date:20210110

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:32 PM  wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> >> On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> >> Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to
> >> run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As
> >> long as you install your own database software in both, you can do
> >> that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly
> >> out of luck.
> >
> > Is RDS based on something else? I find it hard to believe that they wrote a 
> > rdb from scratch. But yes, once they own your db they own you. I've looked 
> > before how to migrate from mysql to postgres and was shocked at how little 
> > there seems to be out there to even do even the easier stuff let alone the 
> > proprietary extensions.

> They have Amazon Aurora versions of many popular databases which are binary 
> compatible with the standard versions. So you can run standard Postgres on 
> one cloud and Aurora Postgres in AWS.


Look closer. The AWS RDS version of mysql is unable to replicate with
your version of mysql. The configuration which would permit it is not
exposed to you.

Unless something has changed in the last couple years?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: more bad lawyering about Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:13 PM John Levine  wrote:
>
> In article 
>  you 
> write:
> >With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No
> >organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of
> >the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over
> >what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which
> >is published. ...
>
> Sigh. This is false. 100% false. It is the exact opposite of what 47
> USC 230 really says. Also, it's the CDA, not the DMCA.

Hi John,

I conflated some of the DMCA safe harbor stuff with the CDA publisher
stuff. My bad.

I stand by the gist of what I said which, while imprecise, is
consistent with what you posted. The common law precedent is that
publishers are liable for what they publish. Section 230 carves out
the rules for when an online service is not a publisher (which is
decidedly not "always"), and while I don't have the cases on the tip
of my tongue, there have been some real post-CDA head scratchers where
a court decided that an online service exercised sufficient control of
the content to have made itself a publisher.

That said, I encourage folks to refer to your message for the
excellent quotes and references.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread bzs

On January 10, 2021 at 08:42 sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) 
wrote:
 > While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
 > for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is 
 > now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up 
 > to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
 > objectionable content. 
To avoid that sort of thing I'd just send PITA's notice that we typically
get (N) complaints per customer per (month or whatever.)

We have received $BIGNUM complaints and we are obliged to respond
which involves staff time etc.

We believe they are eliciting those excess complaints by their
behavior so henceforth we will charge them (like $100/complaint
response.)

FYI for the recent period that would amount to $BIGBUX. They will also
be responsible for any resulting legal expenses yaddie-yaddie.

We have no obligation to extend them credit for this service so will
need a retainer of (around 2x$BIGBUX) and future bills to be paid
within (small N) days of posting.

Failure to agree (agreement attached) and forward the requisite
retainer by (date) will result in the end of our services for them and
the closing of their account.

P.S. I was actually paid about $1,000 once but usually that ended it,
they either apologized and backed off (sometimes it was just
aggressive advertisers), or closed their account / let it expire.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: more bad lawyering about Parler

In article  
you write:
>With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No
>organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of
>the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over
>what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which
>is published. ...

Sigh. This is false. 100% false. It is the exact opposite of what 47
USC 230 really says. Also, it's the CDA, not the DMCA.

Please see the message I sent earlier today about section 230 and the
links in it to material by actual lawyers explaining what the law does
and does not say and do.

R's,
John

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:58 PM Matthew Petach  wrote:
> Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want.

Hi Matt,

You've conflated a couple ideas here. Public accommodation laws were
passed in the wake of Jim Crow to the effect that any business which
provides services to the public must provide services to all the
public. Courts have found such laws constitutional. Not to mention the
plethora of common-law precedent in this area. You can set rules and
enforce them but those rules can't arbitrarily exclude whole classes
of people nor may they be applied capriciously.

Businesses which post the sign that starts, "we reserve the right,"
are quite mistaken. If a customer is rejected and removed without good
cause and thereby injured, a business can find itself on the losing
end of a lawsuit.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service," on the other hand, is entirely
enforceable so long as that enforcement is consistent.

The legal term "prior restraint" is even more narrowly focused. It
refers only to blocking publication on the grounds that the material
to be published is false or otherwise harmful. The government is
almost never allowed to do so. Instead, remedies are available only
after the material is published.

With private organizations it gets much more complicated. No
organization is compelled to publish anything. But then section 230 of
the DMCA comes in and says: if you exercise editorial control over
what's published then you are liable for any unlawful material which
is published. More precisely, common law precedent says you're liable
for what you publish. Section 230 grants immunity to organizations who
_do not_ exercise editorial control. But what is editorial control?
The courts have been all over the place on that one.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: Parler

Oh, geez...
I was going to ignore this thread, I really was.  :(

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 6:13 PM Keith Medcalf  wrote:

> >The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting
> >freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell
> >their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)
>
> You are correct and incorrect.  The First Amendment prohibits the
> Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint".  It does
> nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its agents.
>
> You are also incorrect.  Freedom of Speech is Absolute.  There is no prior
> restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" whatever
> that means.  That does not mean that speech does not have "consequences".
> The first amendment only protects against prior restraint, it does not
> protect against the suffering of consequences.  And of course
> "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the speech.
>
> Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell that
> means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken prior
> to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an assumption of
> fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical question) and the courts
> do not rule on hypotheticals.  If you do not understand the difference then
> perhaps you should be sentenced to death since you have a hand, and having
> a hand it could hold a gun, and since it could hold a gun, you could also
> murder someone.  So therefore you should be put to death now as "prior
> restraint" to prevent you from committing murder.
>

You're being dense.

Private businesses can engage in prior restraint all they want.

Airlines, for example, if they suspect you pose a risk to the
other passengers on the flight, can refuse to take off while you
are on the plane, or even turn the plane back around and land,
and have you ejected.

They don't have to wait until you've beaten up another passenger,
tried to open a door mid-flight, or stabbed someone.

To bring it closer to home, an ISP can refuse to provide service to
someone they suspect is a spammer.  They don't have to wait until
the first spam is sent, they can exercise prior restraint and deny the
entity service based simply on the suspicion they may be a spammer,
and therefore not worth providing service to.

I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be
> self-evident.
>

I am sorry to say your grasp of facts seems to be tenuous at best.  :(

Better luck in the next reality.

Matt

Re: do we know what laws apply to Parler

In article <2ab9a074-bb67-4e75-1db1-2c7fff87f...@rollernet.us> you write:
>On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> sro...@ronan-online.com :
>>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
>>> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting
>problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could 
>potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any
>other customer who hosts objectionable content.
>>>
>>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
>>> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I
>hosted based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, 
>shouldn’t that same principal apply to platforms like
>AWS and Twitter?
>> 
>> Yes, it would.  This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
>> I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.
>
>Surely everyone on this list, purportedly a network operators list, has 
>to have at least heard of 47 USC Section 230... right?

Unfortunately, you appear to be wildly overoptimistic.

RE: Parler

>The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting
>freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell
>their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)

You are correct and incorrect.  The First Amendment prohibits the Government 
from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint".  It does nothing with 
respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its agents.

You are also incorrect.  Freedom of Speech is Absolute.  There is no prior 
restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" whatever 
that means.  That does not mean that speech does not have "consequences".  The 
first amendment only protects against prior restraint, it does not protect 
against the suffering of consequences.  And of course "consequences" come AFTER 
the speech, not BEFORE the speech.

Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell that means) 
cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken prior to the 
so-called speech having been made as that would be an assumption of fact not in 
evidence (also known as a hypothetical question) and the courts do not rule on 
hypotheticals.  If you do not understand the difference then perhaps you should 
be sentenced to death since you have a hand, and having a hand it could hold a 
gun, and since it could hold a gun, you could also murder someone.  So 
therefore you should be put to death now as "prior restraint" to prevent you 
from committing murder.

I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be 
self-evident.

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved with 
flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread mark seery

I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call 
out criminality and incitement to violence, for example:

https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy

Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new 
territory?

Sent from Mobile Device

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms  wrote:
> 
> 
> Right, it's not a list for content hosting.
> 
> Scott Helms
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM  wrote:
>> No, this is a list for Network Operators.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
 On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> This is a list for pushing bits.  The fact that many/most of us have other 
>>> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my 
>>> own work as an example).
>>> 
 On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM  wrote:
 This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.
 
 Sent from my iPhone
 
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms  
>> wrote:
>> 
> 
> No,
> 
> It really does not.  Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to 
> network providers.  If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd 
> be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here.
> 
> 
> Scott Helms
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon  
>> wrote:
>> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to 
>> coalesce, I very much disagree with you.  Section 230 is absolutely 
>> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly 
>> affects me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. 
>> 
>> 
>> —L.B.
>> 
>> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
>> CEO 
>> b...@6by7.net
>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company 
>> in the world.”
>> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an 
>>> agenda here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Scott Helms
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM  wrote:
 
 NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about 
 networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant 
 issue for Network Operators.
 
 On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho  
 wrote:
 
 
 It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily 
 political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond 
 speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing 
 congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But 
 as of now, that isn't even a thing. It's just best to leave it alone 
 because it will devolve into chaos.
 
 - Mike Bolitho
 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM  wrote:
> 
> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not 
> political at all.
> 
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
> 
> - Mike Bolitho
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin  wrote:
>> 
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>> 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill HErrin
>>

Re: Parler

In article <474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com> you write:
>When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and 
>external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted
>based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, 
>shouldn’t that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and
>Twitter? 

If this was in the US and it was after the CDA was passed in 1996, your lawyers 
were just wrong.

Before that the case law was thin but Cubby vs Compuserve (which is
more persuasive than Stratton Oakmont since it's a federal case) said
that online services were like bookstores, not expected to know what
was on every page unless it'd had been brought to their attention or
they had some other reason they should have known.

R's,
John

>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 3:24 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> 
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>> 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill HErrin
>

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 14:06 Keith Medcalf  wrote:

>
> The world is now a different place with the election of the Nazi's.
>


OK, it's now official.

I'm invoking Godwin's Law on this thread.

*plonk*

Matt

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Jim Mercer

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 06:15:21PM -0500, Izaac wrote:
> Got links?

bot.

-- 
Jim Mercer Reptilian Research  j...@reptiles.org+1 416 410-5633

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather
to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
 -- Hunter S. Thompson

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 4:48 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2021, Michael Thomas wrote:

On 1/10/21 3:15 PM, Izaac wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning 
of armed

insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional
courtesy.

Got links?

Ask Google, Apple and Amazon. I'm sure they have the receipts.


You made the claim.

I also said "seems" which means that I won't be bothered dredging up 
documentation for something easily looked up by people trying to excuse 
the inexcusable. I've seen bits and pieces from the open sewer. That is 
quite enough.


Mike

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread niels=nanog


* iz...@setec.org (Izaac) [Mon 11 Jan 2021, 00:22 CET]:


Got links?


Your message arrived like five times here but I did the google for you:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws
| On Parler, reaction to the impending ban was swift and outraged, with
| some discussing violence against Amazon. "It would be a pity if someone
| with explosives training were to pay a visit to some AWS data
| centers," one person wrote.


-- Niels.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Dan Hollis


On Sun, 10 Jan 2021, Michael Thomas wrote:

On 1/10/21 3:15 PM, Izaac wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of 
armed

insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional
courtesy.

Got links?

Ask Google, Apple and Amazon. I'm sure they have the receipts.


You made the claim.

-Dan

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Seth Mattinen


On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

sro...@ronan-online.com :

While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for 
violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in 
the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to 
liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable 
content.

When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and 
external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less 
I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same principal 
apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?


Yes, it would.  This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.




Surely everyone on this list, purportedly a network operators list, has 
to have at least heard of 47 USC Section 230... right?

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 3:40 PM, Izaac wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 03:36:18PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:

Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed
insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional
courtesy.

Got links?

Ask Google, Apple and Amazon. I'm sure they have the receipts.

No, you made this claim.  I am asking you.  Got links?  Screenshots?

I didn't realize this was a high school debate.  Your beef is with them, 
not me.


Mike

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 4:00 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

sro...@ronan-online.com :

While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for 
violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in 
the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to 
liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable 
content.

When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and 
external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less 
I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same principal 
apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?

Yes, it would.  This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.



I dunno, maybe think of it as a good behavior discount coupon. They're 
free to build out their own datacenters at their cost if they don't get 
that coupon. And them not talking to council is what would be 
astonishing. Mostly likely it's been on all of their radars for quite 
some time. It's not like it was a secret that it was an open sewer.


Mike

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:56:10AM -0500, Mark Seiden wrote:
> at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the
> Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying)
> his own unwise  tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself
> would have been enough for twitter to either restrict his using any
> mechanism for revision or deletion or even account termination for aup
> violations. i pointed this out to them 3.91 years ago.

First, findings of violation of law are done in courts, not by you.

Second, as specifically regards Twitter: the Library of Congress had
been archiving all tweets since 2010.  And only recently, on 31DEC2017,
moved to archiving "some" tweets.  Official records exist there.
Additionally, the President has two accounts at his disposal and has
demonstrated consistently different behavior between them, i.e. the
@potus account is used for official communications and @realdonaldtrump
for personal communications with the public.  The former is indeed
archived under the PRA.

Third, the standard put forth in your opinion -- both ill informed and
ill conceived -- would also refer to FOIA and the various States' FOI
laws.  If what you allege is true, the singling out of this one official
is disingenuous in the extreme.

-- 
. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \/  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 03:36:18PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > > Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of 
> > > armed
> > > insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional
> > > courtesy.
> > Got links?
> 
> Ask Google, Apple and Amazon. I'm sure they have the receipts.

No, you made this claim.  I am asking you.  Got links?  Screenshots?

-- 
. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \/  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Eric S. Raymond

sro...@ronan-online.com :
> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is 
> now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up 
> to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
> objectionable content. 
> 
> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, 
> less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same 
> principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter? 

Yes, it would.  This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 3:15 PM, Izaac wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:

Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed
insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional
courtesy.

Got links?


Ask Google, Apple and Amazon. I'm sure they have the receipts.

Mike

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:58:14AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks
> against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise.

Got links?

-- 
. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \/  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of armed
> insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating professional
> courtesy.

Got links?

-- 
. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \/  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Richard Porter

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 4:58 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> On 1/10/21 13:50, Rod Beck wrote:
>
> > As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the
> > riot last week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud
> > to the surface, I am very perplexed how to reconcile free speech and the
> > garbage flowing through our social streets.
>
> The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting
> freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell
> their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)
>
> Has anyone seen a rabbit? We've traveled quite a way down the rabbit hole.
>
A civil discourse filled rabbit hole, and I am happy to have gone down it.

Lost is the art of Civil Discourse sometimes, at least not here?

>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>

Re: not a utility, was Parler

In article 

 you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a 
>public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that
>platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such 
>importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation
>under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this 
>idea - I have not studied it and also realize that Amazon
>is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential.

That is a dream of some factions, but it is not realistic.

You can certainly make an argument that Google and Facebook are
monopolies, but the remedies for that are to break them up or to
require them to provide access to their competitors to some of their
internal facilities, e.g., allow other ad networks to bid on and
provide the ads that show up with your Google search or Facebook page.

Utilities have tariffs under which everyone who orders the same kind
of service gets the same service at the same price. I understand how
to apply that to a railroad or a power company or a telephone company,
but I do not understand how to apply it to a search engine or social
media provider or online megastore and neither does anyone else.

R's,
John

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Jay Hennigan


On 1/10/21 13:50, Rod Beck wrote:

As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the 
riot last week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud 
to the surface, I am very perplexed how to reconcile free speech and the 
garbage flowing through our social streets.


The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting 
freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell 
their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)


Has anyone seen a rabbit? We've traveled quite a way down the rabbit hole.

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread K. Scott Helms

Right, it's not a list for content hosting.

Scott Helms

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM  wrote:

> No, this is a list for Network Operators.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms 
> wrote:
>
> 
> This is a list for pushing bits.  The fact that many/most of us have other
> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my
> own work as an example).
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM  wrote:
>
>> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> No,
>>
>> It really does not.  Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to
>> network providers.  If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd
>> be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here.
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to
>>> coalesce, I very much disagree with you.  Section 230 is absolutely
>>> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects
>>> me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider.
>>>
>>>
>>> —L.B.
>>>
>>> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
>>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
>>> CEO
>>> b...@6by7.net
>>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company
>>> in the world.”
>>> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda
>>> here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Helms
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about
>>> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant
>>> issue for Network Operators.
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily
>>> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative,
>>> on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing
>>> issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a
>>> thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos.
>>>
>>> - Mike Bolitho
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not
>>> political at all.
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
>>>
>>> - Mike Bolitho
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bill HErrin
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: Parler

No, this is a list for Network Operators.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms  wrote:
> 
> 
> This is a list for pushing bits.  The fact that many/most of us have other 
> businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my 
> own work as an example).
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM  wrote:
>> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
 On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> No,
>>> 
>>> It really does not.  Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to 
>>> network providers.  If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd 
>>> be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Scott Helms
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon  
 wrote:
 As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to 
 coalesce, I very much disagree with you.  Section 230 is absolutely 
 relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects 
 me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. 
 
 
 —L.B.
 
 Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
 CEO 
 b...@6by7.net
 "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in 
 the world.”
 FCC License KJ6FJJ
 
 
 
 
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms  
> wrote:
> 
> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda 
> here.
> 
> 
> Scott Helms
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM  wrote:
>> 
>> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about 
>> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant 
>> issue for Network Operators.
>> 
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily 
>> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond 
>> speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing 
>> congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But as 
>> of now, that isn't even a thing. It's just best to leave it alone 
>> because it will devolve into chaos.
>> 
>> - Mike Bolitho
>> 
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not 
>>> political at all.
>>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
>>> 
>>> - Mike Bolitho
>>> 
 On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin  wrote:
 
 Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
 search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
 proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
 
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
 
 Regards,
 Bill HErrin

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread K. Scott Helms

This is a list for pushing bits.  The fact that many/most of us have other
businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my
own work as an example).

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM  wrote:

> This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms 
> wrote:
>
> 
> No,
>
> It really does not.  Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to
> network providers.  If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd
> be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here.
>
>
> Scott Helms
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon 
> wrote:
>
>> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to
>> coalesce, I very much disagree with you.  Section 230 is absolutely
>> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects
>> me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider.
>>
>>
>> —L.B.
>>
>> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
>> CEO
>> b...@6by7.net
>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in
>> the world.”
>> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms 
>> wrote:
>>
>> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda
>> here.
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM  wrote:
>>
>>
>> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about
>> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant
>> issue for Network Operators.
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily
>> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative,
>> on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing
>> issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a
>> thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos.
>>
>> - Mike Bolitho
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political
>> at all.
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
>>
>> - Mike Bolitho
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>>
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill HErrin
>>
>>
>>

RE: Parler



That is an exercise for the reader.  Unfortunately I do not have the
answer sheet for the exercizes to hand yet.

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is
paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

>-Original Message-
>From: James Laszko 
>Sent: Sunday, 10 January, 2021 15:07
>To: Keith Medcalf 
>Subject: RE: Parler
>
>Which ones are the Nazi’s?
>
>
>
>
>
>James
>
>
>
>From: NANOG  On Behalf
Of
>Keith Medcalf
>Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 1:59 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Cc: niels=na...@bakker.net
>Subject: RE: Parler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>It's amazing how far the world has stumbled that "fomenting violent
>
>>insurrection and calling for the murder of elected officials" now
>
>>falls under standard T&Cs against abusive behaviour where this used
>
>>to be perfectly fine a year ago.
>
>
>
>The world is now a different place with the election of the Nazi's.
>
>
>
>--
>
>Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is
>
>paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread J. Hellenthal via NANOG

Then again as a network operator you don’t discriminate against what is coming 
through you to a user or customer ... right ? ... :-D 

Unless it directly impacts you or the actual customer or you’ve been served by 
our ubermint to do otherwise non-advantageous things whatever they may be ;-)

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 15:31, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> 
> On 1/10/21 12:40, Matthew Petach wrote:
> 
>> There's easy solutions to the problem--hiring really good engineers
>> to write your own AWS-lookalike where you can host whatever content
>> you want, hosted in buildings you've built on land you've bought.
> 
> There's also the issue of carrying the packets from those servers to your 
> audience and from your audience to those servers.
> 
> -- 
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

RE: Parler



>It's amazing how far the world has stumbled that "fomenting violent
>insurrection and calling for the murder of elected officials" now
>falls under standard T&Cs against abusive behaviour where this used
>to be perfectly fine a year ago.

The world is now a different place with the election of the Nazi's.

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is
paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Rod Beck

The Courts have never interpreted the free speech rights to be totally without 
limits. I am pretty sure sedition defined as a concrete threat to take back the 
country by blocking the vote certification of the incoming President is not 
protected speech. Just because one does not moderate all content does not mean 
one cannot moderate some content. Mostly hands off does not imply totally hands 
off.


From: NANOG  on behalf 
of Matt Hoppes 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 4:10 PM
To: sro...@ronan-online.com 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Parler

Is that illegal though?

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>
> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block 
> people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now 
> blocked government communication?
>
>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> 
 On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
>>> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon 
>>> is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open 
>>> them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
>>> objectionable content.
>>>
>>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
>>> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on 
>>> content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t 
>>> that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
>>
>>
>> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal 
>> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice 
>> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while 
>> back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was pretty 
>> much the same situation, iirc.
>>
>> Mike
>>

RE: Parler



That all only matters if you (the oppressor) believes that your victim
(the oppressed) has the means to "bring peace to their enemy" either by
wielding devices of War and Destruction or through the Legal System.
This is the case with all "habitual criminals" such as AWS, Twitter,
Facebook, Google, Law Enforcement, and the Government.

Given that the number of "victims" capable of obtaining "redress" for
the improper actions of the above mentioned "habitual criminals" is very
low, there is little risk of the "habitual criminal" suffering any
consequence for their actions, thus they consider themselves impervious
and may act as they please whenever they please with zero consequence.

You will note that the aforementioned "habitual criminals" *never* act
against those capable of defending themselves or bringing them peace.

This is simply the way of the world.  It has always been thus and will
always be thus.

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is
paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG  On Behalf Of
>Wayne Bouchard
>Sent: Sunday, 10 January, 2021 06:55
>To: sro...@ronan-online.com
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Parler
>
>Ah, yes... re-enter the experiences of Compuserve. For that, I give
>you Telecom '96 and section 230 which, they think, makes them exempt
>from such things. Regardless, there are a whole lot of little
>triggering pebbles that risk being trodden upon here. From monopolist
>behaviour to basic discrimination (just because you're a private
>company, you do not have the right to descriminate in who you are
>willing to do business with. Wasn't that the whole point of the
>wedding thing?), there are many things to be careful of here, even
>though it will probably be a hard sell. Still, damned irresponsible to
>risk touch that precedent, IMO. It means a whole lot of flak comes
>around to the rest of us.
>
>On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 08:42:56AM -0500, sro...@ronan-online.com
wrote:
>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they
>want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem.
>Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could
potentially
>open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer
who
>hosts objectionable content.
>>
>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-
>house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based
>on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups,
>shouldn???t that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and
Twitter?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 2021, at 3:24 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> >
>> > ???Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler
is
>in
>> > search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> > proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>> >
>> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-
>suspension/
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Bill HErrin
>
>---
>Wayne Bouchard
>w...@typo.org
>Network Dude
>http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: Parler

This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms  wrote:
> 
> 
> No,
> 
> It really does not.  Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to 
> network providers.  If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be 
> correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here.
> 
> 
> Scott Helms
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon  
>> wrote:
>> As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to 
>> coalesce, I very much disagree with you.  Section 230 is absolutely 
>> relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me 
>> as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider. 
>> 
>> 
>> —L.B.
>> 
>> Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
>> CEO 
>> b...@6by7.net
>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in 
>> the world.”
>> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms  wrote:
>>> 
>>> It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda 
>>> here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Scott Helms
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM  wrote:
 
 NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about 
 networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant 
 issue for Network Operators.
 
 On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
 
 
 It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily 
 political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, 
 on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing 
 issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even 
 a thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into 
 chaos.
 
 - Mike Bolitho
 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM  wrote:
> 
> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political 
> at all.
> 
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
> 
> 
> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
> 
> - Mike Bolitho
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin  wrote:
>> 
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>> 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill HErrin
>>

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Rod Beck

Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a 
public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that platforms like 
Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such importance to public life 
and discourse as to merit regulation under the grounds they are an essential 
utility. I am neutral regarding this idea - I have not studied it and also 
realize that Amazon is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is 
tangential.

As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the riot last 
week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud to the surface, I 
am very perplexed how to reconcile free speech and the garbage flowing through 
our social streets.

From: NANOG  on behalf 
of Brielle 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 5:20 PM
To: sro...@ronan-online.com 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Parler

They’re a private company.  The same statues that give providers the right to 
refuse spam and block abuse give them the right to fire customers for whatever 
reason they want.

If their contract with Parler says they can be terminated for violations of TOS 
/ AUP or (more likely) for any reason Amazon decides, then it’s a done deal.

‘Frea Speeks’ as we liked to joking call it when spammers made the claim, is a 
govt thing.  Private businesses aren’t bound by the 1st amendment.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 6:44 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>
> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is 
> now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up 
> to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
> objectionable content.
>
> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, 
> less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same 
> principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 3:24 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>> Regards,
>> Bill HErrin

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Jay Hennigan


On 1/10/21 12:40, Matthew Petach wrote:


There's easy solutions to the problem--hiring really good engineers
to write your own AWS-lookalike where you can host whatever content
you want, hosted in buildings you've built on land you've bought.


There's also the issue of carrying the packets from those servers to 
your audience and from your audience to those servers.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Mel Beckman

You’ve described capitalism perfectly, and it works just as it should on the 
Internet, at least so far. Yes, the Internet has been a free market. But it 
won’t remain that way unless we resist censorship by a few wealthy companies. 
Parler, fortunately, has some backers who can foot the bill.

 -mel

On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:40 PM, Matthew Petach  wrote:




On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:29 PM Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:
It’s gratifying to see the many talented engineers here working on a solution 
to the underlying problem: Censorship. Don’t confuse freedom of speech (which 
protects us from government censorship) from freedom of commerce, which is a 
uniquely American aspect of Internet design.

As John Gilmore wisely said, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and 
routes around it.”

Let’s start helping the free market route around the censors!

 -mel

I'm sorry, Mel

The market hasn't been "free" for quite a long time.

There's easy solutions to the problem--hiring really good engineers
to write your own AWS-lookalike where you can host whatever content
you want, hosted in buildings you've built on land you've bought.

It's most definitely not free, though.

I'm available to start immediately--but I charge $2M/year, plus expenses,
including a full security detail to protect me from the types of people who
are likely to use the platform once it's done.

You're "free" to hire me--but I most definitely don't work for free.

You're "free" to buy your own land to build a datacenter on; but it
most definitely isn't available for free.

You're "free" to buy electricity to run the servers you put in that
datacenter you've built--but the electricity is most definitely not
arriving for free.

The part Gilmore missed is that the 'Net only routes around
censorship if someone is willing to foot the bill.

Matt

Re: Parler

In article <64d1fe99-a464-8867-92d5-8b1354963...@bryanfields.net> you write:
>1. When should a contracted provider be able to discontinue service with
>little to no notice to the customer if they find their content distasteful?

Whatever the contract says, of course.

>2. Where do we expect legit insurrections to communicate?  Should
>AWS/Facebook/Twitter boot those calling for violent uprisings in Hong Kong
>(for example).

Until you can give us a bright line definition of what is a "legit"
insurrection and what isn't, and a legal theory under which providers
are required to accept customers they don't want*, I don't think that
is our problem to solve.

R's,
John

* - outside existing laws about discriminating by race, etc.

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:29 PM Mel Beckman  wrote:

> It’s gratifying to see the many talented engineers here working on a
> solution to the underlying problem: Censorship. Don’t confuse freedom of
> speech (which protects us from government censorship) from freedom of
> commerce, which is a uniquely American aspect of Internet design.
>
> As John Gilmore wisely said, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and
> routes around it.”
>
> Let’s start helping the free market route around the censors!
>
>  -mel
>

I'm sorry, Mel

The market hasn't been "free" for quite a long time.

There's easy solutions to the problem--hiring really good engineers
to write your own AWS-lookalike where you can host whatever content
you want, hosted in buildings you've built on land you've bought.

It's most definitely not free, though.

I'm available to start immediately--but I charge $2M/year, plus expenses,
including a full security detail to protect me from the types of people who
are likely to use the platform once it's done.

You're "free" to hire me--but I most definitely don't work for free.

You're "free" to buy your own land to build a datacenter on; but it
most definitely isn't available for free.

You're "free" to buy electricity to run the servers you put in that
datacenter you've built--but the electricity is most definitely not
arriving for free.

The part Gilmore missed is that the 'Net only routes around
censorship if someone is willing to foot the bill.

Matt

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Mel Beckman

It’s gratifying to see the many talented engineers here working on a solution 
to the underlying problem: Censorship. Don’t confuse freedom of speech (which 
protects us from government censorship) from freedom of commerce, which is a 
uniquely American aspect of Internet design.

As John Gilmore wisely said, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and 
routes around it.”

Let’s start helping the free market route around the censors!

 -mel

On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:

On 1/10/21 12:13 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas 
mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:

On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really concerned
> with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate.  Industry
> standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice.  Note this is not the
> police/courts coming to the host with notice that they are hosting illegal
> content but only the opinion of the provider that they don't want to host it.
>
Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of
armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating
professional courtesy.

Mike

I thought the boot was announced after physical threats were made
against Google and Apple facilities and employees for removing the
app from the app stores?

There's professional courtesy; but the moment you start threatening
to bomb datacenters and kill employees, it's pretty clear professional
courtesy has been forcibly thrown through the reinforced double-glazed
energy-efficient windows and has plummeted straight through the roof
of the classic Cadillac in the parking lot ten stories below.  :(

Yeah, it may have been self-interest or all of the above. I really don't think 
that much concern needs to be given any more than the concern given to spammers 
and other fraudsters. "you have 30 days to move your criminal enterprise, have 
a good day". Bletch.

Mike

Re: Parler

On 1/10/21 12:13 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas > wrote:

On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be
really concerned
> with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate. 
Industry
> standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice. Note this is
not the
> police/courts coming to the host with notice that they are
hosting illegal
> content but only the opinion of the provider that they don't
want to host it.
>
Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of
armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating
professional courtesy.

Mike

I thought the boot was announced after physical threats were made
against Google and Apple facilities and employees for removing the
app from the app stores?

There's professional courtesy; but the moment you start threatening
to bomb datacenters and kill employees, it's pretty clear professional
courtesy has been forcibly thrown through the reinforced double-glazed
energy-efficient windows and has plummeted straight through the roof
of the classic Cadillac in the parking lot ten stories below.  :(

Yeah, it may have been self-interest or all of the above. I really don't 
think that much concern needs to be given any more than the concern 
given to spammers and other fraudsters. "you have 30 days to move your 
criminal enterprise, have a good day". Bletch.

Mike

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 12:03 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> >
> > Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really
> concerned
> > with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate.  Industry
> > standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice.  Note this is not the
> > police/courts coming to the host with notice that they are hosting
> illegal
> > content but only the opinion of the provider that they don't want to
> host it.
> >
> Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of
> armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating
> professional courtesy.
>
> Mike
>

I thought the boot was announced after physical threats were made
against Google and Apple facilities and employees for removing the
app from the app stores?

There's professional courtesy; but the moment you start threatening
to bomb datacenters and kill employees, it's pretty clear professional
courtesy has been forcibly thrown through the reinforced double-glazed
energy-efficient windows and has plummeted straight through the roof
of the classic Cadillac in the parking lot ten stories below.  :(

Matt

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread K. Scott Helms

It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda here.


Scott Helms


On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM  wrote:
>
> NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about 
> networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue 
> for Network Operators.
>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>
> 
> It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily 
> political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on 
> how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues 
> on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. 
> It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos.
>
> - Mike Bolitho
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM  wrote:
>>
>> Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at 
>> all.
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
>>
>> - Mike Bolitho
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin  wrote:
>>>
>>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bill HErrin

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:05 AM  wrote:
> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t
> block people, because his Tweets were government communication.
> So has Twitter now blocked government communication?

Howdy,

The President is a government official. Government officials may not
obstruct access to public government communication.

Twitter is a private enterprise. Outside of things like the emergency
broadcast system or a consensual contract, no private enterprise is
compelled to publish or circulate any government communication.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread John Von Essen

To be fair, AWS has existing contract/service clauses that are very very 
aggressive for termination. For example, if AWS contacts you regarding the 
hosting of CPEV, you have 24 hours to remove it and respond, if you dont - they 
immediately terminate the account. So the 24 hour warning for Parlor is not new 
behavior for Amazon.

Also, if you specifically read Amazon Customer Agreement 
(https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ ), 
Section 6.1.a. and 7.2.b.ii. lay out basically what they did to Parlor.

Section 6.1.a.iii. says"

"We may suspend your or any End User’s right to access or use any portion or 
all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we determine: 
your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings could subject us, our 
affiliates, or any third party to liability"

Clearly if Parlor is used to covertly coordiinate a planned attack on our 
government that leads to loss of lives, AWS doesn’t want to be held liable for 
hosting that infrastructure. The above clause requires no extended notices, it 
can be immediate - so 24 hours was a favor….
-John


> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:11 PM, Bryan Fields  wrote:
> 
> On 1/10/21 9:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal 
>> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice 
>> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a 
>> while back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it 
>> was pretty much the same situation, iirc.
> 
> There's legit users of parler and 8-chan.  Not every one is on the
> racist/insurrectionist/etc. sections.  And who's to say they have less of a
> right to their unpopular speech than I have to discuss retro video games?
> 
> This seems like it raises two interesting questions:
> 
> 1. When should a contracted provider be able to discontinue service with
> little to no notice to the customer if they find their content distasteful?
> 
> 2. Where do we expect legit insurrections to communicate?  Should
> AWS/Facebook/Twitter boot those calling for violent uprisings in Hong Kong
> (for example).
> 
> I suppose #2 is simply one mans freedom fighter is another criminal.
> 
> Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really concerned
> with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate.  Industry
> standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice.  Note this is not the
> police/courts coming to the host with notice that they are hosting illegal
> content but only the opinion of the provider that they don't want to host it.
> 
> I seem to recall a customer who was using provider IP space that sued and won
> an injunction circa 2004 against their provider allowing time to migrate. I
> remember reading the decision and was taken back by the decent grasp the judge
> had on BGP/IP space.  I can see how this might be similar.
> 
> Many years ago I was CoLo'd at a facility which shut off the racks of a
> customer at 9am on a Monday after finding said customer had poached an
> employee from the provider and was intending to compete with services the CoLo
> offered.  They physically disconnected the cross connects to these racks for
> this and banned the customer's employees from the facility.  Their counsel
> even told the customer "any contract is voidable at any time".  Basic planning
> for any company should ensure you never have all your eggs in one basket.
> Perhaps this was a bit dumb on the customers part, but they had a contract.
> 
> The cloud is just someone else's computer..
> -- 
> Bryan Fields
> 
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 11:11 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:


Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really concerned
with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate.  Industry
standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice.  Note this is not the
police/courts coming to the host with notice that they are hosting illegal
content but only the opinion of the provider that they don't want to host it.

Considering that it seems that there continues to be talk/planning of 
armed insurrection, I think we can forgive them for violating 
professional courtesy.


Mike

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:06 AM  wrote:

> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t
> block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has
> Twitter now blocked government communication?
>
>
They blocked Trump's personal account, not the White House
or the official Twitter account of the President.

They're perfectly within their rights to block the
accounts of individuals violating their terms of service.

Matt

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Bryan Fields

On 1/10/21 9:48 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal 
> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice 
> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a 
> while back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it 
> was pretty much the same situation, iirc.

There's legit users of parler and 8-chan.  Not every one is on the
racist/insurrectionist/etc. sections.  And who's to say they have less of a
right to their unpopular speech than I have to discuss retro video games?

This seems like it raises two interesting questions:

1. When should a contracted provider be able to discontinue service with
little to no notice to the customer if they find their content distasteful?

2. Where do we expect legit insurrections to communicate?  Should
AWS/Facebook/Twitter boot those calling for violent uprisings in Hong Kong
(for example).

I suppose #2 is simply one mans freedom fighter is another criminal.

Anyone hosting with Amazon/Google/the cloud here should be really concerned
with the timing they gave them, 24 hours notice to migrate.  Industry
standards would seem to be at least 30 days notice.  Note this is not the
police/courts coming to the host with notice that they are hosting illegal
content but only the opinion of the provider that they don't want to host it.

I seem to recall a customer who was using provider IP space that sued and won
an injunction circa 2004 against their provider allowing time to migrate. I
remember reading the decision and was taken back by the decent grasp the judge
had on BGP/IP space.  I can see how this might be similar.

Many years ago I was CoLo'd at a facility which shut off the racks of a
customer at 9am on a Monday after finding said customer had poached an
employee from the provider and was intending to compete with services the CoLo
offered.  They physically disconnected the cross connects to these racks for
this and banned the customer's employees from the facility.  Their counsel
even told the customer "any contract is voidable at any time".  Basic planning
for any company should ensure you never have all your eggs in one basket.
Perhaps this was a bit dumb on the customers part, but they had a contract.

The cloud is just someone else's computer..
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: Parler

They have Amazon Aurora versions of many popular databases which are binary 
compatible with the standard versions. So you can run standard Postgres on one 
cloud and Aurora Postgres in AWS.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Töma Gavrichenkov  wrote:
>>> I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at
>>> the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't
>>> have automated deployment at all.  While the provisioning tools are
>>> provider agnostic, a move from a provider to a provider would take
>>> days at most.
>> Hi Töma,
>> 
>> Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to
>> run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As
>> long as you install your own database software in both, you can do
>> that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly
>> out of luck.
> 
> Is RDS based on something else? I find it hard to believe that they wrote a 
> rdb from scratch. But yes, once they own your db they own you. I've looked 
> before how to migrate from mysql to postgres and was shocked at how little 
> there seems to be out there to even do even the easier stuff let alone the 
> proprietary extensions.
> 
> Mike
>

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread mark seery

As with common carriage and net neutrality, the discrimination has to be 
consistent.

Sent from Mobile Device

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
> Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a 
> customer on the basis of the racial or sexual orientation (or a number of 
> other bases).
> 
> Companies are permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a 
> customer using other criteria. E.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no mask, no 
> service." Customers who disturb other customers can also get "fired" or 
> banned by the company if they're deemed not worth the trouble...but the 
> reason for doing so must not be illegal itself.
> 
> Companies who are wary of the law may also be particularly concerned about 
> serving customers who are using (or enabling others to use) the goods and 
> services that company offers in ways that may violate the laws of the 
> jurisdiction the company is under. (In some neighborhoods, Home Depot locks 
> up all the spray paint cans, and limits sales to customers, as part of local 
> anti-graffiti measures.)
> 
> ---
> 
> There are parallels in establishing or ending employment...there are certain 
> reasons that provide a legal basis for hiring or not hiring someone, as well 
> as reasons that provide a legal basis for firing someone.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 10:34 Matt Hoppes  
>> wrote:
>> While I don’t like it - at the end of the day a private company can make a 
>> decision to have or not have a customer (unless somehow it’s racial or 
>> sexual orientation related apparently). 
>> 
>> Nothing is stopping Parler from spinning up their own servers. They 
>> willingly chose to use AWS.

Re: Parler and the total legality of content moderation

In article <469b70b8-b1f5-bef7-5c03-b1e5d8b2c...@meetinghouse.net> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>That's my understanding as well, from years of hosting email lists. As
>soon as one starts moderating, the rules change, and immunity goes away.

Thanks for bringing it up, because that understanding is 100% completely WRONG.

In 1995 a New York state court decided Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy.
Stratton Oakmont was a stock broker, Prodigy was an early online
service, and one of Prodigy's users posted a message that allegedly
defamed Stratton Oakmont. The state court misinterpreted the earlier
federal Cubby v. Compuserve and found that since Prodigy moderated its
forums, it was a publisher and was responsible for the user's message.
(Stratton Oakmont actually was a bunch of crooks, several of whom
later went to jail, but by then this issue was long over.)

In response the US Congress passed the widely misunderstood 47 USC
230, which has two significant sections. The first part 230(c)(1) says
that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider."

That means that if, for example, I sent a message here saying you'd
just been fired for having unnatural relations with an underage sheep,
you could sue me for libel, but you couldn't sue NANOG for carrying
the message.

The other section 230(c)(2) says "No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ...
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
availability of material that the provider or user considers to be
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
constitutionally protected;"

That means that if NANOG decided to that this list is about network
management, not livestock management, and deleted my message, that
still doesn't make them liable, even if there were other messages they
didn't delete. Courts have interpreted "good faith" and "otherwise
objectionable" very broadly, to include all sorts of moderation and
spam filtering.

So you are specifically allowed to moderate all you want, even if you
do not do it perfectly.

For reasons I do not fully understand, this simple law is wildly
misinterpreted, including by a lot of members of Congress who should
really know better.

You don't have to take my word for this. Lots of actual lawyers have
explained it. Here's Mike Godwin on Slate:

https://slate.com/technology/2020/12/legal-scholars-mary-anne-franks-mike-godwin-and-jeff-kosseff-on-section-230-of-the-cda.html

And here's Eric Goldman, a law professor who has been writing about
technology law for a long time:

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/01/new-op-ed-people-who-understand-section-230-actually-love-it.htm

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/07/want-to-learn-more-about-section-230-a-guide-to-my-work.htm

R's,
John

PS: with respect to Parler, it means that while Amazon wasn't
responsible for the sewage flowing through Parler, it was entirely
allowed to turn it off at any time.

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 10:21 AM, William Herrin wrote:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Töma Gavrichenkov  wrote:

I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at
the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't
have automated deployment at all.  While the provisioning tools are
provider agnostic, a move from a provider to a provider would take
days at most.

Hi Töma,

Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to
run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As
long as you install your own database software in both, you can do
that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly
out of luck.


Is RDS based on something else? I find it hard to believe that they 
wrote a rdb from scratch. But yes, once they own your db they own you. 
I've looked before how to migrate from mysql to postgres and was shocked 
at how little there seems to be out there to even do even the easier 
stuff let alone the proprietary extensions.


Mike

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 10:24 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:18 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

At my previous job, I built a tool which could spin up a server farm
given a platform agnostic design spec from a list of vendors as well as
pricing it out. It was really more of a prototype since it only
supported Chef on the spin-up side, but it showed that you could move
things pretty quickly if need be.

That's not just the provisioning, you also need an independent cluster
management and scheduling (hence Nomad).  But yes.

The real point of the tool was to capture all of those architectural 
features so they could be compared and contrasted. Some of them are 
fungible, some of them are not. Knowing the non-fungible ones gives you 
a window into lock ins.


Mike

Re: Parler

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:22 PM William Herrin  wrote:
> Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to
> run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As
> long as you install your own database software in both, you can do
> that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly
> out of luck.

Considering that AWS (or any cloud provider whatsoever) has a public
track record of losing data irretrievably, one would argue that
integrating their data storage products too deep into your application
isn't the wisest of ideas anyway.

--
Töma

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 10:17 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:09 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little
attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden.

In my experience, moving off Amazon services isn't that much of a
trouble, especially if compared to moving off Azure.  Cloud Active
Directory + Sentinel + PowerBI — and boom, your company is with Azure
for life.

To be fair, they all want walled gardens. And there are plenty of junior 
engineers attracted to shiny new things that people need to keep an eye on.


Mike

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Shivaram Mysore

Moving any service to bare metal is not that much of an issue.  With some
work, it can be accomplished.  What is really hard is performance,
scalability, reliability.  This in my opinion is what AWS and cloud
providers provide.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:21 AM Töma Gavrichenkov 
wrote:

> Peace,
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:09 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> > Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little
> > attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden.
>
> In my experience, moving off Amazon services isn't that much of a
> trouble, especially if compared to moving off Azure.  Cloud Active
> Directory + Sentinel + PowerBI — and boom, your company is with Azure
> for life.
>
> --
> Töma
>

Re: Parler

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:18 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> At my previous job, I built a tool which could spin up a server farm
> given a platform agnostic design spec from a list of vendors as well as
> pricing it out. It was really more of a prototype since it only
> supported Chef on the spin-up side, but it showed that you could move
> things pretty quickly if need be.

That's not just the provisioning, you also need an independent cluster
management and scheduling (hence Nomad).  But yes.

--
Töma

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Töma Gavrichenkov  wrote:
> I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at
> the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't
> have automated deployment at all.  While the provisioning tools are
> provider agnostic, a move from a provider to a provider would take
> days at most.

Hi Töma,

Are you sure about that? Consider your database. Suppose you want to
run your primary database in AWS with a standby replica in Azure. As
long as you install your own database software in both, you can do
that. But if you want to leverage AWS' RDS products too, you're mostly
out of luck.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Ben Cannon

Yeah that still hits my “fuck directly off” button.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:00 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> 
> 
> Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks
> against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise.
> 
> ---rsk

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Ben Cannon

I’m not sure either Joe.  I am a staunch proponent of free expression, but I 
remember a time when you could just. Totally trust an e-mail header.



Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:25 AM, Joe Greco  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:03:51AM -0500, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President 
>> couldn???t block people, because his Tweets were government 
>> communication. So has Twitter now blocked government communication?
> 
> That's not interesting or even a reasonable comparison.
> 
> Twitter wasn't involved in the former.  There is a huge difference in
> the President being told that he cannot block random citizens from
> reading his tweets (no Twitter involvement), and Twitter declaring that
> they no longer wish to provide service to the President (Twitter's 
> right as it is their private property).  The President is free to
> pursue alternative venues for his messaging.
> 
> Conflating unrelated things and drawing bad conclusions is not useful.
> 
> 
> At some point, it seems likely that the networking community may be
> faced with more choices such as what Cloudflare faced with 8chan.  In 
> an ideal world, people would act responsibly and we could have the nice
> things like libertarian ideals, but the reality as demonstrated by the
> last quarter century seems to indicate otherwise, in many small and not-
> so-small ways.
> 
> I find that distressing, but I am not so libertarian as to insist that
> others pay for this stuff with their lives.  I don't have any idea what
> the correct answer is, though.
> 
> ... JG
> -- 
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
> "The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
> through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
> democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov

Re: Parler

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:09 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little
> attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden.

In my experience, moving off Amazon services isn't that much of a
trouble, especially if compared to moving off Azure.  Cloud Active
Directory + Sentinel + PowerBI — and boom, your company is with Azure
for life.

--
Töma

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 9:55 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:38 PM William Herrin  wrote:

providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
facilitate cross-platform construction?

HashiCorp Nomad plus Terraform.  That's pretty much it.

I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at
the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't
have automated deployment at all.  While the provisioning tools are
provider agnostic, a move from a provider to a provider would take
days at most.

At my previous job, I built a tool which could spin up a server farm 
given a platform agnostic design spec from a list of vendors as well as 
pricing it out. It was really more of a prototype since it only 
supported Chef on the spin-up side, but it showed that you could move 
things pretty quickly if need be. I hadn't considered this as a use case 
though.


Mike

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Haudy Kazemi via NANOG

Conclusion:

Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a
customer on the basis of the racial or sexual orientation (or a number of
other bases).

Companies are permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a
customer using other criteria. E.g. "No shirt, no shoes, no mask, no
service." Customers who disturb other customers can also get "fired" or
banned by the company if they're deemed not worth the trouble...but the
reason for doing so must not be illegal itself.

Companies who are wary of the law may also be particularly concerned about
serving customers who are using (or enabling others to use) the goods and
services that company offers in ways that may violate the laws of the
jurisdiction the company is under. (In some neighborhoods, Home Depot locks
up all the spray paint cans, and limits sales to customers, as part of
local anti-graffiti measures.)

---

There are parallels in establishing or ending employment...there are
certain reasons that provide a legal basis for hiring or not hiring
someone, as well as reasons that provide a legal basis for firing someone.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 10:34 Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> While I don’t like it - at the end of the day a private company can make a
> decision to have or not have a customer (unless somehow it’s racial or
> sexual orientation related apparently).
>
> Nothing is stopping Parler from spinning up their own servers. They
> willingly chose to use AWS.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Richard Porter

>From a business perspective, this clearly helps us understand risk of a
single point of failure. Basic ORM tell us What is the Damage if it occurs,
how likely is it to occur and then accept, mitigate or transfer.

For example in another life, I was responsible for the 'last mile' for a
private city which included fiber in the road. We started to look at pop
diversity (small private city that was near 2 pops, rare but happens).
Instead we went with a pre negotiated contract with our fiber provider and
accepted a 24 hour outage knowing that our Fiber provider was on emergency
stand by if needed. They'd roll a truck and would have us back up within 24
hours (likely faster). The risk process included "How often do we have an
actual fiber cut in the road." It had happened in the past, but the private
city owned the roads and road crew, so new communications procedures were
put in place and it had not happened since.

I agree with Bill. This is a business problem.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:39 AM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:43 AM Mike Bolitho 
> wrote:
> > Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> While there's certainly an opportunity to get political, there are
> some obviously apolitical issues worth discussing here as well.
>
> First, this would appear to be an illustration of the single-vendor
> problem. You don't have a credible continuity of operations plan if a
> termination by a single vendor can take you and keep you offline. It's
> the single point of failure that otherwise intelligent system
> architects fail to consider and address. But more than that, cloud
> providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
> impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
> cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
> facilitate cross-platform construction?
>
> Second, Amazon strongly encourages customers to build use of its
> proprietary services and APIs into the core of the customer's product.
> That's quite devastating when there's a need to change vendors.
> Parler's CEO described Amazon's action as requiring them to "rebuild
> from scratch," so I wonder just how tightly tied to such Amazon APIs
> they actually are. And if there isn't a lesson there for the rest of
> us.
>
> These two issues, at least, are technical in nature and on topic for
> this forum. You may choose not to discuss them if they don't interest
> you, of course.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
>

Re: Parler




On 1/10/21 9:36 AM, William Herrin wrote:

First, this would appear to be an illustration of the single-vendor
problem. You don't have a credible continuity of operations plan if a
termination by a single vendor can take you and keep you offline. It's
the single point of failure that otherwise intelligent system
architects fail to consider and address. But more than that, cloud
providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
facilitate cross-platform construction?


I suppose it depends on how distributed your system design is. You 
certainly don't want to be running low latency necessary storage in one 
provider and servers in another. But you certainly need to architect for 
multi-region, and it seems to me that's the place to make the cut for 
cross provider as well. But AWS does have one incentive on the 
networking front: they want to peel off computing with corpro data 
centers which means they need to integrate with high speed vpn's and the 
like. Maybe somebody knows whether the likes of AWS and others are 
considered to be inside the corpro perimeter and how that works in a 
multi-tenancy world.




Second, Amazon strongly encourages customers to build use of its
proprietary services and APIs into the core of the customer's product.
That's quite devastating when there's a need to change vendors.
Parler's CEO described Amazon's action as requiring them to "rebuild
from scratch," so I wonder just how tightly tied to such Amazon APIs
they actually are. And if there isn't a lesson there for the rest of
us.


Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little 
attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden. It always 
surprises me how little people take into consideration that that almost 
never ends well for the people lured into the garden. As it ever were, I 
guess. I guess the lesson is that if you're sketch consider portability. 
If you're not sketch, consider portability anyway.


Mike

Re: Parler

You can certainly build platform agnostic applications on top of 
AWS/Google/etc. but it requires more “work”. Using a platform like OpenShift 
from Red Hat is one solution.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:58 PM, Töma Gavrichenkov  wrote:
> 
> Peace,
> 
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:38 PM William Herrin  wrote:
>> providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
>> impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
>> cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
>> facilitate cross-platform construction?
> 
> HashiCorp Nomad plus Terraform.  That's pretty much it.
> 
> I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at
> the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't
> have automated deployment at all.  While the provisioning tools are
> provider agnostic, a move from a provider to a provider would take
> days at most.
> 
> --
> Töma

Re: Parler

Peace,

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:38 PM William Herrin  wrote:
> providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
> impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
> cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
> facilitate cross-platform construction?

HashiCorp Nomad plus Terraform.  That's pretty much it.

I'd say it starts to be "inconvenient approaching impossible" only at
the point where you begin to use Cloudformation — or when you don't
have automated deployment at all.  While the provisioning tools are
provider agnostic, a move from a provider to a provider would take
days at most.

--
Töma

Re: Parler

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 5:43 AM Mike Bolitho  wrote:
> Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?

Hi Mike,

While there's certainly an opportunity to get political, there are
some obviously apolitical issues worth discussing here as well.

First, this would appear to be an illustration of the single-vendor
problem. You don't have a credible continuity of operations plan if a
termination by a single vendor can take you and keep you offline. It's
the single point of failure that otherwise intelligent system
architects fail to consider and address. But more than that, cloud
providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
facilitate cross-platform construction?

Second, Amazon strongly encourages customers to build use of its
proprietary services and APIs into the core of the customer's product.
That's quite devastating when there's a need to change vendors.
Parler's CEO described Amazon's action as requiring them to "rebuild
from scratch," so I wonder just how tightly tied to such Amazon APIs
they actually are. And if there isn't a lesson there for the rest of
us.

These two issues, at least, are technical in nature and on topic for
this forum. You may choose not to discuss them if they don't interest
you, of course.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: Parler

Some yes, some no.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:09 PM, Brielle  wrote:
> 
> Well then...  that’s a rather disturbing revelation.  
> 
> Out of curiosity, do these big facilities have armed guards of some sort, 
> especially if the facility hosts financial or govt sites?
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:59 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks
>> against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise.
>> 
>> ---rsk
>

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Brielle

Well then...  that’s a rather disturbing revelation.  

Out of curiosity, do these big facilities have armed guards of some sort, 
especially if the facility hosts financial or govt sites?

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:59 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> 
> 
> Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks
> against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise.
> 
> ---rsk

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Rich Kulawiec



Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks
against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise.

---rsk

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Bill Woodcock



> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:56 PM, Mark Seiden  wrote:
> 
> at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the 
> Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying) his 
> own unwise  tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself would 
> have been enough for twitter to either restrict his using any mechanism for 
> revision or deletion or even account termination for aup violations. i 
> pointed this out to them 3.91 years ago.

Courtesy of someone who pays closer attention to all this than do I:

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/25/772325133/as-president-trump-tweets-and-deletes-the-historical-record-takes-shape

-Bill



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Miles Fidelman

That's my understanding as well, from years of hosting email lists.  As 
soon as one starts moderating, the rules change, and immunity goes away.


It's one of my issues with the whole notion of rules-of-conduct on email 
lists - particularly when folks get on my case for not "moderating" 
language that some individual or other finds offensive (like not using 
requested pronouns).  Some folks get REALLY irate when I refuse to play 
thought police - and it seems particularly bad when the issue is a minor 
one.  I've almost gotten to the point of imposing a policy of "the only 
grounds for moderation or expulsion from this list are repeated 
complaints about the list host's lack of moderation."


Sigh...

Miles Fidelman

sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:

While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for 
violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in 
the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to 
liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable 
content.

When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and 
external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less 
I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same principal 
apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 10, 2021, at 3:24 AM, William Herrin  wrote:

Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/

Regards,
Bill HErrin



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Bill Woodcock

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:03 PM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block 
> people, because his Tweets were government communication.

Right, the _government_ can’t discriminate in which of its citizens it 
communicates with, and which it listens to.

> So has Twitter now blocked government communication?

Sure.  No problem with that.  An unregulated, non-monopoly, private party isn’t 
required to provide a forum for anyone, government or individual.

-Bill

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Matt Hoppes

While I don’t like it - at the end of the day a private company can make a 
decision to have or not have a customer (unless somehow it’s racial or sexual 
orientation related apparently). 

Nothing is stopping Parler from spinning up their own servers. They willingly 
chose to use AWS.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Joe Greco

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:03:51AM -0500, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President 
> couldn???t block people, because his Tweets were government 
> communication. So has Twitter now blocked government communication?

That's not interesting or even a reasonable comparison.

Twitter wasn't involved in the former.  There is a huge difference in
the President being told that he cannot block random citizens from
reading his tweets (no Twitter involvement), and Twitter declaring that
they no longer wish to provide service to the President (Twitter's 
right as it is their private property).  The President is free to
pursue alternative venues for his messaging.

Conflating unrelated things and drawing bad conclusions is not useful.

At some point, it seems likely that the networking community may be
faced with more choices such as what Cloudflare faced with 8chan.  In 
an ideal world, people would act responsibly and we could have the nice
things like libertarian ideals, but the reality as demonstrated by the
last quarter century seems to indicate otherwise, in many small and not-
so-small ways.

I find that distressing, but I am not so libertarian as to insist that
others pay for this stuff with their lives.  I don't have any idea what
the correct answer is, though.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Brielle

They’re a private company.  The same statues that give providers the right to 
refuse spam and block abuse give them the right to fire customers for whatever 
reason they want.

If their contract with Parler says they can be terminated for violations of TOS 
/ AUP or (more likely) for any reason Amazon decides, then it’s a done deal.

‘Frea Speeks’ as we liked to joking call it when spammers made the claim, is a 
govt thing.  Private businesses aren’t bound by the 1st amendment.

Sent from my iPad

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 6:44 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> 
> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is 
> now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up 
> to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
> objectionable content. 
> 
> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, 
> less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same 
> principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter? 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 3:24 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/
>> Regards,
>> Bill HErrin

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Jim Mercer

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:08:12AM -0500, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> less the Internet content become moderated by a small group of private 
> platform owners.

it already is.

it is just that it is moderated in their favour, to create more ad impressions
and re-sellable data points.

--jim

-- 
Jim Mercer Reptilian Research  j...@reptiles.org+1 416 410-5633

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather
to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up,
totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
 -- Hunter S. Thompson

Re: Parler

Funny, you must have found things all which are not me. You are really good at 
Google. Hahahaha!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:42 AM, John Sage  wrote:
> 
> On 1/10/21 7:13 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>> Yes, significantly.
> Two observations:
> 
> 1) you know not one thing about the laws of the United States of America
> 
> 2) a google search for your email's domain name leads to nothing but a blank 
> web page, and a Facebook page for some sort of Philippine video game page and 
> a Twitter account apparently with 0 tweets, and with 4 followers, 2 of whom 
> seem to be porn and 2 of which seem to be MLM scams
> 
> Make of all that what you will.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, *plonk*
> 
> 
> - John
> --

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread niels=nanog


* w...@typo.org (Wayne Bouchard) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 16:40 CET]:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:32:29PM +0100, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:

* sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 
CET]:
While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone 
they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an 
interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation 
business, which could potentially open them up to liability if 
they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable 
content.


Didn't that ship sail when they booted WikiLeaks off their 
platform?


Yeah, pretty much.

See, the real issue here is AUPs which initially were used to make 
sure users knew that their services could not be used to facilitate 
illegal things and then used to keep order on the platforms by 
restricting abusive behavior. However the definition of "abusive" 
has now been extended so greatly and with constantly changing rules 
that it's making the statement, effectively, "if we don't like what 
you say, or if we don't like you or your business, sucks to be you."


It's amazing how far the world has stumbled that "fomenting violent 
insurrection and calling for the murder of elected officials" now 
falls under standard T&Cs against abusive behaviour where this used 
to be perfectly fine a year ago.


(That was sarcasm.)


-- Niels.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Mark Seiden

at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the
Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying)
his own unwise  tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself
would have been enough for twitter to either restrict his using any
mechanism for revision or deletion or even account termination for aup
violations. i pointed this out to them 3.91 years ago.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 10:12 AM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Is that illegal though?
>
> > On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> >
> > Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t
> block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has
> Twitter now blocked government communication?
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> >>
> >> 
>  On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> >>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they
> want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem.
> Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially
> open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who
> hosts objectionable content.
> >>>
> >>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by
> in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based
> on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t
> that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
> >>
> >>
> >> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal
> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice
> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while
> back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was
> pretty much the same situation, iirc.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
>

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread John Sage


On 1/10/21 7:13 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:

Yes, significantly.


Two observations:

1) you know not one thing about the laws of the United States of America

2) a google search for your email's domain name leads to nothing but a 
blank web page, and a Facebook page for some sort of Philippine video 
game page and a Twitter account apparently with 0 tweets, and with 4 
followers, 2 of whom seem to be porn and 2 of which seem to be MLM scams


Make of all that what you will.

Speaking only for myself, *plonk*


- John
--

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Wayne Bouchard

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:32:29PM +0100, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
> * sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 
> CET]:
> >While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone 
> >they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting 
> >problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which 
> >could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend 
> >any other customer who hosts objectionable content.
> 
> Didn't that ship sail when they booted WikiLeaks off their platform?
> 
> 
>   -- Niels.

Yeah, pretty much.

See, the real issue here is AUPs which initially were used to make
sure users knew that their services could not be used to facilitate
illegal things and then used to keep order on the platforms by
restricting abusive behavior. However the definition of "abusive" has
now been extended so greatly and with constantly changing rules that
it's making the statement, effectively, "if we don't like what you
say, or if we don't like you or your business, sucks to be you."
Editorializing without labeling it as edititorializing. At some point,
that breaks down. It has to.

-Wayne

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread niels=nanog


* sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 
CET]:
While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone 
they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting 
problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which 
could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend 
any other customer who hosts objectionable content.


Didn't that ship sail when they booted WikiLeaks off their platform?


-- Niels.

Re: Parler

Yes, significantly.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Matt Hoppes  
> wrote:
> 
> Is that illegal though?
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>> 
>> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block 
>> people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now 
>> blocked government communication?
>> 
>> 
 On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
> On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
 While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
 for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon 
 is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open 
 them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
 objectionable content.
 
 When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
 and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on 
 content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t 
 that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal 
>>> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice 
>>> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while 
>>> back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was 
>>> pretty much the same situation, iirc.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>>

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Mark Tinka





On 1/10/21 16:09, Mike Bolitho wrote:

It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily 
political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond 
speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing 
congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But 
as of now, that isn't even a thing. It's just best to leave it alone 
because it will devolve into chaos.


I think the days where engineers felt that they didn't need to 
understand (to some degree) what happened on the penthouse floor are 
dead & gone.


If you haven't yet realized this, eish...

Mark.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Mark Tinka





On 1/10/21 15:43, Mike Bolitho wrote:


Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?


Why not? Seems terribly relevant to us.

Mark.

Re: Parler

2021-01-10 Thread Matt Hoppes

Is that illegal though?

> On Jan 10, 2021, at 10:07 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
> 
> Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block 
> people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now 
> blocked government communication?
> 
> 
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
>> 
>> 
 On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
>>> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon 
>>> is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open 
>>> them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
>>> objectionable content.
>>> 
>>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
>>> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on 
>>> content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t 
>>> that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
>> 
>> 
>> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal 
>> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice 
>> spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while 
>> back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was pretty 
>> much the same situation, iirc.
>> 
>> Mike
>>

Re: Parler

Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block 
people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now 
blocked government communication?


> On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:51 AM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 1/10/21 5:42 AM, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
>> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want 
>> for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is 
>> now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up 
>> to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts 
>> objectionable content.
>> 
>> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house 
>> and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on 
>> content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that 
>> same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
> 
> 
> Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal 
> activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice spam 
> scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while back? I 
> don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was pretty much the 
> same situation, iirc.
> 
> Mike
>

Re: Parler