skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Only because they're being spun up.

Trump's opposition is going to be giddy about Trump's downfall and Parler's removal, the same way Trump's supporters were giddy when Trump won. It is not reasonable to expect the mass of political partisans on Facebook and Twitter to adhere to a code of civility.

If your principles are altered by the behavior of strangers on Twitter, they aren't really principles, right?
Really? Define it then.

Facebook is a website by all technical terms.

Where is the hard defined line between social media services and a website?

What is a website that hosts a forum?

What is Discord?

What if I run a WordPress website with the BuddyPress plugin?

What about comments on my blog articles?
>"by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...."

That's not violent per se, maybe the right wing is in fear of polar bears near the Capitol. Please don't get me wrong, but if you let big Marketplaces and not Justice make decisions whats right or wrong...well then that can go really fast the other way too.
Aside: This ongoing episode reminds me of the old Mark Twain quote: Never anger a man that buys ink by the barrel.

I think an update is needed: Never anger a man that measures servers by the acre.
What do you use if you need to process hundreds of GBs of data?
If it helps, I agree with you here. This whole situation has made me a bit uneasy. While I generally agree with the decision made by these private companies in this specific instance, it does feel like there was a domino effect where one platform banned people for inciting violence, and then the rest followed suit when there was media traction on the story. The fact that a few people have this much unchecked power is a bit scary.

Yes, these are private companies. Yes, they don't have to spend time, money or infrastructure on anyone they don't want on the platform, I understand all of this.

What I merely want to comment on is the ubiquity of these websites. Facebook, Google, Twitter and even TikTok are increasingly becoming primary means that people around the world communicate. If I'm a racist prat that spams that we should "kill all those muslamics, innit", sure I should be warned or removed from these platforms, however that significantly diminish my means of contacting other people.

I have friends that I can only really contact through Facebook. I'm trying to add them on multiple services so that I stay away from a single-point-of-failure, however some of my relatives are old and/or technologically inept, and they never check their email or SMS. While I could call them, if I were to get banned from Facebook that could reduce my ability to communicate with these people down quickly and easily to near zero.

I understand that there are actions for your consequences, I just fear that with these services becoming so commonplace (see WeChat in China, for example), being locked out of these walled gardens could have severe, real world impacts to those that the platform doesn't like.

I don't know, just food for thought.
The same Justice Minister wants to take away the right to refuse a ticket from the police, so don't be so quick in your judgment.
D&D and HBO did not repeatedly lie about the contents of the last season of GoT to get high viewership.
I don't think my post argues, or even attempts to argue, against your point.

It was a light-hearted jest at the fact that this exact line is in every single breach notification I have read for the past few years.

The more serious point I was alluding at was not "just don't get breached", it was that the "we care" line rings hollow after the 250th time reading it.
I only ran into one bug that prevented quest completion. Near the beginning of the game, there is a quest where you and Jackie have to pick up some equipment then fight your way out of the building. On my first attempt, Jackie got stuck in combat because he didn't recognize a dead as enemy as being dead, so he wouldn't leave the building for me to talk to him and finish the quest.
xterm -bg \#1A1B1C -fg white
Read the TOS before subscribing to a service would be a good start. And have a plan 'B' and if you plan on starting a revolution maybe have a plan 'C', 'D' and 'E' as well just in case.
I wonder where did you get that definition from?
For reference, this was on Twitter & Parler. Twitter didn't take him down for at least a week.

Similarly, I've seen people regularly call for violence on all sides and not be removed from Twitter.

The reality is that the moderators are overwhelmed, etc.
> If you don't like it, build your own competitor

That is fundamental axiom of free-market capitalism. How do you think it is supposed to work? I'm trying to imagine a system where competition doesn't exist... oh wait. It's called "Communism".

> People shouldn't be able to put you out of business because they have more power and don't like you.

You must be young. "I have a bridge to sell you". In 15 years you'll better-understand how the world works and your idealism now will feel rather foolish in retrospect. I'll leave it at that.

> some of which are monopolists

I think this is actually what you are meaning to argue against. Just poorly. There is nothing wrong with a company deciding that the profit they derive from selling me widgets eclipses the losses they realize elsewhere, and to therefore end the relationship. This literally happens constantly. I could give you an example last month where we had to end a relationship with a client because they are a competitor to a bigger (more profitable) client who didn't like us serving both. It happens. I promise.

What it seems like you are actually railing against is anti-competitive behavior which is protected against in antitrust law. Monopolies are not against the law so long as they don't engage in certain market-making behaviors[0]. That is, behaviors that make "building your own competitor" impossible (i.e. undermining the fundamental axiom of FMC). This isn't a case of anti-competitive behavior. This is the market deciding that the financial/political cost of associating their business with an entity is greater than the profits they gain. It's business. Parler, in this moment, simply doesn't have a sustainable business model. The best thing they could do is to turn the narrative, lean in, and applaud AWS for exercising its freedom. But they are young too...

And for what it's worth I wasn't "poking holes" in your analogy. I was tearing it down entirely. It doesn't hold at all - even a little bit. To believe otherwise is to misunderstand the very foundations on which the civil rights movement was based, and some respects, liberal democracy altogether.

[0] Amazon is currently in court fighting the government in this respect. So is Facebook.
Safari is good, my dealbreak is the adblockers. Ive been using Safari since 2 months im already desperate to use Firefox, Chrome or even give Brave a try.
And no, none of the available adblocker for Safari works well.
W3 was released in May of a non-pandemic year. CP2077 was released in December in a pandemic year.

The game-hours-to-calendar-days translation won't be 1:1.
They opted to TELL people about it which is a good indicator. I’m sure there’s many companies who choose not to (which may be against the law). It’s also HR spin on the topic, but iirc ubiquity offer bug bounties on a range of devices they sell so there’s at least some truth to the spin.

‘We know they breached but don’t know what they did’ is an interesting statement. One POV is that they didn’t have sufficient logging and segregation to determine how widespread the breach was, the other is that they’re not arrogant enough to think their SIEM adequately captures everything.
> If these companies are "shutting you down" for your speech, it's the same sort of speech that would have gotten you shut down in the public square.

That's some Grade A corporate apologetics there. How can you assert this? Who decides what is going to get you "shut down in the public square"?
Neither was omitting Putin's admission that he wanted Trump to win from the Whitehouse transcripts.
What its claiming to stand for and what its intended use are not mutually exclusive.
If we want to continue down a path of honest discussion, at no point did people who firmly believed Trump was guilty of collusion with Russia devolve into storming a government building.

And, the Russia topic by and large never called into question the legitimacy of the ballots cast, attempting to disenfranchise voters. The Russia narrative followed a path of legal investigation into questionable situations. Trump did not get impeached for the outcomes of the Mueller report. Dems did not force their way into political buildings. They (at least the mainstream ones) never called for violence.

So, it seems that the left, in the end, did believe it was a fair election in terms of ballot numbers, and never suggested that the democratic election be overturned.

The last part of your statement says something entirely different than the first part. I don't think anyone is claiming that Dems haven't worked hard to undermine Trump during his time in office. Just like I don't think anyone claimed Republicans weren't working to undermine Obama when they took control of the Senate. That's politics, good or bad. But that does not correlate to a belief that a fair election should be overturned.

Not really an apt comparison in my opinion.
Yup, under this law a post mentioning true facts about nazi collaboration in poland during ww2 would be illegal.
This government is heading into a tyranny. And most of voters are happy with it, sadly.
Exactly, that was the reason Moxie gave for wanting to avoid F-Droid back in the day. Besides, I hear the .apk one can obtain from signal.org these days comes with an integrated update mechanism, anyway? As much as I am a fan of F-Droid, I really don't understand the criticism here. What advantages does F-Droid provide here?
I'm not convinced Parler is meaningfully different from the DailyStormer in this regard. In fact, I would say DailyStormer is plausibly less capable of promoting violence and terrorism than Parler is, and this shows in current events. In terms of effectiveness and threat level, Parler is clearly greater.
Does wanting any of this automatically mean wanting e2e is wrong or invalid?
they should tell me, what they are going to improve. :)
you are right. So, either a stupid mistake was made, or..
Here are the thing you can set up in a day or two. These are things you can do right now that will give you room to breathe so you can start to think more broadly, but most importantly, they don't require change in code:

Take a look at Sentry[0]. It will catch exceptions, group them by type, count them, display them with the stack trace, and more. It has integrations with Slack, GitLab/GitHub, etc. It makes creating issues and alerting you easier. You won't have to dig into dozens of log files and miss exceptions that happened a few hours ago but are completely drowned by log messages.

Take a look at Prometheus[1] and Grafana[2]: you can set them up and have the state of your infrastructure in a dashboard (services up or down, how many times they were down, for how long, etc. Latency, CPU, GPU, disk space, RAM, etc). Whatever matters to you, put it there. You can create custom alerts (example: storage 90% full) to give yourself a heads up and act beforehand.

Look at whatever you do as a team when there's something wrong, figure out all the information you usually need to troubleshoot, and have it all displayed so you can glance at something and know quickly where something is wrong. This is reactive, but it's a start and you won't waste

For development, you can have issue templates for incidents [service shut down and nobody saw it, etc], and bugs to lower the barrier to entry to write good quality incident reports. This way, people know what to write, where to write it, and how to write it. Put a tag in the template, the people in CC, whatever makes your life easier. Summary, impact, recovery, investigation, future prevention.

One benefit of that is that when you have these incident reports, patterns will emerge fast. It surfaces the most frequent and the most impactful pretty quickly.

Once this is done, it will save you time and effort that you can put into reading more on the subject. Search for "Site Reliability Engineering", or "SRE"[3]. There are a few books, some more abstract and others more practical[4][5].

Take a look at Enterprise Ready[6]. It talks about the most common requirements and features in an enterprise product (SSO, RBAC, etc).

- [0]: https://sentry.io

- [1]: https://prometheus.io/

- [2]: https://grafana.com/

- [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_reliability_engineering

- [4]: https://sre.google/books/

- [5]: "Seeking SRE, Conversations about Running Production Systems at Scale"

- [6]: https://www.enterpriseready.io/
The example tells about inability to reach conclusion in debates, but explicitly assumes good faith, you probably skipped the final part. And in real life as well, not a lot of people would be inclined to choose civil war instead of political/cultural one.
>> free speech

> First Amendment

These things are different. First Amendment protections restrict the US government from censoring protected speech. Free speech is a broader concept that covers any restrictions upon speech, including restrictions that are legal in the US.

It seems that the right to free speech must be balanced against the harms that speech can cause, but I am tired of this meme that just because they're a private company, AWS et al should be able to block whatever they like. These tech companies have more power and knowledge than many governments of the previous century. We should be cautious advocating for a totally hands-off policy on how they use that power.
There wasn't a problem of the information not being there, there was a problem of 30-40% of the country believing angry demagogues over experts, and said demagogues strong arming the scientific community with political and social power. Even the most basic precautions like wearing a mask were politicized while the scientists practically begged for people to wear them. They left the WHO and refused to enter the vaccine pool. How do you fight that? Blame science? It's ridiculous and anyone claiming it's primarily science's fault I seriously question their good faith to debate here.

I was here the entire crisis (and I'm not a US citizen btw) and had easy access to the same advice Canadians, Europeans, and whoever else in the West got as well. The information was here, but the political leaders often downplayed it or simply refused to follow it. What did we get? The numbers don't lie, and take a look at the results of the current political climate and the death count. This wasn't a "good way to go" being overly skeptical of scientists. Like, there are problems with science, but this is if we're being cute "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"--or if we're being less polite--so incredibly stupid it's largely contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
the ruling party has very much in common with the GOP, so much so that the default assumption should be that the opposite is the intent.
Let’s be honest about this. Parler exists to host right extremists who are tired of being moderated and fact checked by twitter and facebook.
Same experience for me. It caused so much migraines, eyes pain and nausea that I had to stop playing it. Never had a game capable of switching so fast and erratically in the range 900p-700p and 28-15 fps to actually cause physical symptoms on my body.

I got a refund, bought the xbox version and played on xbox series s and it was actually pretty good even with graphics clearly "old gen"-level compared to the pc version.
Your last point is salient and I think lost on many westerners who have not studied Chinese history.

Chinese civil wars (for lack of a better term to capture the sheer scale and complexity) have had body counts that make the American Civil War look like a drunken bar fight.
An far right government being authoritarian, quelle surprise.
Yes. AWS is so big that the common carrier laws should apply to it.
I know, right!?

John Wayne Gacy [0] has a bad reputation and isn't well-liked either, just because he "assaulted and murdered at least 33 young men and boys."

No one ever talks about all the good things that he did, like bringing happiness and joy to so many by performing as a clown -- usually at no charge! -- "at numerous local parties, political functions, charitable events, and children's hospitals."

Instead, they always just focus on that one bad thing he did (at least 33 times).

</sarcasm>

--

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy
Weird polar opposite stance.

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying don't put platitudes in a breach notification.
The app is called “Icon: Social Adventure” on iOS and it is all about connecting and chatting with new people in a safe way. It’s sort of a facetime chat/omegle but with voice/face emulators (so no unwanted “visuals”)
If you'd like to beta test:

Download "Icon: Social Adventure" on iOS https://apps.apple.com/us/app/icon-social-adventure/id154120...

Test with a friend (so you'll have someone to easily match with!)

Give us feedback: https://readymakersinc.typeform.com/to/uE1yG4sU

As a thank you everyone who submits a feedback form will also be entered to win an iPhone 12- the giveaway portion of the beta test ends January 31st!

Also let me know if you have any questions or concerns, would love to answer them!
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content

This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.
I'm not sure of my own position, but I think the fundamental moral difference for those supporting moderation is that if one does have the ability to moderate, then they should have a moral obligation to do so. Technically, there's no central authority that can moderate Signal, so you can't have the moral obligation there.

I don't think there would be a significant proportion of people that would advocate for Signal to become centralized so it would allow moderation by a central authority.

Another perhaps more cynical take is that even if there is hate-speech and other undesirable communication in Signal, it's not seen so people aren't concerned about it. As they say, "out of sight, out of mind." That makes me wonder if expectations would change if people started publishing screenshots of Signal groups with hate-speech. I think they'd be pretty limited to small sizes, so perhaps they wouldn't be as concerning.
As someone who was planning on buying Ubiquiti hardware for their house, this breach and a lot of the comments here are disconcerting. Are there any other alternatives that are more locally managed that people would recommend?
I've been exploring options with a friend, their requirements:

1) option for large groups (around 250)
This drops Signal out which has a limit of 150 on groups: https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007319331-Gr...

2) e2e encrypted (because it sounds good, not because people actually understand what it is), including groups. This drops Telegram out: no e2e rooms.

3) handles sending photos, videos, and voice messages. More or less kills XMPP, unless people are on the latest-and-greatest version of Conversations and maybe ChatSecure.

4) the maintaining organisation needs to be reasonably big with decent privacy.

5) usable for completely non technical generic population - meaning Tox is out as well.

As much as I dislike to admit it, this leaves Matrix, and nothing else. My problem with Matrix is that it's so resource hungry - both the servers and the clients - is that it's silly. Yes, I know "optimization is coming" but even Dendrite eats 1.5GB memory easily with a single user joining a few, medium sized, federated rooms (yes, I've tried).

Footnote: Threema... no. There is no need for yet another competing open source thing, there are enough with Signal, Matrix, and XMPP.
I suspect it's another micropayment problem. You're actually worth $0.05 in ad revenue (or something like that), but due to payment friction & billing fees you wind up paying monthly Spotify: $10 Facebook: $20 News x4 sources: $40 LinkedIn: $30 HackerNews $5 Various Forums: $50 (etc)

You get the idea- in the end you're paying incredible sums of money for a collection of services that just aren't worth all that much. A conclusion supported by the fact that your use of these services currently generates pennies a day in ad revenue.

We can see this game at play today in news, where you could easily blow $50/mo subscribing to a small selection of decent papers. It's not a big deal if you only had one subscription, but few people read only one paper- or participate in only one social network.

To make matters worse, as seen in the cable industry, paying subscribers by definition have money to spend. This means they are by definition the most valuable advertising targets, which makes the lure of advertising to your subscribers eventually impossible to resist...
It's not too different from how you should diversify your income as a Youtuber, especially if you make content about controversial topics. They knew that their platform was going to host controversial content, I'm honestly surprised how little redundancy they had planned for here.
Legitimacy aside - purely from a political perspective - this is pretty smart.

Poland is at odds with the EU bureaucracy over a bunch of things, and 'Freedom of Expression' is definitely a populist issue a lot of people can feasibly rally behind.

Whatever the reality is, the optics are good.

It puts the EU in a position of having to 'defend censorship' (or at least detractors could say as much).
> during an active insurrection it is. or did you miss the planned attacks on the 17th

sorry, but participating in the democratic process is not sedition.

and i would hope we never allow mobs to dictate our participation in the democratic process. whether it involves tallying (or objecting to) electoral votes or confirming a supreme court justice.
So why there are so many PS4 players that play and enjoy it?

Look in the comments here.
"The flaw in the system is that even the biggest news companies now operate under the assumption that at least half their potential audience isn’t listening. This leads to all sorts of problems, and the fact that the easiest way to keep your own demographic is to feed it negative stories about others is only the most obvious."

After Trump won, story after story, show after show in the MSM and beyond was about reaching out and talking to the Trump voters. Famously left-wing people went out to speak with Trump voters to get to know them, to understand why they voted, and made sure to humanize them. They went out of their way to not be negative. This went on for a long time.

This was on CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, and other MSM outlets.

The flaw in this article is reading only the negative headlines, and ignoring all the reporting that is done.
> I can only imagine what the folks at Rockstar are thinking

I imagine they are thinking the same thing since GTA5 Online was released.

Why even bother making new games when you can just drip feed some DLC every now and again and continue to print billions.
Orly...

"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our platform in this way."

https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf (obviously inaccessible now).
Lying low. Not missing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/alibaba-founder-jack...

Great job with the baseless speculations during the last few days, everyone.
Except that actual pandemics are demonstrable, predictable, and based in known science, yes?