More proof that these platforms have zero content moderation and actually do not give a shit until somebody notices. I don’t see how such examples make their content policies and enforcement thereof highly questionable within the legal system.
Did banning the app magically stop ISIS and end terrorism?
The terrorists will circumvent this and use some other app while law-abiding people continue to have their human rights infringed on by censorship and deplatforming.
It infringes Amazon's rights. Why should they be forced to host this?
> The company took down the site, which touted the suicide attack that killed at least 170 people in Kabul, after The Post reported extremists were using the service
170 people. 13 service members. Amazon wants no part of this and that is their right.
Trying to proactively police all websites hosted on your VM based infrastructure is probably pretty hard. Scraping your IP space for keywords in many languages is a blunt tool and probably has too many false positives.
I don't know if people had reported it to their abuse system and that process failed. If that's the case, then they have work to do.
It is incredible that all these tech companies colluded to ban Parler because Parler wouldn’t enact their desired level and flavor of censorship, and banned Trump on unsubstantiated accusations of inciting violence. It is even more incredible that they are totally okay with Facebook/Twitter remaining in the App Store even though the Capitol riot was mostly organized there, okay with BLM-affiliated groups or Antifa groups organizing on their platforms despite a year of demonstrated political violence, and okay with the Taliban spreading their terroristic propaganda on their platforms. Why is it surprising that they were also hosting ISIS? These companies and their employees only care about censoring their direct political adversaries, and all the euphemisms they use (like “moderation”) can’t hide their intentions, due to how inconsistently they apply even their own rules.
Tech companies have enough power to sway entire populations and influence elections. They are as powerful as many governments and must be reigned in. Other countries are recognizing this problem of big tech’s political power (see https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-... or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/20/biden-always-unf...), and America too must recognize it. We need updated anti trust laws and aggressive application of them, targeting companies that are too big and companies that benefit from network effects.
The Taliban in Afghanistan isn't/wasn't listed officially as terrorist group by the US government. The Taliban in Pakistan, however, is a terrorist organization, according to the US government.
The Taliban in Afghanistan may be morally repugnant, violent fundamentalists, but they are technically not a terrorist organization (in the context of the US)
We aren’t talking about the state department’s list, we are talking about Amazon. The Taliban are technically a terrorist organization because they commit violence in pursuit of political goals, which is the literal dictionary definition. Big tech companies, if they had ethics or even the barest level of consistency, should not be hosting them irrespective of what any state organization thinks.
I’m an engineer at Amazon. Your post is misguided and incorrect.
This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part. I don’t work on whichever service was specifically used to host this content and don’t know about what specific mechanisms they have to discover and take down illegal content.
This was obviously a miss. Amazon should and has to do better. There’s no question about that.
By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken.
Unfortunately, this issue wasn’t so visible. Once it was identified, corrective action was taken.
And your accusations of being “okay with terror organizations” is wrong.
For full disclosure: I’m not speaking on behalf of the company, and I see you have political grievances with Amazon. But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too.
> This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part.
How convenient that unequal application of censorship can be excused as just a “miss”.
> By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken.
I remember checking out Parler and not finding any violent content - if it was there it must have been exceedingly rare. I also have seen numerous articles mention there was a lot more problematic content pertaining to the Capitol riot on other social media platforms - and yet those apps are in the app stores and Amazon surely has no problems doing business with them, since they maintain a presence on platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands.
> But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too.
Terrorism is the use of violence and other illegal acts to pursue political goals. Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity. And yes unequally applying censorship to one group and not the other is tantamount to supporting the other - you can’t hold the keys and also deny culpability.
> Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands.
AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC.
> Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity.
I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests.
The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress. I don’t think Amazon supports any violent protests, nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election. Btw… much of that was organized on Parler.
You’re obviously super angry. Frankly I don’t think there’s anything I can or anyone else can say that would make this a productive discussion.
I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot”, but on the other hand, you’re upset about the Taliban. These terrorist organizations also have goals to subvert America’s system in favor of their own, just like your “one day rioters”. One makes you very upset, and the other one you’re quick to dismiss.
I won’t engage with any further. Good luck, and I suggest taking a break from the Internet.
> AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC.
What relevance does this have? I’m saying that Amazon and other tech companies responded to a request for censorship of conservative voices emerging from liberal politicians. Carrying out their request as they come into power following an election is not somehow better because AOC blocked Amazon’s bid for NYC as their second headquarters.
> I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests.
Then you’re either extremely unaware of current events, or lying. Obviously BLM organized events included a significant amount of rioting, death, and destruction. A simple google search will reveal billions in damage and at least double digit deaths. You mentioned you work for Amazon - then surely you are aware of the numerous businesses destroyed by BLM activists, the near daily illegal blockades of highways near you, and a literal attempt to declare a sovereign territory (CHAZ), assuming you work at their Seattle headquarters.
> The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress.
No it wasn’t. It was just people protesting, then getting carried away, trespassing, and committing property damage. There was no great conspiracy to “attack congress” and the FBI’s investigation found there was no coordinated conspiracy to do anything more. This is also why almost all the charges from Jan 6 are for simple trespassing.
> nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election
No one was attempting to overthrow America’s democracy. Show me your evidence. If your claiming that distrusting or challenging election results is wrong, then you need to find a justification for the Democrats formally doing so in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
> Btw… much of that was organized on Parler.
Since you’re still intent on spreading misinformation, I’ve gone ahead and pulled evidence to the contrary (https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/22/court-docs-show-faceboo...). If you seek out a diversity of information it is pretty easy to know Parler didn’t play a significant role in the Capitol riot.
> I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot”
An “all out attack” on Congress is the kind of hyperbole that enabled the politically motivated censorship of Parler by abusive companies like Amazon. If you think people protesting on a lawn is an “all out attack”, what phrasing do you reserve for an actual attack? And where was this fervor when Democratic politicians incited a riot at the Capitol during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing?
> I won’t engage with any further
You’ve literally shared no evidence for your false and hyperbolic claims and are now running away from the conversation. I can only guess it is because you know the facts aren’t on your side.
(Whenever I vouch for a comment - and typically, as here, I don't also up-vote, because that's different - I feel the need to explain, so here goes.)
I've vouched for this, because it seems like something some people obviously disagree with politically, but not something that there's any reason to flag. (Though down-voting for disagreement is, however some (myself included) feel about it, explicitly allowed.)
I'm not American, I've never used Parler (I've just about heard of it, know that it has far-right associations), don't care much for US-specific politics.
I just think, agree or disagree, this is a reasoned comment that doesn't deserve flags.
Respectfully, I disagree and have flagged the comment accordingly.
I think my flag is appropriate because the comment contains blatant misinformation. While I tend to assume that the author is operating in good faith, I think they’re parroting misinformation that does not belong on HN.
Easy example: Trump’s Twitter ban was not “unsubstantiated”, it was clearly explained with direct examples [0]. I’m open to dissenting opinions on what action was appropriate, but the idea that the ban was “unsubstantiated” is unambiguously misinformation.
Zooming out, I’m happy to have HN host opinions that I strongly disagree with, but outright misinformation should not be allowed.
That's a fair point about Trump on Twitter, but IMO that's a reason to disagree, and offer a counter-argument, not to flag.
(Again, to be clear I don't really care one way or the other about anyone's feelings pro- or anti-Trump, his presidency had very little impact on me, outside the US, and no longer matters at all.)
Twitter’s own post announcing Trump’s ban, which you linked to, doesn’t contain any specific evidence showing he incited trespassing or rioting at the Capitol. It literally has zero real evidence and instead points at unrelated random points like Trump’s choice to not attend Biden’s inauguration as evidence. It literally suggests that his use of the phrase “American patriots” is inciting violence. That is absolutely not evidence of anything except Twitter’s far left bias. Your comment is unambiguously, misinformation, and only strengthens my point about politically biased tech companies influencing political campaigns. If any foreign actor did this, we would be labeling it “propaganda”.
24 comments
[ 24.9 ms ] story [ 1070 ms ] threadThe terrorists will circumvent this and use some other app while law-abiding people continue to have their human rights infringed on by censorship and deplatforming.
> The company took down the site, which touted the suicide attack that killed at least 170 people in Kabul, after The Post reported extremists were using the service
170 people. 13 service members. Amazon wants no part of this and that is their right.
I'm sure this was unintentional, but hilarious nonetheless.
If it's the "incorrect" group, it will be ignored.
I don't know if people had reported it to their abuse system and that process failed. If that's the case, then they have work to do.
Tech companies have enough power to sway entire populations and influence elections. They are as powerful as many governments and must be reigned in. Other countries are recognizing this problem of big tech’s political power (see https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-... or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/20/biden-always-unf...), and America too must recognize it. We need updated anti trust laws and aggressive application of them, targeting companies that are too big and companies that benefit from network effects.
They are not "terrorists" anymore. The Taliban is the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
Those opposed to the Taliban are now the terrorists!
The Taliban in Afghanistan may be morally repugnant, violent fundamentalists, but they are technically not a terrorist organization (in the context of the US)
https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
(from your list)
Khalil Ur-Rahman Haqqani is now the Taliban head of security in Kabul.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/new-talib...
This website staying online is a miss on Amazon’s part. I don’t work on whichever service was specifically used to host this content and don’t know about what specific mechanisms they have to discover and take down illegal content.
This was obviously a miss. Amazon should and has to do better. There’s no question about that.
By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken.
Unfortunately, this issue wasn’t so visible. Once it was identified, corrective action was taken.
And your accusations of being “okay with terror organizations” is wrong.
For full disclosure: I’m not speaking on behalf of the company, and I see you have political grievances with Amazon. But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too.
How convenient that unequal application of censorship can be excused as just a “miss”.
> By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don’t speak in behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were calling for assassination of American government officials, had full visibility. It wasn’t obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and corrective action was quickly taken.
I remember checking out Parler and not finding any violent content - if it was there it must have been exceedingly rare. I also have seen numerous articles mention there was a lot more problematic content pertaining to the Capitol riot on other social media platforms - and yet those apps are in the app stores and Amazon surely has no problems doing business with them, since they maintain a presence on platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
Let’s be honest: Deplatforming Trump and Parler were purely politically biased moves. Amazon probably only took action against Parler because AOC demanded it publicly, which shows that the government will abuse their position to cause censorship of their adversaries, and that technology companies are spineless sycophants who will sacrifice fairness and ethics to pursue friendly political relationships when power changes hands.
Glenn Greenwald wrote about all this at https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...
> But to turn that into Amazon or it’s employees being okay with hosting terrorist content is so absurd, it’s not really even worth responding too.
Terrorism is the use of violence and other illegal acts to pursue political goals. Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity. And yes unequally applying censorship to one group and not the other is tantamount to supporting the other - you can’t hold the keys and also deny culpability.
AOC is fairly against Amazon and was one of the loudest voices against Amazons HQ2 in NYC.
> Many BLM affiliated groups met this definition in 2020. That didn’t stop Amazon from donating to those groups or from hosting their content. Ignoring this much bigger amount of violent rioting and terrorism from 2020 and focusing on a one day riot in 2021 is the real absurdity.
I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests.
The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress. I don’t think Amazon supports any violent protests, nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election. Btw… much of that was organized on Parler.
You’re obviously super angry. Frankly I don’t think there’s anything I can or anyone else can say that would make this a productive discussion.
I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot”, but on the other hand, you’re upset about the Taliban. These terrorist organizations also have goals to subvert America’s system in favor of their own, just like your “one day rioters”. One makes you very upset, and the other one you’re quick to dismiss.
I won’t engage with any further. Good luck, and I suggest taking a break from the Internet.
What relevance does this have? I’m saying that Amazon and other tech companies responded to a request for censorship of conservative voices emerging from liberal politicians. Carrying out their request as they come into power following an election is not somehow better because AOC blocked Amazon’s bid for NYC as their second headquarters.
> I’m not aware of BLM supporting any kind of property destruction or violent protests.
Then you’re either extremely unaware of current events, or lying. Obviously BLM organized events included a significant amount of rioting, death, and destruction. A simple google search will reveal billions in damage and at least double digit deaths. You mentioned you work for Amazon - then surely you are aware of the numerous businesses destroyed by BLM activists, the near daily illegal blockades of highways near you, and a literal attempt to declare a sovereign territory (CHAZ), assuming you work at their Seattle headquarters.
> The “one day riot” was an attack on America’s Congress.
No it wasn’t. It was just people protesting, then getting carried away, trespassing, and committing property damage. There was no great conspiracy to “attack congress” and the FBI’s investigation found there was no coordinated conspiracy to do anything more. This is also why almost all the charges from Jan 6 are for simple trespassing.
> nor do we support an attempt to overthrow America’s democracy because one group can’t handle losing an election
No one was attempting to overthrow America’s democracy. Show me your evidence. If your claiming that distrusting or challenging election results is wrong, then you need to find a justification for the Democrats formally doing so in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
> Btw… much of that was organized on Parler.
Since you’re still intent on spreading misinformation, I’ve gone ahead and pulled evidence to the contrary (https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/22/court-docs-show-faceboo...). If you seek out a diversity of information it is pretty easy to know Parler didn’t play a significant role in the Capitol riot.
> I find it ironic that you dismiss an all out attack on America’s Congress as a “one day riot”
An “all out attack” on Congress is the kind of hyperbole that enabled the politically motivated censorship of Parler by abusive companies like Amazon. If you think people protesting on a lawn is an “all out attack”, what phrasing do you reserve for an actual attack? And where was this fervor when Democratic politicians incited a riot at the Capitol during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing?
> I won’t engage with any further
You’ve literally shared no evidence for your false and hyperbolic claims and are now running away from the conversation. I can only guess it is because you know the facts aren’t on your side.
I've vouched for this, because it seems like something some people obviously disagree with politically, but not something that there's any reason to flag. (Though down-voting for disagreement is, however some (myself included) feel about it, explicitly allowed.)
I'm not American, I've never used Parler (I've just about heard of it, know that it has far-right associations), don't care much for US-specific politics.
I just think, agree or disagree, this is a reasoned comment that doesn't deserve flags.
I think my flag is appropriate because the comment contains blatant misinformation. While I tend to assume that the author is operating in good faith, I think they’re parroting misinformation that does not belong on HN.
Easy example: Trump’s Twitter ban was not “unsubstantiated”, it was clearly explained with direct examples [0]. I’m open to dissenting opinions on what action was appropriate, but the idea that the ban was “unsubstantiated” is unambiguously misinformation.
Zooming out, I’m happy to have HN host opinions that I strongly disagree with, but outright misinformation should not be allowed.
[0]: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
(Again, to be clear I don't really care one way or the other about anyone's feelings pro- or anti-Trump, his presidency had very little impact on me, outside the US, and no longer matters at all.)