skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The --etcd-servers-overrides flag can do it. I could swear I'd seen a proper writeup in the Kubernetes docs, but couldn't find it again.

What I said was slightly wrong. It's not that you nominate Kinds, it's that you nominate which etcd servers get which etcd key paths. You can essentially work it out because the path structure is consistent.
"The great bifurcation is upon us!"

0.01% of traffic will change destination. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. It's amazing how quickly the HN goblins start howling at the moon when their favorite fascism and child porn site gets shuffled offstage. Y'all really thought Parler would last huh? Back to 4chan I guess.
Preventing dangerous incitement to violence is in no way recent, not is what is happening now in any way new. The only difference between now and 200 years ago is the amount of damage that speech that is unconstrained by social norms can do. I get very frustrated with all this "Oh no, if we prevent this dangerous person from saying dangerous things our society will fall apart!" while it has been precisely this clamping down on dangerous speech throughout the last ten thousand years that allows us to live together at all.
It’s possible that that they’re trying to get in the good graces of the incoming administration. It’s also possible that they’ve wanted to do this all along, but feared legal retaliation from the outgoing one. (The latter feels kinda gross, as they could certainly weather the retaliation better than the people they’re trying to protect now).

It’s also possible that this truly just happened to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Regardless, my general inclination with regard to these companies is that we should have a free market but break up any one that gets large enough such that getting kicked off presents a moral issue. VPS is highly commoditized, so I don’t really care that they got kicked off AWS, but Facebook and Twitter are a bit thornier.
Could anyone point me to some cogent, well-formed arguments for why censorship of social media platforms is a good idea? i.e. books, articles, etc?

I have some thoughts but would like more perspective before fully forming an opinion.

(not arguing one way or the other below)

For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums that have existed through history. And what about those characteristics would make one think that physically removing questionable speech would be effective in preventing the underlying event, crime, movement, or social change the speech was attempting to facilitate.

Comparing Twitter, say, to a literal town square — we don’t ask the air in the town square to stop transmitting the vibrations of someone who is speaking in a dangerous manner or trying to incite some action that might harm others or damage social structures. Instead we use normal human social interactions to mediate the speaker’s effect on listeners — countering their arguments, questioning their credibility or motives, telling others an opposing viewpoint, letting a person’s past speech affect their reputation, etc. We leverage our social nature and counter speech with more speech. (The prominent exception being threats of violence which are treated differently legally)

In all the years of human history before social media, there have been countless examples of insurrections, of hateful acts inspired by a few, of coups, of routine crimes, of widely believed mistruths, etc. So obviously individuals in those societies were able to communicate and organize without social media (and in many cases without any electronic communication at all). Which means that access to social media is not a necessary condition for bad events to happen or bad social phenomena to spread. And therefore these things will find a way to continue to happen even if all social media communication were terminated.

My naive assessment is that social media is different than a physical town square in:
- Its anonymity / dehumanized nature
- Its built-in amplification of controversial ideas (ie the algorithms of town square air does not carry further just because a statement raises eyebrows)
- Its speed
- … but there must be more?

Basically, why is making the “digital air” in the "digital town square" not vibrate better than utilizing (and perhaps reinforcing) the social structures that moderated public forums in the analog world?
Show HN: Phrenemies A free online game I made to play with friends
I was saying the individual app’s TOS typically prohibit hate speech against classes that typically align with judicial cases of what constitutes a “hate crime” against a certain class or category of people
Why the rich will keep getting richer in 2021
It is a naive hope that technology alone can solve major social problems.

> It's time to restart the cycle with new means of communication ...

My response is: yes, innovation can be good, exciting, powerful. But never forget to assess how human nature will respond.

> ... with new means of communication that the new establishment cannot police.

Perhaps this will arrive, but I doubt it. Governments have many levers to influence behavior. Unless you are an anarchist, I suspect you support some role for goverment.

Even if a new communication form arises that cannot be policed -- be careful what you hope for. Free speech is not a panacea.
Why do you say those two things are equivalent? Why can’t it be good to ban nazis planning violence on one social network, and bad to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? Those are very distinct things.
I'm actually less anti-Trump than most. I voted for him in 2016, but didn't vote for him in 2020. I don't like most of his policies, but there are some of his policies that I do like. I liked Trump before he became president, I thought he was a hoot. So I understand his way of speaking and know that some journalists really like to twist what he says. He just doesn't have the discipline to say things presidentially and talks off script in his very loose way.

I do however think his behavior has been deplorable since the election loss, and he blatantly incited a riot. He crossed a line and he deserves to be punished.
I see your point but I think the context matters. A gay wedding is not the same as inciting violence.
Where did Clubhouse come from? People have railed against JIRA and some other antiquated project management software for as long as I remember, but it feels like the choices were Trello, Basecamp, and recently I know Asana is very large (though I didn't see it's rise) -- is Clubhouse the Slack to the other companies' HipChats?
Sheesh, there’s a wee bit of difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake and people threatening to kill others (and the platform refusing to remove that content).

You can’t both-sides this one.
Would you like AWS to moderate every line you write on HN?

Or how about this.

Would you like the CEO of Parler to be telling you what you are allowed to write?

That is the consequence of what you are saying.

Parler moderating Parler; Twitter moderating Twitter; are very different from AWS moderating Parler or Twitter.
You’re referring to this?

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18136253/pewdiepie-vs-tseries...
the problem is that both sides of this issue have internalized a subjective representation of events and their doctrine moving forward is based on that subjectivity. this is how politics work. to understand where the right is operating from, you need to be willing to understand their narrative as they understand it and the same goes the other way. this imo is the only way to begin broaching the utter communication breakdown that is happening. for a not insignificant portion of our country, the cultural lockstep that emerged between corporate avatars, media, and government officials cheering on what they experienced as months of violence, destruction and lawlessness (and not to mention a jarring reversal on the necessity of lockdowns that have served as a de facto economic sanction on middle america) has fundamentally destroyed trust in these institutions, more alarmingly, it has shown that violence is the path to results.
it is very important to understand the mindset of these people and how it brought them to the capital.

on my part i think my initial comment was poorly constructed as this was the main point i wanted to communicate.
I've been funding Wikipedia for years and use it several times daily. It has indeed grown into an amazing source of knowledge documenting this world. However there are insidious problems building up. For example, I've noticed that they are starting to encode a lot of biases into its articles, particularly on topics that are part of the political sphere. These articles often reflect a US progressive-left worldview rather than a balanced view that reflects differing opinions from multiple sides of the aisle. There is also a distinct Western and English cultural bias in how articles describe and frame other countries, other cultures, and other religions.

I'm not sure what the fix is for these issues, but it does mean that I seek out opposing perspectives elsewhere when I read articles that concern such topics. It'll probably always be important for readers to seek multiple perspectives, including ones they disagree with, instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia to be correct. After all, it is written by humans.
>like they have been doing since they have existed?

>i assume you mean if all newspapers decided to stop printing the same side of the story. if that side of the story was suggesting the vice president needs to be assasinated, then i think that's an okay viewpoint to marginalize before it reaches the entire country.

No I was saying if the provider of printing to say your local news paper was friends with the Mayor and there was a corruption story, and they opted to decline the business of the local newspaper and refuse to print it.

Not every newspaper owns their own printing.

I hear what you're saying, I'm just saying the laws need to catch up, we can't depend on each company being socially pressured to do this or that. If we regulate the internet like a utility then we need to move to that world.
Kinda weird to repurpose that example when here it’s literally “first they came for the Nazis.”
Building muscle will take resistance training of some kind. The most effective way is with weight training at a gym, but it isn't the only way. Bodyweight training can definitely help you put on muscle, it will just be a bit slower. There are some natural limits to how far you can take it, but by the time you hit them you will be way more comfortable and aware of where to go next.

As a fellow hardgainer, as the industry calls it, I would recommend weight training if you want to get it done within the year, but if that isn't an option yet, get started with bodyweight stuff.

No one is trying to sell you anything with general weight training, it's tried and true. Just forget the paid programs. Forget supplements, just eat well and regularly, and be mindful that you can only grow as fast as you can recover so sleep and food are just as important. If you aren't able to eat enough, you can train a bit less. It's all a balance.
I cannot agree with you more for the fairness doctrine. It really feels like such an unknown piece of legislation, yet one which has massively affected political discourse in the US (and Canada too).

Overall though, it seems like the Republican party could benefit from some of this legislation; introducing more representatives like Romney, rather than McConnell, and giving new life to a seemingly stretched out party.
1. "Trial by combat" means one person fights one other person, and the victor is considered "right."

2. And note the context! In this case it is clear that he is speaking of a one-on-one challenge where reputation is at stake, not life or limb, and where the combat is making the evidence public. Watch the video. Don't take my word for it: https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1346847382768676864

I'm no Rudy fan, and I'm not going to try to justify what Trump and other Republicans have been doing, but give me a break. If Cranley isn't inciting, then neither was Rudy.
Actually, the protests were anti-police murder. They were protesting the large numbers of murders of Black people by police.

Again, please don't intentionally misconstrue what happened this summer in the BLM movement, or the impetus behind that.

And if you see those protests as "similar" to a fascist mob trying to overthrow the US government, well, I don't really know what to say, other than that you are obviously incorrect.
What? This isn't about whether rules are good, they said that the rules prevent a slippery slope, which is obviously bunk.
It is to people who get furious at the thought of a gay wedding.
I'm am genuinely hoping for well-written counter-arguments.
The best place to start is to read open source code. Start with small but popular repository on GitHub.
>Just because they have the right to do it does not means it’s a good thing.

I'm sorry if I weren't clear. That was my personal reaction and my personal opinion, not an objective evaluation of the situation (since I'm pretty sure it's not "good" for anyone working at Parlor lol).

But considering the kind of damage those people are doing to the society and I just happen to live in the exact same society, yeah, in my very humble opinion they can royally go get fucked.
I don't think this worries 99% of AWS customers in the least. We rely on AWS at work; there isn't going to be a meeting Monday about potentially moving off AWS.
Most importantly it hasnt adopted the Like/Follower count based Reward system that lot of people in the tech world have mindlessly included all over the place.

Try running any org with a Like and Follower count based reward system and check what surfaces and who pays a prices.
I see this comparison a lot and I want to point out exactly why it’s false:

We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay.

Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content.

I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists.

The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.
> For example, I’d like to understand the defining characteristics of social media platforms that contrasts them from traditional public forums that have existed through history.

They are privately held.
I don't think Parler represented half of the country’s political ideology. At least I hope not.
This has been repeated time and time again, but once more: sexual and gender identities are protected classes in the United States. Being generally reprehensible isn't.
Because they’re the same thing. One group gets special treatment and the other doesn’t and somehow that’s fair.

Edit: Nazis don’t exist anymore, guys. That’s a 40s German political group. You can’t be a Nazi anymore than you can be a Whig. You could be someone who agrees with 40s-era Nazi ideology but, again, you would still lack membership in the now-defunct party. I realize name-calling is central to attacking Parler sympathizers but at least be accurate.
It’s hard to ban someone with an army and nukes. Judging from what did actually just happen, their employees would be in danger if they’d done it before this. There are people on Parler discussing killing @jack as is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.
This is Clubhouse the video platform, not Clubhouse the ticket tracking system
I’m not denying the numbers but I was at Century City mall today. Lot of people relatively, lot of fun. Made 3 new friends today and went on a date.

Yes roughly 2-3x the people are dying everyday vs 5 months ago. That’s horrible obviously but I barely see anyone in a close setting.

But people are living despite it. My friend is dating 3 to 7 girls at once and they all know each other (and all hang out together).

Not saying that’s ideal but the pandemic isn’t affecting people like cable news suggest. Barely anyone talks about it but we all try to be careful.
Because no one is "coming" for you friend. You sound deranged.

If you really need a place to scream about killing leftists, go to the park. The homeless vets will probably yell at you to shut up but I promise Amazon won't try to deplatform you.
Scratch on Browser or even an iPad works well to start.
The main changes were the switch from UseModWiki to MediaWiki (using the Monobook skin), and from Monobook to Vector.

https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/?useskin=monobook
Because if you give a government the ability to draw the line between those two, then, in 2017, for example, that line would be drawn by Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan.
The difference being you do not get to choose your sexual orientation, but you do get to choose your political affiliations and violent speech.
Yes hopefully this is people trying to do the “right” thing in the face of a tragedy (whether you think it is the right thing or not)

However, even from a cynical pragmatist view the attack causes previously high engagement “viral” content that stirred controversy/discussion and most importantly ad views/clicks into something that advertisers will most likely refuse to allow their ads to be displayed alongside.

It essentially shifted from financial asset to liability and so the companies dumped it...
Parler is not nazi, Parler is simply hosting. So in fact it's worse: it's like closing down the entire mall hosting the bakery, not just the bakery.
Lol, if they're holding enough BTC, and they can pump the price enough they can basically go as high as they want and still be "backed".

Maybe this has been the plan all along.

If tether disappears and takes all the cash and BTC with them what happens?
It looks like someone actually reads emails to abuse@amazonaws.com.
Awesome analysis. This pretty much nails it
It doesn't. Because those manufacturers realized it doesn't matter.

Think of how simple a charging station is in comparison to a place that could swap batteries, yet how hard it is to even get chargers installed in enough places.
And several years ago when Putin was trying to ban Telegram Amazon was the one providing servers and ips to prevent it.

So the only way to be safe from censorship is to use services hosted in an unfriendly/uninterested country. Maybe they need to open accounts in Russian vk social network instead of Parler:)

Jokes aside this is one of the reasons why it is important to have multiple truly independent countries, because if you have just one government for whole earth, then someone like Snowden will not have any safe place.
Exactly. They've been saying stuff like

"Burn it down, burn it all down "

"If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f*cking thing down."

Unconscionable.

AWS has terms of services and if you violate them, you can expect them to follow them.

And it makes total sense that they would do it with plenty of warning like 24 hours after hosting then for years.

You just can't criticize a business like AWS for doing that.
You've been using HN primarily for political battle, which we ban accounts for, regardless of which politics they're battling for or against. We have to, because doing that destroys the curious conversation HN is supposed to exist for (see [1] for more explanation). I've therefore banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
In both cases it's a matter of being able to choose whether to participate in a message you don't agree with.
Michael Cusack, Who Helped Spark the Special Olympics, Died
> I guess the current consensus in the US is that it's okay for companies and medias to be arbitrators of what's wrong and what's right.

Well, if by “current” you mean “since the adoption of the Bill of Rights”, and if by “companies and medias” you mean “everyone, as to how they will use their own voice and property to promote messages”, yes, to you've correctly understood Constitutional free speech.
That is a very good point. On your point comparing religion to politics, there's quite a few good books on this subject. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11324722 is one good one.
Could you cite some examples that you feel are especially egregious?

Have you tried to remedy this by editing any of those articles and backing up your edits with a solid factual argument?
There are two Clubhouses I'm aware of:

One is a project management app: https://clubhouse.io

The other is an audio app: https://www.joinclubhouse.com

The article is referring to the latter. I think you might be alluding to the former.
Strongly disagree. Facebook in particular. I'm with you on Amazon, and I founded a search engine because of my ethical beef with Google and general dissatisfaction with their product, their data collection is unethical and their search leaves a lot to be desired particularly for developers.
Just to clarify: are you asking for arguments supporting...

1. government censorship of a social media platform?

2. self-censorship on social media platform?
Parler should have known this was a risk going in. Being able to switch cloud providers is important if there is potential for controversy for your service.
the left? these are massive multibillion dollar corporations mate.
That's a pretty serious allegation, and you're going to have to elaborate on that.
I’ll try an even more obvious example. Why can’t it be good to put murderers in prison, and bad to put innocent people in prison?
There are threads on Parler right now (well, were before the service was taken down I guess) where people are discussing names and addresses of Twitter employees and planning kidnappings. You really think taking that down is censorship?
What would be a good place to find one of these biases?
Not really. There is a difference between multicloud and cloud agnostic.
I second neatze; I started around your son’s age by modding games (Morrowind). My younger brother got into Roblox, which is still popular.

My main driver was creating stories and cool new stuff for other people (Dad, brother, forum users) and getting feedback. Playing with your friends in a world you spent a month to build is an incredible experience.
I don’t understand why this was flagged. If you or anyone else can explain the reasoning it’d be appreciated.
It is? It seems kind of obvious to me. People who don’t care about a topic are not going to edit the page about it.
A Thousand Cuts (full documentary)
The video itself is funny, because it looks like JPG is the first to finish by far, but in reality it still is getting more detail, but more most people that detail is not visible, and by the time they look more closely, it may have already finished loading.
Hopefully condemnation of violence and the removal of digital systems that enable violence is bipartisan?

If it isn’t then morally they should side with the party who is against violence.

If it isn’t then financially it is prudent to side with the side that will keep the advertiser dollars flowing. (Biden won 70% of the economy and the majority of the people, especially the wealthy and well educated)