skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
same. i don't raise on click. this is incredibly useful when a smaller window is
in the foreground--and perhaps a window underneath is maximized--and i just need to
select/copy something from the background real quick. the main task i am
working on is in the foreground, and i don't want its window to immediately vanish from my
sight because it's mentally and visually disruptive (in fact, i usually don't want to
blast every other window out of sight when the maximized window raises either). i will
easily raise the background window when i need to (in a variety of ways, depending
upon whether i am currently using keyboard or mouse); meanwhile, i can lazily
focus it and interact with it while all my windows stay put. it's very calming.
Surely they're observing best practice cloud process and can therefore just spin up the service in another provider pronto?
This didn't actually happen on Parler.

Calls to violence are against their ToS and bannable. The scary screenshots you saw were self posted and screenshotted before they could be reported and taken down. You could do the same thing on Twitter / Reddit / etc.
>For example, see the arrest of the leader of the Proud Boys (for events prior to Capitol, but played active role on Parler encouraging proud boys violence that day)

You seem to be talking about Enrique Tarrio, the latino leader of the "Proud Boys" who was arrested when he stepped off his plane, for the crime of burning a blm symbol in DC the month before.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-leader-arres...

But you also seem to be trying to correlate that to this event. I don't know how they are related to Parler, can you explain?
Until[1] HN is hacked and all the upvotes history is leaked.

[1] Assuming there are no intelligence agencies peaking at the traffic and login it on real time.
Yeah, I think the contract claims are the most transparently weak (I think all the claims are weak and that the lawsuit is more perfomative gesture for PR grievance than filed with substantial expectation of recovery, but its not laughable on the level of most of the Trump election lawsuits.)
Right on, it should be a major red flag: the fact that a virus with high human tropism was brought to the world's attention in a city that's home to only one of two BSL4 labs in the world and that the lab studies bat coronaviruses in context of human infection.
This story is older then I am, but I upvote it every time cuz I think its just hilarious :-)
I strongly disagree with Rowling's bizarre obsession but she faced months of death threats while Twitter looked the other way.
If he had taken the deal and not killed himself he would be alive now and a free man 8 years later. Instead he is dead forever. I think the deal was not that bad by comparison.
> Parler was being used to organize violence.

So are Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp, Telegram, ...

IMO criminal behavior on social platforms should be investigated and prosecuted by the police and FBI etc. The same would presumably happen in your hotel analogy. Shutting them down doesn’t help with that.

In addition, social platforms of a certain size IMO should be treated more like a public infrastructure, because that’s what they effectively serve as. That’s a complex topic though.
this approach tends to be a self-own. Bug bounty and responsible disclosure folks don’t usually have expertise in it, so you’re just making the real attack surface less visible until someone with the expertise comes a long and owns you deeper than you could have imagined. This, ironically was also the case for steam: https://steamdb.info/blog/breaking-steam-client-cryptography... (I helped make this bug)

There is a misconception that the responsible disclosure system reflects real security threats, but it unfortunately doesn’t. The areas of expertise in the real world are different, and sticking a bunch of crypto in like that tends to be a case of making your eventual problems more complex, bigger, and harder to find.
It wasn't too long ago that we cheer-on and celebrate how Twitter hosted calls for political violence. Much was said about how Twitter enabled the Arab Spring, and how that was so wonderful. There's even a wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...

Now the Western elite (on both sides, mind you -- whether it's against BLM or the Proud Boys) are doing their best pikachu face.

Mob-style tyrannical democracy for thee, but not for me.
No, and this morning was probably filled with companies all across this country re-evaluating their cloud strategies...

The problem is, what happens to the next platform, if they don't like something. Our company's board had a meeting today to discuss cloud, and vendor lockin (or translation... holy eff, this could happen to anyone, let's pump the brakes on this cloud stuff). What happens if for some reason an employee, customer, or some other event caused a similar scenario. Twitter has had plenty of content filled with threats of violence in other instances, and much more direct, targeted, and deliberate. They are still running.

I personally don't have an answer, and it didn't matter why the plug was pulled, but what it did was cause a pause, and a rethink on where the control resides. Needless to say, our cloud strategy changed this morning, and I wonder how many other businesses had a similar conversation this morning.
> In other words, the media really is as liberal as is claimed by some?

This seems like flame-bait trolling, unless the conservative cries about "liberal media" were referring to... cybernews.com this whole time?
These are most of my caveats.

One other: there is a caveat of “given that the system works the way it does right now,” where there is sort of a wild-west approach to these types of big communities, then yeah Google is the sheriff of Play Store and Apple is the sheriff of App Store and Amazon is the sheriff of AWS and they set their rules about how much trouble they want on their streets. But if the overall system were fundamentally different[1], then I would not be so sure; there might be some sort of “due process” expectations then which do not exist for me now.

[1] As it may well have to become—those cities were effectively governed that way given population sizes of, what, 10,000 or so? If you have 100 million users and 0.01% of your users can code apps, you have easily that many app developers you have to wrangle.
The problem there is that it's easy to fake a tweet via an image. Not a big problem for the BBC since they're fairly trustworthy.
Let’s talk about any courtroom case that had any admitted evidence of fraud on the order of “thousands of votes” first.
Because he was arrested prior. The coordination and planning took place on Parler.
Now I’m curious about who you follow that were banned from Twitter and YouTube.

I don’t know if any research has been done on this, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find that a normalization effect happens so that more exposure to certain modes of discourse change how you think about them. Our minds are not under our conscious control, even if we would prefer that they are.

I suspect that our president’s mode of discourse has dramatically shifted what is seen as acceptable in a lot of people, for instance.
Link to the Buzzfeed article: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...

Apparently Amazon sent them 98 examples of posts directly inciting violence, Parler replied with a proposal to manually moderate such posts with volunteers, and most of the posts Amazon gave as examples were still up (including some urging for systematic assassination or blowing up AWS data centers.)
I'm not sure I follow. To me, recent polarization is a product of echoChamber * confirmationBias. e.g. (1) I subscribe to a trustworthy information outlet on $PLATFORM that reflects my beliefs. (2) I am recommended related untrusted content to increase my engagement with $PLATFORM. (3) I do not verify the related content because it reflects what I already believe. Rinse, cycle, repeat. Forcing voters to "shut up" means only allowing information to be shared by trustworthy sources. Over time I suspect that decreases polarization, at the expense of free speech.
> We both know this situation wasn't caused by a single direct order

Well, we don't both know that. What you're offering is an opinion, your interpretation of things amounts to some sort of incitement. My opinion is this is a coordinated overreaction by the media to demonize a public figure. Nothing new about that, and offending someone's sensibilities isn't criminal.
> Glenn Greenwald has been investigating the planning of the Capitol protests and says "it was largely done on Facebook".

Glenn Greenwald also chose to make the fake Giuliani/Hunter Biden laptop story the hill on which he wished to die upon, related to his resignation from the Intercept, so whatever credibility he had remaining has long since departed.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=greenwald...
Vortex: Create your own sorting games
I agree. A number of the ones in the federal system are also only in the feds because of career criminal charges. You can be convicted multiple times as a juvenile and then 1+ times as an adult and receive a federal sentence for something minor.
Merkel finds Twitter suspension of Trump account 'problematic'
my 67 year old mother in law switched from whatsapp to signal and told me about it unbidden. its happening.
If you can't make a point without mentioning morality, maybe your reasoning isn't objective.
> lack of even a basic interest in getting a realistic view of China are rampant

It's crazy how tied to a warped view of China people get.

Like, I have serious issues with China too, but the picture many people seem to have in their mind is just not modern China whatsoever.
It appears so. Is this surprising?
Defamation is not free speech, it's illegal.
I am sure the fight will be watched closely. Both parties are well-heeled and motivated ( I am sure Mercers wouldn't want to lose their investment ). I know what I think and how I feel about it, but I do not want to derail this thread.
You’re assuming one came before the other. It is the corporations that corrupted the politicians, or at least catalyzed the process.
That's a feature many users want. Plenty of users never want to see things they disagree with or take objection to, and want to have someone else enforce that pattern.

As long as it's optional - and in the fediverse design it is - then it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable. Whether or not those instances actually survive and have any users or just immediately collapse into internal bickering is beyond the strict scope.
Mindustry is an example of a (very fun) game that is open-source-first. I'm not sure what Anuke (Mindustry dev) does for a living, but they are very fast to fix bugs and implement new features. It's free on itch.io, and android, but costs money on steam and iOS. I would ask them what kind of monetization they get out of the game. They're likely an exception and not a rule. You can't expect to make a very successful game ever.
> We in America are much too obsessed with "one great man" theories of history. I also think we are inclined to underestimate the competency of Chinese governmental figures, which is structured very differently from the West.

Eh... Do I think Bezos is a visionary responsible for all of Amazon's success? No. But culture comes from the top. There's a lot of ways to run a company poorly, especially if it's doing something novel and not just churning out mundane products. The big ones involve bureaucracy and short term profits. If Jeff Bezos died, I'm sure Amazon would be just fine. Tesla maybe not. How mature is Alibaba and Ant?
IANAL, but I already see one massive issue with the lawsuit:

Count 1 is a claim against the Sherman Antitrust Act. By their own citation (see claim 31), they need to allege specific facts that would conclude (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition.

There's no facts that allege (2). Actually, I suspect they also need to list Twitter as a defendant to properly claim (1) as well, since it's Twitter that has the alleged monopoly, and the one for whom the alleged conspiracy to restrain trade exists.

Their facts probably don't even amount to alleging (1). They basically say "AWS also provides services to Twitter" (okay that's not a conspiracy by itself) and "Twitter also had an issue with the #HangMikePence hashtag" (omitting the fact that Twitter did kill the hashtag)--which still doesn't allege a conspiracy.

I'm sure some actual lawyers will shortly comment on whatever other gross procedural filings this lawsuit has (https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/134870050647095296... suggests there's quite a few).
Greenwald has actually been consistently wrong on quite a lot on that topic - mentioned quite a few places on the Wikipedia article actually.

I should stress that some partisan democrats have also been just as wrong, but Greenwald is just making it up to downplay what did actually happen.

To anyone who hasn't, please go and read the Wiki article on it - it's very detailed and clears up a lot of frankly worrying narratives I see on this website that are frankly a little disappointing considering the average reader is usually quite fastidious with technology.
Isn't Gab exactly that? They seem to have "taken off" quite successfully among their own audience. Parler simply made a different choice wrt. whether to support interop and federation.
The RFA references Song Qing, "Internet finance industry insider":

"These nationalizations are definitely happening, and [the antitrust investigation] will likely speed up that process," Song said. "It's also, I think, about making an example of [Ant and Alibaba]."

So I would trust the article as much as I would trust Song Qing.
Guys, this is just flame bait. Don't bother engaging in this throw away comment.
I believe "absolutely unmoderated" speech isn't technically correct here. As I understand it, Parler does have a form of moderation wherein a "jury" of 5 people evaluate flagged content within a 24 hour window of being flagged. If 4 vote for removal, content is removed. [1]

Naturally, if such a platform is dominated by extremists then extreme speech will remain effectively unmoderated (I can't speak to the fraction of the [former?] Parler userbase that is/was made up of violent instigators).

[1] Kara Swisher's interview with the Parler CEO on the Sway podcast (I haven't actually used Parler beyond taking a look once out of curiosity)
Oh yea, I don't mean to say that every single individual can run every single aspect of the business personally. Marketing and social skills are not evenly distributed, but they can all understand it at least, provide input, and have a conversation about it, and I believe, often avoid critical errors.

This goes a little further beyond this point I was making, but I also see collective decision making like this as being more fair. Everyone at the buisness is affected by these decisions, so everyone should share in the decision making process. Natural leaders and experts should become apparent and people will listen to them if they don't attempt to bludgeon them with their credentials.
Except the lawsuit mentions AWS and twitter...not FB?
I mean sure, we can come up with all kinds of scenarios but the probably have zero relevance to the case ?
Genuine question. Why don't platforms support both up and down voting?

I've always found it pretty obnoxious that you can only encourage content you want not discourage content you don't want. HN seems to have a good system.

Shouldn't platforms allow free speech but give the community the tools to discourage destructive speech?
Parler Sues Amazon After Company Forces Social Media Site Offline
> The discourse about China, misunderstandings about how the Chinese systems functions

It functions like a dictatorship functions. The dictatorship of the party.

> And it's actually a huge problem for the West that both government and citizens do not engage China seriously.

The West will mostly separate production within about a decade or two. It‘s not a problem at all.
I don't see how 'disliking the process' equates to 'not benefitting from the outcome'.

I dislike interviews, but I like having a job.
Hard to confirm at the moment with Parler gone, but all the stories I've found seem to indicate he was mostly active on Twitter.

I think a more interesting (and neutral) approach for Greenwald to take would be to show that all of these prominent figures were most likely active on ALL social media platforms, yet only Parler has been singled out.
Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all break Amazon/Apple/Google TOS pretty clearly and yet are still allowed to exist. Clearly, Parler has been singled out by Big Tech.

I can’t be the only one here actually concerned about Big Tech being the ultimate arbiter of truth and information. AWS is effectively public infrastructure at this point and must be treated as such unless you want to careen into a corporate dystopia where the only information you receive is information Big Tech finds acceptable.
yes, with caveats

It's a private company. If they were unable to host their own servers, and no ISP would give them an IP address then that is a problem as long as they're following the law.

Maybe if this happened a little more often less companies would go all in on Cloud services.
If Jack Ma is still alive, he must be enjoying the blessing of 996 somewhere.
Protected classes were defined in the law only because we decided they should be. Nothing says it can't include more or fewer things as the winds of opinion blow in a different direction. A religion isn't really much different from other belief systems after all.

This is a common error in reasoning by the way: looking to the way current law happens to be and inferring from that what the right thing to do is. For example, it is not against the first amendment for Amazon to ban Republicans. This does not mean it would be a good thing for Amazon to ban Republicans. Similarly I'm sure, if you tried, you could come up with all kinds of unjust laws that punish things that should not be punished (I certainly can think of many).
Parler's complaint references here says that they did remove them and also that the article referenced was leaked before it was sent to Parler.

We'll have to watch this play out in court, later.
I have had poor experience with suspension, good experience with removal.
Honestly: fuck off. Anti-semtism is immoral and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is protected under civil rights laws while racists are not. So no, kicking off a business for catering to homosexuals should be (and in many cases is) illegal. It should not be illegal to kick off a business for catering to Nazis.

This false equivalence is bullshit and you are perfectly aware that it’s bullshit.
It does feel really nice to fly through the map after you've got the dance down. It also looks and sounds nice.
How do we know that that's the reason for the drop in share price?
If it’s the only option that exists, why wouldn’t they?
It took me some thought to figure out what it meant: You support those who feed you.
The payments system (along with the ISPs) need to become a public utility. For ISPs, the least "socialistic" way is for them to operate like Energy Utilities, but IMO, the would be better off being a single provider, fully publicly provided for free.

For payment systems: also easy... everyone has an account at the Federal Reserve offered free as a public service (but with no overdraught or lending services). Payments are processed via SWIFT/ACH for the banks right now and that service should be opened up to all Americans without a bank or Card Services intermediary.

The progressive left has advocated for things like this for decades. Now it is affecting the right, but it's hard to have sympathy as they have been corporate sycophants for decades.
How does this work implementation wise? One private key per application? Per user? Or refreshed on a per-login basis on the first POST?
the latter, if you're talking about the new zealand shootings.
Switching-cost in US can actually be negative - many banks will pay you hundreds to set up an account and get direct deposits to it for a small (~3mo) period. Payroll software is generally happy to split deposits, so this isn't a real barrier to entry.

The real barrier is who wants to bother switching banks? It's new UI to learn, new passwords, new apps, new cards, new exposure to security flaws, etc etc etc. I don't think that's any different in US vs EU.
if the goal of that list is to block porn, 4chan should totally be blocked, since there are boards for porn there.
How much evidence is needed so we stop labeling this theory as conspiracy? Xi's admission?
How did you get from knowing about existing of moderation system to conclusion about using it to ensure ideological conformity? I don't see a "Wrong ideology" button on screenshot you've linked to.
HN doesn't start users shadow banned - just look for the green new-account usernames. Your account didn't start shadow banned either. Here's your first comment, visible to all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25410162

New accounts are more likely to get shadow banned, especially if they post many comments with links or post inflammatory remarks.
Yeah, early on I half joked Parler was setup by the FBI as a honey pot to keep an eye on domestic terrorist.
This is the nature of risk. Non-incumbents are always willing to take more risk as they have less to lose. If there isn't a "law" formalized for this there should be, it's as hypocritical as gravity. It's practically a natural law up there with "power grows power" and "capital builds capital".
Why is Parler disruptive?
Repeat from a couple days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690995
Nah I disagree. He used to truly dive into the story regardless of ideology. It was about the truth and the facts of the case. Specifically, his writing on the Anthrax case is top-tier journalism. He also bravely defended Nazis in court and stood up for their rights, which I deeply respect (and a totally different scenario than the current Parler debacle).

But having said that, it's clear lately he puts politics / optics first and then dives into an issue.
There's a more in depth discussion of the standard AWS contract here where there is a clause allowing immediate termination.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25733333
Regarding PoW: I think that there are two improvements that could be implemented.

1. Allow sending messages without PoW to friends. If you want to send a message to a stranger, you still need to do PoW. That should not happen often, so PoW bar could be higher.

2. Mobile clients probably won't be able to perform adequate PoW, so there should be an option to delegate PoW to some server for money. That's not a protocol issue, though.

2.1. May be instead of paying for PoW, it would be better to send money directly to the receiver. That would complicate the protocol, though.
I wouldn’t. Billionaires can be corrupt and disgusting too, and unlike politicians, are unaccountable to the citizenry. Important difference.
I agree with this article that a social network without moderation is worthless. However what this describes is not moderation, it is filtering. There needs to be some form of moderation.

Imagine a scenario in which a revenge porn image is posted to the site. Is the victim's primary recourse simply to block the image on their end? That would leave them without any power to prevent the poster from sharing that image with anyone and everyone the victim knows. The victim might not even be immediately aware of that harassment if they block the image. Putting the burden on the end user to control what they see is not moderation. There needs to be some way for that content to be removed from the system globally for moderation to be effective.
Investing Lessons from Mary Meeker's '95 Internet Trends Report