He makes an interesting point distinguishing Twitter's right to censor to AWS dropping Parler.
> Apple, Google, AWS are much more like "common infrastructure providers" than a social media site is.
I think there's a further distinction between AWS and Apple/Google. Apple and Google (in the Parler context) are essentially publishers of a sort: they publish apps. I don't see a meaningful difference between publishing tweets and applications.
However, the AWS activity seems troublesome. Would it be OK if AWS pulled the plug on you if you criticized Bezos or consumerism or big tech in general? The line between AWS and your public utility is not that far. The line between AWS and "net neutrality" isn't that far either.
> Would it be OK if AWS pulled the plug on you if you criticized Bezos or consumerism or big tech in general?
Considering that AWS hosts the National Enquirer, which posted certain, erm, compromising things about Bezos, I think it's safe to say that this analogy has been debunked in practice.
AWS seems to be drawing a bright line at credible threats of violence, and I don't think that is a slippery slope at all.
AWS is just one of hundreds if not thousands of hosting services. Is GoDaddy allowed to terminate someone's account? Linode? The 1 employee host I use in Chicago? AWS is one of the biggest hosts on the web, but they're still just a host. Other hosts exist and are readily available to move to, and there's no meaningful loss in internet availability between one and any other. The most likely reason that Parler can't manage to find a new host is that every other host now knows who they are and what they stand for, and will come knocking if they try to sign up and spin up instances. Parler ran out of giant megahosts they can hide in without having to speak to a person. On an internet that still hosts The Gab, Stormfront and numerous other deplorable sites, it's quite a feat to not be able to find any host willing to take you. That feat is pretty much relegated to child pornography and terrorism.
Let's not mince words: Parler knowingly aided in organizing a domestic terrorist insurrection on the US Capital. Anyone providing hosting to them at this point would be taking on a massive liability. Slippery Slope arguments about kicking off dissenters simply do not apply in this case.
What I think is that we now have some de facto tech organizations taking part of the role of international government.
In my mind, international government actually is necessary. But I don't think it is actually going to work as a traditional government and I don't think it's going to work as a set of de facto tech organizations that the governments fight with.
What I think can possibly work is one of Buterin's suggestions: decentralized protocols.
I actually believe that a path for global security, sustainability, and sanity is a "world government" that we evolve through shared decentralized protocols. And that governance including information distribution regulation, to be effective, will need to be tied into money in the form of sophisticated cryptocurrency.
I'm not saying this is easy. Traditionally government has been incredibly bad. But leaving things to private technopolies is just not a solution that can work out for the public good. And it definitely isn't going to integrate with any sort of democratic or other governmental model.
I think the starting point needs to be something like package registries. So the government is just providing a metaframework for sharing protocols and certain guidelines or constraints.
Otherwisee it is too hard to evolve and people get stuck with old ineffective protocols.
AWS has had an Acceptable Use Policy since launch. Every hosting service has one. I regularly cite these to take down spammers. https://aws.amazon.com/aup
People saying parler has a right to exist should be asked if they feel aws, Apple and google should also be forced to host an ISI chat forum. Or if they only support terrorists seeking to overthrow the democratically elected government when it suits their personal politics.
Either they support de platforming terrorists, or they have to afford these companies the same level of selectivity they are themselves displaying. In either case you have to allow these hosting providers to say “no way, we aren’t touching this”.
People don't like these enormous platforms having the power to unilaterally make these decisions on a dime, accountable to no one but shareholders. At a certain point these platforms get so big and integral to modern life they need to be regulated.
I can't count the number of times Twitter and Facebook have been used for hatching/plotting terror attacks. No one banned these social media giants for failure to police their own sites. Was Facebook banned after the NZ Mosque shooter live streamed entire shooting spree? Was Twitter banned after it allowed ISIS to operate on its site with impunity for 2 years by posting propaganda and beheading videos? These are just few examples of plenty of examples of violence propagated on these sites. Yet they are given a free pass. Parler on the other hand had to face the consequences.
There are personal threats, hate-y speech, and all sorts of borderline calls to violence on Twitter, as well. It's baffling to me how supportive people are of censorship (given that it'll affect THEM at some point eventually), but even more baffling how facile the rationalizations are. We're being cognitively selective when we say that Parler 'caused' or facilitated violence, and Twitter never has!
Exactly! We were told that we are going to experience fascism for 4 years. In all of these 4 years the press was given so much freedom to say whatever it wants and publish whatever it wants on a sitting US President. I don't think Putin or Xi would have been kind to the press if they were ever treated the way Trump was treated. The journalists along with the media organisations would have disappeared overnight!
Yet here we are. In a purely fascist Censorship overdrive. And everyone is cheering it! The attack on US Capitol pales in comparison to what has happened now. This is far more damaging to USA than some bunch of idiotic insurrectionists who thought they'll be able to take over the US Capitol.
> Apple, Google, AWS are much more like "common infrastructure providers" than a social media site is.
I think there's a further distinction between AWS and Apple/Google. Apple and Google (in the Parler context) are essentially publishers of a sort: they publish apps. I don't see a meaningful difference between publishing tweets and applications.
However, the AWS activity seems troublesome. Would it be OK if AWS pulled the plug on you if you criticized Bezos or consumerism or big tech in general? The line between AWS and your public utility is not that far. The line between AWS and "net neutrality" isn't that far either.