skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Is Cloudflare still hosting ISIS sites? I know it was when the owner woke up in a "bad mood" and booted the first site from the service.
The irony of this getting downvoted.

And this.
Can peertube be split into two parts that live on separate servers: one that hosts the web interface and the other that seeds the videos?

I would love to use peertube but the webhosting infrastructure I use would never be able to provide the large bandwidth needed for seeding videos. I do have ample bandwidth on non web hosting servers though.
> Why not to take kids away from the family and transfer them to the state so they are not exposed to racist parents?

This isn't about racism. This is about a site that is unable/unwilling to stop itself from being a forum for inciting violence, terrorism, sedition, and treason.
I was screwing around with magstripe readers two decades ago, and the PC audio jack was the obvious port to connect them to. If I recall, it only takes a little signal conditioning and you're good to go.
"Both sides" being people that set up "autonomous zones" in the center of the US and those that don't?
The root is that online speech is 100% privatized. There is no online post office whose only rules are national law and is completely immune from public backlash against its users. Nobody pickets the US post office when Nazis use it to mail hateful newsletters to each other.

Online providers don't have that immunity. Everything ever said by their users has the potential to severely impact their financial health if the public reaction is significant enough.
Ok so where do we watch videos? Link?
That question is only applicable if you equate this extreme current situation with something incredibly bland and normal.
> are supposedly harmful to the fabric of democratic society

This is the part that I don't get. Why is this part up for debate? What is the truth? What's the evidence one way or the other?

On one hand, Parler was the platform a bunch of right-wingers and domestic terrorists used to coordinate a half-non-violent half-violent storm on Capitol Hill. Parler didn't moderate that, and therefore they are being shut down by big tech who has deemed they deserve to be censored.

On the other, I'm sure we could find some like... radical Islam groups on Twitter/Facebook, no? Or is that the difference? Twitter + Facebook appropriately censor content and Parler didn't and it's as simple as that?
As Big Energy Gains, Can Europe’s Community Renewables Compete? – Yale E360
I guess my issue with this is while I can understand the reasoning, isn’t the logical conclusion to this that the entire chain of technology involved in communication tools today theoretically can provide each company involved a veto based on what those bits are causing on humans? If your CPU detects hate speech, should it be able to shut down and refund your money? If your operating system does? I understand there is a line somewhere apparently around “services” but as all computing moves towards service oriented pricing, won’t this veto power become all encompassing?
Very exciting to play.
I think them getting booted is a slippery slope. Much better to have things like this in plain sight. Think about how much harder it would be to identify people storming the capitol w/o their social media platforms... Either way, it's great when "they" are harmful to society. I'm not so sure it's not possible to end up on the wrong side of that gun down the road when "they" define "harmful"...

I'm also curious as to what AWS's stance is regarding ISIS or radical militants in other regions of the world. I genuinely don't know the answer here.
I'd like to ask you to reconsider, and here's why...

I imagine that the image was originally used with a sense of whimsy, with no harm intended, and then it was adopted into the culture of some fields, and given new meaning there within those fields, however we now know (at least when it's pointed out) that it does send some very unwelcoming messages, which affects both the fields and broader society.

I think one of the unwelcoming messages that would be sent by continuing to use the image is: knowing that it's associated with a long history of serious exclusion and unfairness, were we to use the image anyway, that would say we care more about the field's old in-joke, than we care about injustices and about being welcoming to everyone interested in the field.

This seems like one of those situations in which we don't realize something is a problem, but once we realize it (maybe someone has to mention it, and we look into it), then we do what we can to correct it. In the most limited interpretation of the problem, the correction might be as simple as using a different image in our examples, and it's perhaps the very least one can do.
Playing it right now, this isn't nearly half-baked, it's amazing and super fun!
Yep, lucky for you, your fan fiction can use this platform as well!
A Rocket from 1966 Has Found Its Way Back to Earth’s Orbit
A small sample:

https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347050705110986753

https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/134795743412035174...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1347253748444389377/photo...

https://twitter.com/EricHaftelLive/status/134709088303698329...

https://twitter.com/parlertakes/status/1347293348386664449

https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537

https://twitter.com/EricHaftelLive/status/134709088303698329...
There's a subreddit parlerwatch that's screenshotting as much of the violence-oriented stuff as possible. It's definitely big with the qanon types and followers of Lin Wood, Sidney Powell, calling for the execution of mike pence etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/
I hope this decentralized stuff isn't too late too the party - we need easy to use decentralized platforms ASAP
They probably don't have to pay for any en/decoders distributed in New Zealand. If they want to distribute anywhere else they have to comply with that place's patent law (as well as all the other laws).
What happens when the 5G conspiracy nuts want this hypothetical new platform to be forced to use old decommissioning networks? Appease them to keep the platform together, or accept that probably most of them will shut up and use the newer networks and let the rest go their separate ways?
This is only the beginning. If you think these people are just going to go quietly into the night, I think you will be horribly surprised.
There's no such thing as "in the same time" at distances where light propagation delays are comparable to the duration of the event.
I agree that society is fine with it, but despite it disproportionately affecting minority groups, it doesn't explicitly target a population with a collective political identity by virtue of their convictions. This is, to my eyes more analogous to a less-harsh corporate McCarthyism (keep in mind, I'm not making a statement of more, but rather functional parity) with a much greater potential for ubiquity.

Drug offenders are more likely to become low-level criminals, check out of society, unemployed, or impoverished. They may also be more likely to latch onto fringe groups that offer them an identity or sense of empowerment, but that latching isn't deterministically going towards any particular group.

They're imprisoned for a crime that they likely know is bullshit, but the thing they're imprisoned for is amoral to them, and a personal matter. Smoking weed or doing opiates is not a coherent commentary on the social order. Becoming a drug user is a matter of weighing the risks vs the rewards that come with it in the moment you choose to start. They likely just want to live their lives.

When they are caught and punished, they are locked up, and afforded no freedom of movement whatsoever.

Their punisher is the government, a massive byzantine machine with power which society has collective assumed to be legitimate (anarchists excluded). The enforcers of those laws may be dicks, but they are as much an extension of that somewhat legitimate power as the sympathetic public defender you may be about to receive.

Systematically and repeatedly cutting the communications ties of a massive political block for the behavior of their worst actors has a very different effect.

The locus of their concerns is by its very nature external, they already have a collective conception of who their opposition is, and the people repeatedly cutting them from their social circles are not only unelected, but entirely lacking in political legitimacy despite their massive power. They perceive that what they do is much less an indicator of whether they'll be affected than who they might possibly be with.

I believe that this creates an ample breeding grounds for the next generation of domestic terrorists in a manner that gives them concrete grounds for their sense of isolation, while simultaneously creating an ambient corps of collaborators and sympathetic allies in society at an unprecedented scale.

Parler is by no means a niche application. One of my bosses, a milquetoast Republican who was entirely contemptuous of the Capitol incident, and was talking about regretting his vote for Trump afterwards has it on his phone, because he fancied a Twitter alternative for conservative ideas. He has no conception that he might be a potential domestic terrorist. All he'll perceive is that 'Democrats' in 'big tech' are trying to ban the opposition party now that they've secured all three branches of the government.

To him, violent extremists will increasingly look like freedom fighters, and a mild sense of annoyance at 'progressive tech' will increasingly become an awareness of a perceived institutional threat to his way of life.
There's state sanctioned violence & there's uncontrolled violence. Authorities don't like competition, especially when they are on the take.
ISIS had clear ideological roots in the region, recruitment of socially disgraced military leaders, and a complete power vacuum to fill as they ravished a vulnerable, impoverish and diffuse population. What an absurd, ahistorical example.
We spend several million a year on AWS and intend to migrate as soon as possible. We’re a small drop in their bucket, but I am just done dealing with them.
My Flutter Hacker News Reader i hacked together for a tech talk (and want to finish).

Here you can access it as a PWA https://techfriday.gomano.de
So you signed up for Parler and gave them your drivers license?
Google, Apple, and now AWS to ban Parler
Curious: Did they just delist from the App Store, or did they also revoke certs so that previously installed instances of the app no longer launch?
> if it did, then it would have to save and restore those registers on each system call

Stupid question: Does the entire AVX state need to be saved and restored for a memcpy routine? It seems like it would be sufficient to save at most a couple of registers for a tight copy loop. Even for 512-byte copies that ought to be a net win...
> People defending them sound either entirely disingenuous or woefully ignorant.

The question of the Trump era, am I talking to someone that doesn't know the facts or knows them, and is cynically lying to my face to protect their worldview and argument.
If the fascist Chinese "Communist" Party sends the PLA to invade Taiwan, the US will be forced to respond, and if the CCP persists then it could devolve into a nuclear war that will destroy humanity. Hopefully Nazi Xi Jinping doesn't take the world down that path, but given his other actions, like waging a campaign of genocide against the Uighur people in Xinjiang, it's not impossible.
It is tragic this is the law. It explicitly removes agency from those who commit crimes. The rioters/insurrectionists were all bad people who made bad decisions on their own accord. The concept of incitement dilutes their responsibility. Trump didn't hold a gun to their head and make them storm the capital. Hell, he didn't even suggest it.

IMHO, incitement isn't real. It's just spreading blame to people who just made sounds come out of their head. It's barely different than a thought crime.
I think you are naive in several of your statements, or at least your understanding of these situations has been significantly filtered. Let me break down a couple of your statements:

> I've yet to see evidence that he was hoping for it to turn violent? And if he did want that why did he speak out against it?

He's not going to directly tell people to go commit violence. He's going to (and did) whip up a crowd using hateful language, demonize the people who he doesn't like, and make it clear that the crowd needed to "take action". He used the common formulae of a persuasive speech, but left the call to action portion vague, so he couldn't be held directly responsible; politicians do this all of the time.

> does this mean we can expect Biden to be removed from Twitter if tweets anything in support of BLM?

No. The are huge differences between the people who attacked the Capitol and BLM protesters.

1) Volume: BLM actions have been widespread and ongoing. Whatever these crazy Trumpers/white supremacists/insurectionists call themselves, they've had several orders of magnitude less actions than BLM.

2) Violence: even though there have been so few Trumper protests, they've almost always had violence and in several cases, murder. There has been violence during BLM protests before, but it is so much more rare compared to the number of protests that they've had. Also, in general, BLM violence is almost always directed at property, not people, and is usually as a response, unlike what we saw at the Capitol. Has ANY police officer been killed by BLM protesters? After literally thousands of protests? I haven't heard of it happening.

3) Purpose: BLM protests are generally about ending racism, social justice, and systemic equality. These Trumpets were taking action because they wanted to overturn the results of a democratic election. With that goal, they were basically trying to end our nation as a Democratic Republic.

4) Cause: BLM started, and has persisted, because people of color continue to be disproportionately killed by police (disproportionate in the reason why they were killed, not just in terms of numbers). It's funny how blatantly justified BLM's reason for existing became while watching how the Capitol Police handled the insurectionists. The Trumpets cause is that they didn't get what they want, because we live in a democracy.

So no, Biden showing support for BLM will not get him banned from Twitter, because BLM is activism in response to murderous racism, and because he has the moral compass not to try to cause the downfall of our democracy.
A hypothesis is not a lie.
You can't "slippery slope" when the quoted email makes it pretty clear that Amazon has outlined specific and clear problems that Parler has refused to address. Unless your business is being used to post hate messages, including explicit threats to kill people, your concern is unwarranted.

If it is, well, then you should probably reasonably actually be concerned about AWS shutting you down.
The issue [sigh] is that anything you want to call terrorism is terrorism. To me, the BLM movement had every quality of a terrorist movement--burning, looting, murdering, for months while demanding policy changes. That's textbook terrorism. But no one--absolutely no one--in the public sphere defined it that way. Nancy Pelosi literally kneeled before the BLM movement.

I suspect a person won't call violent actors terrorists if one of two things are true: They are successful, or if you are on the same side. For BLM and the establishment, both conditions were met.

For those on the right, just having Cletus post a comment, "Hang the bastards" is sufficient cause to destroy a company overnight.
And Twitter (along with Reddit and Facebook) wasn’t used to plan violence during the protests last summer?
Same as you.
To people frustrated by this move, I’m genuinely curious if you’d be equally frustrated if this was the booting off Amazon of a forum used in part (but not exclusively) to recruit ISIS members.

Edit: I’d also love to hear if you were equally frustrated when ISIS and their recruitment efforts were banned from Twitter.
There are actually A LOT more too but they aren’t huge names. The left are going on a banning spree right now.
One major difference though, is that Parler (right now) only really hosts said dangerous content, while Twitter is >99% innocent.
Nice website you got there. It would be a shame if some anonymous trolls posted more illegal content than your moderators could handle, and forced you off of every platform. You're in luck, we provide an online troll protection service. For a monthly fee, we'll make sure that trolls don't bother you.
Where do we draw the line on Infrastructure regulation?

The network, the platform-provider, the platform?

There is precedent for regulating the network. And Parler can run it's own server . I think there is enough competition in the platform space to allow platforms to regulate themselves.
How do you feel about all the whataboutism coming from the people who held a violent insurrection on our nations Capitol?
Do you think they actually read and spend time on what is written into a complaint form? That’s amazing.
are TOS required by law that if they are enforced then they are enforced equally? i doubt it but it seems like a contract violation to selectively enforce the TOS.
I like PeerTube, but the really important part of the puzzle is the advertiser network. What makes YouTube special is that Google takes care of the advertising side of things and makes it easy for people to monetise.

If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops.
IF that was actually the case then law enforcement would be involved and Parler would follow their instructions. As they have in the past.
I can't remember who, but an AI expert tried challenging AI sceptics to come up with a future year and a feat that they were sure an AI wouldn't be able to achieve by that year.

The sceptics were reluctant to give any such prediction, but he managed to persuade one to try.

Their prediction was that no AI would achieve a score above 90% on the Winograd Schema Challenge before 2025 (or something similar). The AI expert writing about this pointed out that a couple of months after the sceptic had made their prediction, in 2019, this threshold was passed by the BERT language model.
It’s common that a radical populist faction fails in its first attempt to seize power, only to later succeed and steer a nation to its doom.

See Hugo Chavez’s defeated 1992 coup attempt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27éta...
I agree with you that the violent content is probably a very small fraction of the total content on Parler.

But, this is where much of the planning for violent events surrounding the inauguration is taking place. And Parler is refusing to remove violent content expeditiously.

What do you propose as the solution?
To all the HN users drawing a false equivalency between Parler and Twitter checkout /r/parlerwatch . There is a significant difference between the average severity, duration, and support, for posts that suggest, encourage, and especially plan, domestic terrorism.
There are two sides of coin in HK. People who supported violent protestors and people who didn’t. Like any other society some support govt and some do not.

People who support govt and not protestors their shops, restaurants, businesses vandalised and were constantly harassed. It became politically impossible to voice against the protestors due to fear of violence, know this first hand not by talking but living through it.

Please read the Basic Law and also the extradition bill [1]. Extradition being better was still opposed and ultimately National security law was passed to give teeth to administration to stop violent protests.

It’s the vehement majority of Hong Kong people who gave rights to reinterpret Basic Law to stem the flow of people from mainland China (since court of final appeal was going to allow spouses and children of Hong Kong residents from other parts of China to settle in HK). This is the same provision used for implementing National security law. So in HK people got what they asked for and also majority Chinese supported this action on HK. So like any democracy like USA and India a law which appease majority pass easily same happened here.

[1] https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/bills/b201903291.pd...
umm email. Umm, press releases. jeez
The summer violence is not equitable to what's being planned on Parler. This is not run of the mill shit going on.
>kathy griffen posted a photo of herself with a severed donald trump head

And she was suspended for that.
1) >They fully understand how to build them now.

I was of the impression it was more an operations issue, in that there wasn't insight into many of the design decisions that they were copying.

They're iterating on the design with some experience now, and as you said, they'll have real, useable carriers soon...

But is there reason to believe they've really improved and figured out carrier ops? Let alone tactics, support/logistics, force-projection, or whatever other strategic uses they intend to pursue?

2) I didn't intend to make a political statement, just a hypothetical of "What would an art-of-war destabilizing campaign look like?"

I obviously share many of your concerns, but even if most of that is true, I don't necessarily think a declining society will weaken the country militarily, at least not initially. If anything the US military is good at training and making use of people of all beliefs/ political leanings/ levels of intelligence/ etc. As long as technology is roughly on par, and the money printing presses run, the military will do fine. The political and civilian side of the (non-DOD) government, however, is an entirely different question.

3) >this is how you get so many Republicans supporting $2,000 stimulus checks

Partially and/or maybe. But there's an alternative, conservative-consistent reasoning, in that mandatory shut-downs constitute a government taking (or even expropriation) under the law, and therefore "victims" should be compensated.

In practice, the SBA and PPP programs had this more of that type of structure, while of course the stimulus checks were done as a social welfare program.

But also, yes, there are many "conservatives" that seem to approve of populist social programs now. It'll be interesting to see the ultimate party/policies realignment.
74* million people didn't endorse a violent mob attacking the capital, or Trump's attempts to overthrow democracy after his loss.

I'm on "the right", and I want all platforms calling for violence and revolution gone. You if (we) ever want to win another election again, disowning the violence and extremism is step one.

Or are you owning the mob that stormed the capital?
Who said anything about Trump? Just so you haven't noticed Trump is not that important anymore.
The Communist Manifesto is harmful to society. It contains many explicit calls for a specific group of people to commit violence against another specific group of people.

And yet, we shouldn't ban it off the Internet, it's a very valuable piece of information to have out there.
Ask HN: What communities have you joined aside Hacker News?
Can you tell me what communities you have joined and why did you join that community?
Where do you think you're going to go where they don't have the same sort of policies?

I'm actually very curious to see who will be willing to accept Parler's business.
Even if it is okay for Facebook and Twitter to impose strict moderation policies, is it okay for AWS, Verizon, or GoDaddy?

I just think it's a slippery slope, and we desperately need to cement our feet in the ground and draw a line somewhere.

Also, when an overwhelming majority of public discourse takes place online (thanks 2020), the people choosing who does and does not get access to the centralized systems have a CRAZY amount of power. Yelling in a public square isn't how ideas spread anymore.