skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If the allegations about hunters laptop were transparently fraudulent, why do the gmail originated messages pass DKIM validation?
I don't think the people that end up on Parler have a strong grasp of constitutional law (no offense to anyone that does and uses app).

The general people that end up on that app are hardcore trending extremist and you're not going to find intelligent debate on the role of private companies and the government. It's probably closer to propaganda than it is a true social media site.
Parler sues Amazon for cutting off its services
> Maybe downvoted far down the thread

No, and no. Please don't tell me what I have or have not seen myself.

> [Trump and parler again]

Okay, this is the third time so I won't try again to tell you I have no interest in talking about that. I'll just say that the first time I noticed generally well received[1] comments in favor of censorship was almost two years ago, in a thread that had nothing to do with Trump (and I'm not sure if parler even existed by then). According to what I've noticed, it has been growing in prominence since.

[1]: Which is to say, they weren't downvoted nor pushed downthread and even though they had several replies disputing them; they had just as many agreeing.
Excellent points. Thanks much.
People don't seem to understand how close we are to an unrecoverable fall into fascism.

This is not cultural censorship. Facebook is finally waking up to the reality that lies about our elections are well on their way to starting a civil war. With that display on the 6th, that rhetoric is now over the line. They let it go, right up until the consequences (as heinous as they are predictable) were clear.
The problem is, you have to "be that guy."
“Twitter and Facebook have extensive systems for keeping the various horrors in check. They are not as good as I think they should be. But they're miles better than what Parler had, which was more of a fig leaf.”

If Twitter and Facebook (being multibillion dollar companies with a decade or more to build these algorithms) haven’t solve this problem yet, how can any upstart possibly compete with them? They’d be shut down as soon as users started posting content on their fledgling services.
Show HN: In ML Data is not everything – a business perspective
This is a blog I began writing trying to distill my observations around running a business in ML/CV to learnings. Both technical and business related posts. Comments and thoughts are always welcome.
Absolutely, our company had a meeting this morning, and our cloud strategy has immediately changed going forward. I wonder how many of these meetings are going on today.
His point all along was "The laptop isn't a big deal, the censorship is". I don't know the details regarding Hunter Biden's business dealings or his laptop (although I've heard there is at least one ongoing investigation, possibly more), but the censorship is probably one of the bigger stories of the year. Twitter admitted they were blocking the story prior to fact-checking, and this decision was made by someone who had previously worked for the DCCC:

> While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.

https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1316395902479872000?re...
I think the mitigation is "don't build a platform to attract white supremacists banned from other sites and then watch as they use it to plan a riot in the Capitol."
> So if you co-located in a large ISP, you will still sign a contract which most of the time they put it very generic morality clause for types of content

I don't think that's true. Hurricane Electric for example is a major provider and the AUP [0] only prohibits illegal and/or technically damaging behaviour.

Some of the others have language like that in their AUPs but it doesn't seem to be universal.

[0]: https://www.he.net/aup.html
"Content that promotes illegal activity is not protected free speech"

If this were true then Rap music would be illegal.
They were chanting about hanging Mike Pence and several were carrying flexicuffs. But I'm sure they were just planning to peacefully air their grievances.
That protects hashes from leaking in transit, for the scenario with 3rd party TLS terminators mentioned above.
You might be interested in https://no-color.org/ I implemented it for my mail client (listed on the website)
It's honestly quite scary to me how we're able to censor people off the internet from popular discourse. Yes, they're absolutely private companies with the ability to do what they need in service of profits and their own values but it's almost chilling to see how effective this can be on individuals/ideas.

On the flip side, there is a need for action against ideas and individuals that are dangerous to society...but should we really trust google, twitter, amazon, et al., to be the judge, jury and executioner for all this with an entirely invisible process? Are there not elected officials that we've explicitly given this power to?
In fairness, I don't have a habit of applying tight scrutiny to things that appear, on their face, to be blatant calls to violence. It's usually self-evident by reading the words.

Twitter's actions aren't even self-consistent here. If these tweets were all innocuous, then why remove the trend? If they were primarily discussions of other people's activity, rather than explicit calls for violence, then there was no good reason to do this.

Also, there's nothing "moving goal posts" about asking people to at least try to substantiate what they post. The person I responded to didn't even bother posting a link.
One big difference between the US and China and why the US will never be able to pull off the same success even with the same power is that much of the CCP is led by people with engineering backgrounds, while much of the US is led by people with law backgrounds.
Terrorist content in the EU to be removed within 1 hour
Parler is not simply failing to "instantly achieve perfect moderation," and, I personally believe it is disingenuous to speculate the fact. The service's core principals include strict limits to moderation.
For people interested in playing around with different terminal emulators, you’d do yourself a service trying kitty [https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty].

It made my experience on high DPI screens far better. You can find it packaged up in the usual places (e.g. Debian).
It was in the sense that it was a new platform that had high profile people like Ted Cruz on it with millions of followers more than he had on Twitter.

No one cares about 4chan because it has no real political influence. Parler was perhaps the first alternative platform in a long time to have actual political influence.
That explains the different experiences, I live in continental Europe and mostly followed local expert interviews and journal articles. It seems to me that the topic was politicized early in the US. I've followed Fauci's meandering diplomacy from time to time, as well as disagreements between federal and local responses. Maybe some trade-offs were made.

There is one complaint I had about experts in Europe, too, and that is that they resorted to a "king's lie" about masks at the beginning of the pandemic. Certainly none of them said you shouldn't wear a mask, but they downplayed their importance when there weren't enough of them yet for the medical staff. IMHO, they shouldn't have done that. Instead, governments should have regulated mask trade and distribution from the start like in some Asian countries.
This seems to be the only possible argument, that Parler is being unfairly singled out and that other platforms have hosted similarly violent content without repercussion.

The free speech / censorship argument doesn't seem to fly.

The Lin Wood post on Parler (https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347190280492089344) and dozens of other posts with screenshots on that thread are clearly targeted threats of political violence and have never constituted free speech:

> common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Sedition, incitement and public security all seem to apply here to the content Parler was hoping to keep publicly accessible.

But as far as other platforms go, like Twitter, they made Kathy Griffen delete her direct threats against Trump: https://www.waynedupree.com/2020/05/kathy-griffin-twitter-pu...

So, I'm not sure they have enough examples of other platforms allowing this level of violent content to remain public for long.
And until such a thing occurs, most Trump adjacent HN members with continue to play "no true scotsman" with the extremists amongst them.
>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 completely absurd. Tens of thousands of people are silenced by corporations every day for speech that is considered offensive by one metric or another, but is by no means illegal. An associate of mine was permanently banned for, "deadnaming" someone else. Certainly very offensive according certain standards but hardly something that you wouldn't be allowed to say in the public park.

You can reasonably argue about the right of private corporations to choose to do business with who they want, but you cannot reasonably argue that people are only being silenced for explicitly illegal behavior that would also be illegal offline.
Here's an article that goes over some of the issues: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imessage-weak-encryption-m...
Ask HN: Where Is Jack Ma?
Has anyone seen Jack Ma in the past few weeks?
Possibly because it helps to bootstrap the entropy pool, see for example these ramblings on the topic: https://daniel-lange.com/archives/152-Openssh-taking-minutes...
This "gen.variant.razy" that a handful of antiviruses are detecting as malicious is detected by heuristic. You can Google "gen.variant.razy" and see developers complaining that their freshly compiled code gets false-flagged as containing this virus.

I think saying this file "most likely has a virus in it" is alarmist - it's much more probable that it's a false positive from a heuristic detection.
I believe he was just noting the irony of someone claiming something, then openly not doing so, rather than any rules being broken.
Who determines what is hate speech?

Freedom means acceptance of that which you hate, and nobody can have a right to determine what is hate speech and what isn't, or sooner or later we will loose it all.

To me, all Socialist are Hate speech, should we block it? Is violent Islam hateful?
Obviously gangs are hateful, Antifa certainly is, etc..

Free speech means allowing that which you hate.

What bugs me is that someone, with obvious ideology , determine that someone else is wrong and shut it down. That is against everything that America stands for, against what Internet is, and against what civilized people do.
That's how you get hate, violence and wars, by having no tolerance for that which you hate.

I never been on parlor, and I don't care, but I do care that people with agenda, people who are hypocritical ( no action against Antifa, BLM, and other rioters ), are not taken into account.

Are they private company? yes, they have a right to do so, but there should be a generic outrcry and NOT praise vs it.
All of those posts barely have any interaction or views so it doesn't seem like they are actually that big of an issue. Every social network has people saying crazy things.
My takeaway from this post is never use Android. Not that I ever would.
Agreed, as there has been some questionable (violent, or other) content on Twitter that has not been blocked. Seems a little fishy to say the least.
https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d39...

The Nongraphical GUI

XCalc After Several Resizings

https://miro.medium.com/max/434/0*LIDAYbj5NRANRGl7.gif

X was designed to run three programs: xterm, xload, and xclock. (The idea of a window manager was added as an afterthought, and it shows.) For the first few years of its development at MIT, these were, in fact, the only programs that ran under the window system. Notice that none of these program have any semblance of a graphical user interface (except xclock), only one of these programs implements anything in the way of cut-and-paste (and then, only a single data type is supported), and none of them requires a particularly sophisticated approach to color management. Is it any wonder, then, that these are all areas in which modern X falls down?

Ten years later, most computers running X run just four programs: xterm, xload, xclock, and a window manager. And most xterm windows run Emacs! X has to be the most expensive way ever of popping up an Emacs window. It sure would have been much cheaper and easier to put terminal handling in the kernel where it belongs, rather than forcing people to purchase expensive bitmapped terminals to run character-based applications. On the other hand, then users wouldn’t get all of those ugly fonts. It’s a trade-off.
As if ANTIFA isn't a bunch of violent fascists, endlessly coordinating on Twitter.

You are the problem.
This is using puppeteer as well. I checked yours out, it's pretty cool.
Good point, I had forgotten that Rob of Errata Security was given an email to verify and it was proven to be legitimate:

> So as I blogged before, the emails contained DKIM information, which the original reporters could and should have verified. So I eventually got a copy of the email and run DKIM verification on it. It passed:

https://twitter.com/erratarob/status/1322007153415200768

I think he's pretty active (and well-respected) on HN.
Wow.. this is like a giant gift to Amazon.

Obviously they aren't getting more Chinese business, but they've struggled there already. But it makes it a lot easier for them to compete everywhere else. Competing against CCP is going to be a lot easier than competing against Jack Ma.
Yikes, that's a bit scary - I've added that to the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
Who's spending multiple milliseconds generating uuids? I'm sure it happens somewhere, somehow, but that does not seem like a common occurrence.
I use xterm because I'm too lazy to switch, I guess. It was never bad enough for me to switch and it's present virtually everywhere, so I don't need to bother installing my favorite niche term (kind of like sticking with bash when zsh was indisputably more awesome).

To the best of my knowledge, one downside is the text rendering is synchronous. Read a character off the tty, try to display it on the screen. It's fine until you go and cat /dev/mem or something like that. Many GNOME-ish terminals use vte which drops frames if it can't keep up rendering.

I also run into problems with bad display managers or DEs that don't load ~/.Xresources or ~/.Xdefaults (looking at you Debian gdm).
> Hosting and serving isn't free

What a pathetic excuse. It's not like Amazon was hosting parler for free.
> AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS

How ridiculous. Individuals need water, heat, and electricity to survive in the 21st century. I would argue they also need a cell phone and internet access.

Individuals do not need cloud computing services. For-profit companies want AWS because they can use it to make money. This is not a good basis to form a utility.
Also, here are some screen grabs of Kevin Greeson, who likely would have been arrested, but had a heart attack from what I have heard termed "insurrectionary excitement"

Also what does it matter if Jan 6 was not planned on parler? Jan 17th and inauguration shenanigans were being planned there until the site got yanked.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/man-who-died-capitol-riot-par...
Amazon is not the only cloud provider. Parler could have just as easily been a customer of Microsoft or Google
Who's that you're referring to? I don't agree with any "supremacy", let alone "white".

So, are you saying that being brittle, sensitive and easily-triggered is a viable life strategy, and should be supported at all costs?
Was the parler content legal? "Amazon Web Services suspended Parler from its web hosting services... citing a letter it had obtained that mentions 98 examples of Parler posts that "encourage and incite violence." Don't forget that Amazon also has legal liability for hosting and distributing illegal content.

Amazon is not a monopoly -- the mitigation for AWS being able to cut off your business is to architect your application such that you can move it to another cloud vendor.

If your content is so toxic that other cloud vendors won't accept you either, then maybe the problem isn't with the cloud vendors.
I think the difference is that r/politics doesnt actually ban you for posting something conservative, its just the users deciding they dont like it. I dont use it either way due to their horrible link rules, but there is definitely a difference in my opinion.
Parler has a first-amendment right to free speech.

Amazon, etc., also have a first-amendment right to free speech. IMHO this includes deciding not to conduct business with another private party. I do not consider this on their part to be "censorship," at least not moreso than any restriction on their decision to do this.

The underlying issue is that services provided by private companies have effectively become essential infrastructure. This causes a host of problems, which have been pointed out by far-sighted individuals, and only now are some of this issues becoming visible to a broader audience. These private companies are structurally not designed to take responsibility for the activities happening on their platform, and in fact some of them are designed around not being responsible. But there's no one else to shift that responsibility onto, and a large area with a vacumm of accountability has caused problems.

Compared to private companies becoming the gatekeepers of public discourse, I have a variety of things I would prefer, including regulation. But I don't know if any of those alternatives are realistic. So, "yes with caveats."
The product feature of intellectual freedom is suddenly a real value proposition.
I don't disagree that it was founded to try to convince the world that America is awesome. But "propaganda" is an overused term, and in this case, far too broad a brush.

People who listen to RFA know this. People who don't only see that it's run by a U.S. government agency and think it's the equivalent of Soviet shortwave days.

Not everything the government does is evil. Not everything the government publishes is propaganda.
It goes even deeper than this. You also need electricity, and the electric utility can cut you off if you they believe what you are doing is illegal or otherwise goes against their TOS.

So then you have to setup your own generator, on your own land, to power your own ISP.
In the link posted by OP, they say the code needs to be re-written for another cloud provider, and that it cannot be done fast enough to capture the alleged flood of conservatives, Trump included, trying to move From Twitter to Parler (which would probably die out within a few days if Parler did not come back up).

They also claim no other cloud provider has accepted their business because AWS, by leaking its email to Parler to Buzzfeed (which showed lots of violence threats on Parler) before even sending it to Parler, had tarnished its reputation (i.e. it was trying to manipulate popular opinion by leaking the worst posts they found - and Parler claims the same content could be easily found on Twitter at the same time - I don't know as I don't see this shit in my stream but everyone has very different streams based on their preferences, so it's plausible I think).

This looks like a dirty game they're playing, and to be honest, it's hard to say for sure that AWS and Twitter are completely clean in this... AWS is probably betting Parler will get enough hate so that other customers who may have controversial businesses running on AWS will not consider moving elsewhere (or al least preparing to do so at short notice)... which to me, kind of shows that Parler may have a point in this argument... On the other hand, Parler had very disturbing content (I did manage to have a peek just before they went offline) which I think goes well beyond the acceptable level, but for AWS to "kill" them, as they claim AWS is trying to do, seems quite heavy handed.
Dreamhost is/was their domain name registrar- and even though Dreamhost didn't host Parler's services, they were taking massive heat on Twitter over it.

So I guess at some point, Dreamhost as a registrar silently deleted them. Now, even if Parler wanted to move somewhere, they would have to regain control of their domain from Dreamhost.
Valve introduced Steam and it's security by Gabe announcing his login and password to the world. You couldn't get in though precisely because of the 2FA.

This was a LONG time ago when things being secure on the internet wasn't a given to most people.
sure, they might be hate speech, but seems no worse than what i see on daily kos

however, i am talking about an entirely separate group that goes out of its way to not say anything hateful and not condone violence due to tragic occurrences in the past, yet gets banned due to pointing out inconvenient and very uncomfortable truths

if free speech cannot protect uncomfortable yet unhateful speech, it is worthless
Barring official word my bet is that it was the same reason most things stop, cost. Whether that's time, money, or interest it didn't pass some threshold necessary to continue.
it may happen not necessarily as straight "nationalization", instead the CCP/government would just buy a controlling interest at a very sweet non-cash price what Ma and other shareholders would be more than happy to sell at ... given the alternatives.
People are obsessed with blame. Get over it. This isn't about blame or guilt. It is about cause and effect.

I think it is "fair" to describe action B as following from action A, when there is good reason to consider them related.

If you revise your observations of reality based on what you fear might happen later, you're not observing reality.
That's up for private companies to determine as they risk finding a balance between alienating their own users either by inaction or too much action.

As for free speech in public spaces as restricted by the government, the standard comes down to imminent risk of harm. You're not allowed to scream "Fire!" in a public building if there's no fire. Private companies like Twitter and Facebook appear to try to hold themselves to a public standard but private companies are allow any standard they please. If you're in a movie theater and start yelling throughout the movie, the theater isn't restricting your free speech by kicking you out.
Wasn't Facebook racing to take down the video?
> Since most consumer devices won't allow for incoming tcp connections

I am curious why do you say that?
I tried to migrate a busy group of friends from Whatsapp to Signal but a few lock-ins emerged:

- stickers (big one!) - if it was possible to import whatsapp stickers library it would be a big win

- on whatsapp it's easier to share news and memes from other groups - network effect

- UX/UI - whatsapp seems to have a much tailored UI for beginners
Telegram is not the new option. Its not an option at all. It should be Element