It's not, this has happened many times previously.

Including against similarly far-right sites, e.g. Stormfront, Gab, 8kun/8chan, etc. All of which are still operational, after changing hosting providers.

Is it that hypothetical? Is 8chan back online? Last time I checked it wasn't, though it might have changed in the meantime.

(obligatory disclaimer that I don't use 8chan, and that from the outside it seems like an horrible place)

8chan (8kun) is back online, yes. They just used a different hosting provider.

> Rosa Parks getting kicked off for being black is one thing

A thing that was legal when it happened.

I mean that's really the crux of my argument. Nothing illegal happened unless AWS violated their TOS/contract. The idea that someone HAS to do business in perpetuity with you or else you'll be ruined is...bizarre? It's the whole reason contracts exist in the first place.

If you don't like the laws, you get the laws changed. There are all sorts of legal, but icky things that exist in the world (bakers being allowed to discriminate based on sexual identity, jobs being allowed to fire you for political affiliation, etc)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com