skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Which company does that refer to?
> Sure, your private messages may be delivered to your friends' nodes, but is this a big problem?

It kinda depends on the content of those messages, doesn't it? In the context of this OP, if my messages are organising a genocide then yes it might be a pretty fricking big problem.

> Toots are public by design. Everyone understands that and it has nothing to do with privacy.

Says you. Most users will have been accustomed to centralized services where it is possible to delete a tweet and have it gone, unless somebody else has gone to special effort to archive it or screenshot or what-have-you.
My perspective as a conservative:

1. These companies have every right to legally censor those they disagree with.

2. By exercising that right they put themselves at risk of being regulated more stringently (as utilities for example) when they demonstrate inelasticity in consumer choice.

3. I'd rather them not be treated as utilities because that hampers competition and thus impedes efficiency.

4. Your statement above is a farcical caricature of conservative ideology. Every product/service deserves a debate on what regulation is appropriate but as a society regulation only exists because bad actors necessitated its creation. No one wants car seats for their 8 year olds - we'd much rather be trusted to do the right thing.
I like it -- if everyone set up their own websites, we would have way less monopolization, censorship, posts promotion. Even ordering of your "News feed" is already a form of content moderation.
https://cr.yp.to/
> Even here on HN any attempt at putting forth the wrong opinion on the election will result in a ban.

Politics are off-topic on HN.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yep. Republic of Ragusa, is present-day Dubrovnik, Croatia (not Ragusa, Italy).

Republic of Ragusa was the first official place in the world to issue a decree for quarantine.

More info about it is here: https://www.amusingplanet.com/2020/03/the-quarantine-quarter...

Also, the pictures of Dubrovnik do not do it justice. The walled old town is incredible on a sunny day. For some reason, if you view Dubrovnik’s old town (stari grad) on Google Earth on a VR headset, the rendering of the walled old town is very messed up, as in flat as a pancake.
Parler didn’t conspire to commit violence against the US.

And it’s actually not illegal to host other people’s illegal speech. It’s super pedantic, but also very important!

So what did Parler do that was illegal?
Do these people have a right to broadcast their views on Facebook and be heard?
The difference here is that an ISP is common carrier (or whatever the equivalent term is in telecoms) and Facebook/Twitter are publication platforms.
Shows up fine for me in a non-logged-in session, confirming my suspicion that we are literally posting from different realities.
The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.
I watched this and I keep thinking to myself what this does that a decent smartphone (or GoPro) can't.

Then I saw the price and asked who would pay that.
POPL 2021 Papers: Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
The article specifically says it isn’t associated with Apple - the title is just clickbait nonsense.
My job is writing software, so I never have reason to do market research.

My strong impression is it's hard to do. People may say the want kale, but end up buying donuts.

They weren't lying about wanting to be the kind of person who buys kale. But at the moment of truth, they got donuts "just this once".
That's the irony here. ISP's aren't common carriers anymore. Thanks Pai. /s

So it's all good your ISP can do whatever.
>attempt to... install an illegitimate government

I keep seeing this claim, and it's quite a substantial claim, but I don't see equally substantial evidence to support it.

I see evidence of disgruntled LARP'ers forming an angry mob and causing more trouble than anyone would want, but I don't see evidence of an armed rebellion in a sustained firefight or siege, with all the explosions, rubble, chaos, and loss of life that accompanies an uprising, with the explicit goal of installing a new government.

Is this claim misinformation? Should it be censored?
Tell me that when Facebook goes back and removes all the "russiagate" conspiracy theories.
> But being noble doesn't get you anywhere nowadays.

It never did. You do it for the people that come after you.
Lol. I mean, you’re right. The EU can’t make laws that apply to the entire universe like they wish they could and claim they do, but that was the whole point of GDPR.

They claim that any company that has dealings with an EU citizen has to follow their laws. Of course they can’t do that. They could have passed a law forbidding their citizens from interacting with businesses that didn’t follow certain rules, since they have the ability to make rules for their citizens, but for some odd reason they decided not to.
In Germany, it is contextualized. You can show a swastika flag in a film or anything remotely educational but not to promote Nazi ideology. So, no, there is no absolute FoS in Germany.

Whether Germany can be ranked as a democracy is debated: the extreme left and right believe it is a US protectorate, QAnon believes it is run by lizard people/Jews/Freemasons/5G chips... If you go by a freedom of press index, human development index, democracy index, it usually ranks below the Scandinavian countries but in a decent place.

The usual paradox of tolerance applies: if you don't censor some speech, you might be the one who will have zero free speech.
> but not everything is a slippery slope.

This is indeed why it is called the "slippery slope fallacy".

It's a fallacy because the implication of a "slippery slope" is that once the merits of this specific idea are evaluated, then all subsequent ideas following will be implemented immediately without a separate debate and discussion of the merits of those ideas.

Pursuant to the current issue: if you're not planning on running a "somewhat moderated" platform where you'll host content calling for violence against the current government representatives, resulting in an actual attempt at a coup...then you've nothing to worry about.
The Chicago mercantile exchange is close to the center of the transmission. There are previous instances of HFT chasing low latency between Chicago and NYC, so it seems plausible this is something similar.

It is not proof of course. Plenty of other things could be happening in Chicago.
I believe that Facebook, structurally, should not exist. I don't believe that it's good for society to have corporations that are this large and this powerful.

I also believe that every association of citizens should have civil liberties. I have no desire or plans to become Facebook, but I want the freedom to make much smaller companies (or collectives, or charitable organizations, or whatever) and have the discretion to associate with whomever I want. If that right is taken away from Facebook, I am harmed.

If the ability to become Facebook-scale is taken away from Facebook, I am not harmed, because I have no interest in doing so. So that's what I advocate.

(If you search through my comment history, you can see this is not a new belief for me, e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19338090 from two years ago agreeing unironically with Paul Graham's strawman suggestion that Google should not exist, or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24797482 from three months ago arguing in favor of Elizabeth Warren's proposal, and motivation, to break up Big Tech in a specific way following specific principles.)

If your side wants power more than you want to stick to your expressed ideals, go ahead, but don't drag me down to your level. My side's ideals look like an opportunistic and self-contradictory version of laissez-faire libertarianism simply because our position is not laissez-faire libertarianism at all.
"... something that is more genuinely a popular social issue ..."

We shouldn't let minority rights or freedoms be ignored just because they aren't popular. If this is an important issue to that other person, then they should bring it up for discussion.
you should at least have a way to install another OS on it then. So IMO driver blobs are a real part of the problem here
I haven't read TFA, but it happened to me on an ISP which had a CGNAT, probably as a way of garbage collecting open connections. The solution was to use an application-level keepalive, which winscp and putty support.
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.

c/o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

my comment: There is no automated way to define justice and tolerance. You can't take a shortcut from thinking.
I fully support regulating and/or breaking up Facebook. However, my preferred regulation would not prevent them from moderating misinformation on their platform.
> Because there's a clear government-enforced bias.

Obvious lie. The current government is controlled by the group pushing the "stop the steal" propaganda. No reasonable person would believe Trump's own government is compelling Facebook to remove it.

> Can you imagine the shitshow if they banned, let's say, black people?

Sure... And what, pray tell, does that have to do with removing _posts_ containing calls to violence? How are those two things comparable?
I'm saying you can skip it and not buy it and if you bought it you can refund it, it's not a shame to not like something. We're not robots, we're people and each of us have different demands.
Unless you're one of those junkies who want to play it now despite you don't like it. Nobody forces you to not wait a year.
Fortunately we're not living in totalitarian society yet.
They think they'll be the ones running the ministry.
Which is 399$, which they hide until you actually put into your cart for some reason.

This does seem really...niche
Do you realize you don't have to literally say "let's be violent and attack people" in order to incite violence?
This thread started out talking about on what grounds a vendor like AWS might refuse service to a service like Parler, and what those who run companies might want to do to mitigate this risk.

You switched it to talking about on what grounds Twitter might refuse service to the President of a country or other powerful person. Which you got lots of takers to discuss that, but it seems like a very different discussion to me.
I totally get why people in the thread are raising the sentiment that free speech is a core tenant of a democractic society that is worth protecting, regardless if you're a private entity or a government.

However, democracy itself is actually an exceedingly fragile system, more so than many people realize. We have lived in a golden age for democracy for centuries now, but that actually only represents a tiny blip on the time scale of human existence, which naturally tends towards tyranny.

What we need to protect above anything else is the democratic systems and institutions that make free speech even possible at all. And sometimes that means placing restrictions on forms of speech that seek to destroy the very foundations on top of which free speech protections is built upon.

Without those limits on free speech, it'd be a very realistic possibility for those who are in fact against free speech to co-opt it to gain enough power to then turn around and abolish it. I think we'd all agree that would be the worst possible outcome, considering all the progress humanity has made on this front.
You are deflecting from the armed militia attempting to breach the house and senate chambers while the lynch mob chants for blood.
Many seem to have been completely taken in to it, yes. And given it seems to have lead to deadly consequences already, I don't think it's unreasonable for these companies to consider it a huge liability.
Yes. It still says "a well regulated militia", which means a well-organized militia, in an effective fighting shape.

We can debate many things about guns, but I think we can agree that for a vast number of gun owners, that's not a statement that applies. No matter if we're textualists or not.
Being noble is only possible when you have power. When you know the right people, breaking the law like he did can be shrugged of as an ideological protest.

His prosecution shows just how flawed the Criminal Justice system is in the US. Harsh laws, selectively applied and the weakest get the harshest sentences.
Correction: TCP keepalives, ssh server keepalives, and ssh client keepalives are three distinct and independent mechanisms. You only need one.

I usually just do client keepalives as they are easiest to set up. Server keepalives are good if you are worried about “forgotten” clients. TCP keepalives are usually not worth it IMHO.
Just checked, it's not showing up for me in a logged out session. It's not surprising though!
Failing to succeed at your coup doesn't mean that wasn't what you were attempting to do.

Being stupid about it has never been a criminal defense. "Attempted murder" is still a felony (and you know, the crowd actually murdered a capitol police officer).
Interesting to see the mental gymnastics here from people that praised AWS/Google/Apple pulling Parler and it's servers down now decrying the move by this ISP while maintaining some sense of objectivity or at least trying not to appear hypocritical.

An ISP is only slightly upstream from being a cloud provider. An ISP is another private company with its own ToS; for example, your ISP does not allow you to distribute copyrighted material on torrent services (am I only the only one that's ever gotten that letter/email?). I'll try to preemptively address some points I think people will try to make:

- AWS booted Parler because of calls to violence, Twitter moderates its content

There are still endless violence inciting tweets on Twitter and they, too, are an AWS customer. AWS arbitrarily drew a line over what is enough moderation and what isn't, and then invoked its ToS. You can be on whatever side you like, but you can't say that it isn't still some human decision. AWS could boot Twitter off or it could keep Parler. They are a private company and they made a choice. This ISP should be afforded the same rights.

- Internet is more like a utility, it should be treated like a water pipe

Then the government can come in and socialize it. Until then its just another private service. I agree that the internet is now more important than it was 25 years ago, but we as a society haven't made that determination yet. At what point do we include cloud providers as a utility that should be managed by the state for the public's interest? AWS is over half of the cloud market share and cloud hosting is an increasingly more important service for innovation than it was 25 years ago (if it even existed at all in 1996).

- Parler can just go spin up there own servers

Ok, great. What is stopping Facebook or Twitter from running their own internet service?

- Internet infrastructure was partially publicly subsidized and/or funded

Still privately held and operated. Furthermore, its not like Facebook/Twitter/AWS were not without their own government grants, subsidies, etc. The mayor of San Francisco gave Twitter huge tax breaks to be HQ'd within the city. They are still at their discretion to boot people off of their platforms.
You are underestimating the power of misinformation.
Running tmux or screen with top in one window should fix it.
I look at this--with the caveat of casually accepting the frame of "censor" to include "stuff done by private companies" (which isn't, of course, how it is technically defined)--as "you shouldn't be allowed to censor people... but, since Facebook/Twitter think that's somehow OK, we are going to make an exception to our rule about this and censor them to show them how it feels (though of course, if you would prefer to not take part in this, contact us and we will happily turn this off for you, as we're only willing to take this demonstration so far)". FWIW, I consider this frame to be not only consistent but even acceptable, and it is similar to essentially all attempts to ensure freedom: "we believe in the freedom of all people... and so if you attempt to harm someone else's freedom we punish you (and only you) by taking away your freedom".
3 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24678554

Related and current: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25731566
Nope.

You do not have control of your data when you have no idea or control over the software and hardware that you store your data on. A situation that will never change as long as we have #ImaginaryPropertyLaws.
Next thing you'd say "if you don't like somebody's tweets, can't you just not read their twitter feed?"! You're treading on dangerous grounds here, comrade.
Trump and the GOP would never actually have repealed 230, it was just a stalking-horse. The social media companies started shutting Trump down literally hours after it became apparent that the Senate committees that can regulate them will soon be chaired by Democrats.
Facebook's shadowban mechanism is more elaborate than that. They will still show the post to people they think you are closest to, while hiding it from the general newsfeed where most things show.

The Facebook newsfeed is quite similar to TV, because you can only change channels, but have very little control over what is displayed.
> But having said that, this is an action by a small isolated ISP. They are completely powerless compared to facebook or twitter.

While true on a global scale, internet access is not exactly a super competitive market. I think any one ISP likely has significant local power over individuals who live in their service area.
Show HN: BobbyFissue – Play me a chess match inside GitHub issues
The certainly got called terrorists by some people on the right.
> The EU can’t make laws that apply to the entire universe like they wish they could and claim they do

Yes, they can.

So can (and does!) the US.

Either may have trouble enforcing them in some cases, but that’s true even of laws within their own territorial domain.
This is the first thing that came to my mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Row_(software)

For $400, I'll get myself some Spectacles from Snap. I'm already getting a headache by imagining the video shake from FrontRow's camera.

https://www.spectacles.com/
Agreed. By "this" I actually (confusingly) was more so referring to the general negative feedback Cyberpunk has been receiving.
>a belief ought to be based on facts and sound reasoning

Sounds good but what happens when a loud group bases their beliefs on alternative facts (and select only alternative facts that specifically support their belief)?
Fuck off with that bullshit
facepalm

I did miss the joke. An upvote to both of you.
Facebook goes an extra step and displays it for people you're closest to while hiding it for others.
“How can I brainwash my students into taking something they don’t need”
Our public schools need to do a better job of teaching critical thinking skills. American society really seems to lack in critical thinking.
I don't believe they were actually rate limiting per account regardless. The "hacker" Set later in the day on Twitter that there was a misunderstanding that the account creation script was related at all to the data scraping. Just that it was actually possible, but unnecessary because they didn't rate limit per account.
Their Edgerouter VyOS products are awesome too. I won't touch their Unifi stuff but I can't find anything that's even in the same price ballpark as the EdgeRouter 4.
What he did was barely a criminal offense, breaking terms of service should not warrant jail time. If it does then we are ALL guilty of the same "crimes" as Swartz, including you.
I can't speak to Idaho, but it appears this ISP also serves some areas in eastern Washington (which happens to be my state). As the article says, WA state net neutrality laws explicitly prohibit ISPs from selectively blocking websites so it is pretty slam-dunk illegal.
*workaround.

The solution is for the ISP to fix their misconfigured NAT.
Ted Chiang has a wonderful story called "The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling" which delves into this phenomenon, as well as how written language shapes our memories.
It's not if you consider being an isp like a utility. If the power company had a way to shut your power off anytime you tried to access a web site.

I also disagree with what the other companies did in the first place is censoring. They're removing rule breakers. You can still share your political views, just don't organize and call for the government to be other thrown because you believe everything you read online. You wouldn't freak out because a child porn distribution platform was turned off and claim it's censored.
From Karl Popper (1945):
“(..) we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.“
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance