te: https://ddostest.me
email: j...@ddostest.me
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Rich
Kulawiec
Sent: January 21, 2021 8:02 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: DDOS-Guard [was: Parler]
About this network:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 01:27:10PM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
[snip]
Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Googling "Rob Monster Epik" will tell you just about everything you need to
know about that organization.
It seems to me that that he is on the same side as Merkel means
the problem is not political one of right or left but that GAFA
administration is the fundamental evil.
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
> >
>
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:41 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> $ dig parler.com ns
> parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com.
> parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com.
Looks like Parler managed to bring up a placeholder web site via a
Belize (LACNIC) r
Mike Bolitho wrote:
List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would
several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network
operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information
and witnesses to figure out what's going on.
No lawy
On 1/14/21 4:09 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get
moderated, before
anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.
List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would
several days ago. It is 100% speculative,
>
> And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated,
> before
> anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.
List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would
several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network
operations, and r
- Original Message -
> From: "Mel Beckman"
> John,
>
> What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust
> laws for a political cause?
No, Mel.
In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection *are
not political causes*, and I am addin
days of “I was just following orders” are long gone.
-mel
> On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:47 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <70e9-8be1-483c-8e49-e9cda6b4a...@beckman.org> you write:
>> Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
>> com
In article <70e9-8be1-483c-8e49-e9cda6b4a...@beckman.org> you write:
>Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies
>would simultaneously pull the plug on
>their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to
>a ju
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:27:12PM +0100, Bryan Holloway wrote:
> There's a pretty big difference between imparting knowledge and inciting
> violence.
Not to mention it is was a COINTELPRO work product.
--
Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
> Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during
> that hearing Parler's attorney:
>
> - forgot the name of Parler's CEO
>
> - stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology
> because he's not on social media
>
> - admitted that he filed a day l
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:01:19AM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is
> likely)
The first hearing in this case was held today.
Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during
that hearing Parler'
edcalf
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM
> To: Mel Beckman ; adamv0...@netconsultings.com
>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Re Parler
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> >I, however, do know that this is the contract
ssion topic.
Regards,
Roderick.
From: NANOG on behalf
of Keith Medcalf
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM
To: Mel Beckman ; adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Re Parler
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman
.
Matthias Merkel
Staclar, Inc.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Matt Erculiani
Sent: Thursday, 14 January 2021 17:46
To: aheb...@pubnix.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org list
Subject: Re: Parler
Is there a remote possibility here that Verisign might say "yeah, we're gonna
glue this domain down to 0.0.0
uot;service provider" was not liable for the content
>provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio?
>
>Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on,
>that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a
>prior agreement to violate the law and th
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM wrote:
> (b) Termination for Cause.
> (i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of
> notice
It's fairly clear from Amazon's communications that this is their
basis for terminating Parler. They began notifying
Good to here since you're either part of:
. Parler legal team;
. Amazon legal team;
. Pervue of all the communication between both corporation;
... or just a Parler user ... is my guess.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubni
rg
Subject: Re: Re Parler
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read
the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one
posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get
the pages out of order).
And yes, Am
naged to get the pages out of order).
>And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
>termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
>weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
>data so that Parler could “move t
30 days notice in advance of termination.
Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording,
because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler
could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination.
Parler also has an
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 8:47 AM Matt Erculiani wrote:
> Is there a remote possibility here that Verisign might say "yeah, we're gonna
> glue this domain down to 0.0.0.0 and not allow registration"?
Absent a court order? No, not a chance. Verisign is not parler's
registrar. They'd be inviting twe
m. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70
>
> It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and
> the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting
> agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off.
>
>
>
--
Matt Erculiani
ERCUL-ARIN
God I miss that man!
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:28 PM Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > 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
> Medcalf
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
>
>
> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>
> >https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
> >7.2 Termination.
> >(a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for
> >any reason by providing us no
* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Mon 11 Jan 2021, 13:56 CET]:
Eric S. Raymond wrote on 11/01/2021 00:00:
Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.
this is quite an innovative level of speculation. Care to provide so
parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com.
parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com.
...
ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70
It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and
the Parler crew haven't violated the ter
res at
least 30 days notice. If that clause was in effect AND it was used as you
suggest THEN UNLESS at least 30 days notice was given the plaintiff Parler is
entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or aggravated/punitive
damages for Amazon's violation of the contract terms.
and the vendor goes
under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you
own it then? Etc..
adam
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
Keith Medcalf
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:08 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Re Parler
I thought y'
ract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to
violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to
specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or
punitive damages, from Amazon.
The only exception would be if the "content"
They may just be a reseller, but they are claiming to be themselves (although
I've never heard of epik until this week), the whois record seems to hit all
the right buttons to indicate they are a registrar and dns:
$ whois parler.com | grep -i epik
[Redirected to whois.epik.com]
[Querying
Errr, sorry, typing on my phone. I should have included a “(and, thus,
presumably the current DNS hosting returning dummy A records is a temporary
thing)”. I presume they transferred the domain and set up some temporary DNS
hosting through Epik, likely because, as someone else pointed out, it ca
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:22 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> Sure, I just found it marginally comical that amazon, after making a big
> stink about kicking them off, is still providing them service, even if it’s
> one-hop indirect. That said, someone else suggested that Epik is denying that
> they wil
300 IN NS ns4.epik.com.
>>> parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com.
>>> ...
>>> ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70
>>
>> It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and
has since caught wind of
this and is watching closely. I just checked, and both listed servers are
returning an A record for parler, although its bogus info (probably meant as a
place holder with low TTL so no one caches an nxdomain).
>
> $ dig parler.com ns
> ...
> parler.c
. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70
>
> It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and
> the Parler crew haven't violated the terms of the nameserver hosting
> agreement so Amazon hasn't cut that off.
No, they were hosted on Ro
300 IN NS ns4.epik.com.
> parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com.
> ...
> ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A 52.55.168.70
It's quite possible that Amazon is playing this *entirely* by the book, and
the Parler crew haven't violated the t
- Original Message -
> From: "esr"
> sro...@ronan-online.com :
>>
>> 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,
- Original Message -
> From: "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'
- Original Message -
> 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.
https://youtu.be/isMm2vF4uFs?t=28
unning the authoritative name
servers for a site meets the popular definition of "hosting" them.
Epik is currently denying that they are going to host Parler in a
traditional sense, though they are the registrar for parler.com. since
a couple of days ago.
Of course, Amazon could ding Epik for bein
I see your point, but I am not sure running the authoritative name
servers for a site meets the popular definition of "hosting" them.
Epik is currently denying that they are going to host Parler in a
traditional sense, though they are the registrar for parler.com. since
a couple of day
me.
Matt
On 1/10/21 3:23 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
ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
JeffP
je...@jeffp.us
rse their tone in a hurry.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/
Thank you,
Kevin McCormick
From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark seery
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM
To: K. Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG Operators' G
he way I read it, they aren't blocking Facebook/Twitter for everyone
> - the customer has to request the filter for their service.
>
> Regards,
> Lee
>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Kevin McCormick
>>
>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark
>> se
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark
> seery
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM
> To: K. Scott Helms
> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: Parler
>
> I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call
> out criminality and incitemen
On 1/12/21 1:47 PM, John Curran wrote:
On 12 Jan 2021, at 12:40 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
And yet, Amazon will still happily sell you this item:
https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607966123/
In fact, it is listed as: #1 Best Seller in Anarchism
Thanks for the rem
On 12 Jan 2021, at 12:40 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
>
> And yet, Amazon will still happily sell you this item:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607966123/
>
> In fact, it is listed as: #1 Best Seller in Anarchism
Thanks for the reminder! (I hadn’t realized it h
- On Jan 11, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Joe Loiacono jloia...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
> Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech.
As Anne was trying to point out, the 1st Amendment protects you from the
Government, and more specifically, Congress:
Congress shall make no law re
nternet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Kevin McCormick
>>
>> From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark
>> seery
>> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM
>> To: K. Scott Helms
>> Cc: NANOG Operat
Cc:* NANOG Operators' Group
*Subject:* Re: Parler
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 previou
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:23 PM John R. Levine wrote:
> > I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre
> > fire where 602 people died.
>
> Not at all. The actual quote is
>
> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
> falsely sho
://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/
Thank you,
Kevin McCormick
From: NANOG On Behalf Of mark
seery
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM
To: K. Scott Helms
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Parler
I assume mul
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:46 PM Matthew Petach wrote:
> ...unless the higher calling of "religious freedom" is at stake,
> in which case, sure, it's OK to exclude entire classes of people,
> if serving them would go against your religious beliefs.
> precedent set by
> Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Color
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre
fire where 602 people died.
Not at all. The actual quote is
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
The Iroquois fire was unfortun
> By comparison, that's about what Google makes every 10 days or what
> Apple makes every week. Verisign is a highly profitable fish in a tiny
> pool.
by a very late stage capitalism definition of 'tiny'
randy
At what point does the person from ISC yell this is not nanog related, like he
did to me?
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 6:32 PM
To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Cc: Eric Dugas via NANOG
Subject: Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Maybe if one puts a sign/flyer up
ed Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., which was
> actually about handing out anti-draft leaflets during WW I. It was
> overwrought then and has never been a useful guide to free speech law.
>
> This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
>
> R's,
> John
>
021 6:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
> >>> That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone
> >>> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at
> >>> least one person died as a result; ...
> >> This
; >> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at
> >> least one person died as a result; ...
> >
> > This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
>
> That's because people continue to believe that this has somet
s a result; ...
This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with
the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people
of their poorly informed notions.
Anne
--
Anne P. Mitche
>> That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone
>> "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at
>> least one person died as a result; ...
>
> This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
That's
e. That metaphor was used by Justice Holmes in a
now-discredited Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., which was
actually about handing out anti-draft leaflets during WW I. It was
overwrought then and has never been a useful guide to free speech law.
This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
R's,
John
In article <695823102.10322.1610397074140.javamail.zim...@cluecentral.net>,
Sabri Berisha wrote:
>> "The DNS is a natural monopoly. ...
>There is also money being made in DNS. A lot of money is being made in DNS.
>
>According to Verisign(1) Q3 of 2020 closed with 370.7 million new
>registration
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 4:23 AM Rod Beck
wrote:
> Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing
> with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work.
> Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with
> all their 'friends'.
editorial control?
> The courts have been all over the place on that one.
>
Amazon, Google, and Apple did not exercise editorial control
over the content; they severed a customer relationship, which
is well within the rights of any business. They didn't keep Parler
on the platform, but
- On Jan 11, 2021, at 4:46 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Hi,
> "The DNS is a natural monopoly. People want one resolver so they can
> connect with all their 'sites'. No one is going to use several
> nameservers for domain name resolution. They want one."
>
> Nah. The DNS is a nat
erators.
>>>>
>>>> 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,
&g
ld.com wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes it's worth turning the issue around and looking at it right
> up the...um, whatever.
>
> A friend who is rather right-wing (tho mostly sane) said angrily that
> AWS terminating Parler was "Stalinist" (apparently his metaphor for
On 1/10/21 9:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
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?
Anything that abstracts database servic
ssage-
>From: Rod Beck
>Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2021 05:13
>To: Keith Medcalf
>Subject: Re: Parler
>
>Hi,
>
>
>Your distinction sounds specious. The Courts have consistently that the
>1st amendment protects free speech from government retaliation in many
>i
S3 objects in Parler are now showing " All access to this object has
been disabled"
This error means you are trying to access a bucket that has been locked
down by AWS so that nobody can access it, regardless of permissions -- all
access has been disabled.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021
On 1/10/21 10:33 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
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 responsib
In article
you write:
>Well, for example, Oberdorf v. Amazon.com, No. 18-1041 (3rd Cir. July
>3, 2019) which found that Amazon was a seller of goods and not merely
>hosting information about a third party's sale, and thus subject to
>product liability law for the product that was sold. But in the
In article
you write:
>> 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,
Eric S. Raymond wrote on 11/01/2021 00:00:
Yes, it would. This was an astonnishingly stupid move on AWS's part;
I'm prett sure their counsel was not conmsulted.
this is quite an innovative level of speculation. Care to provide sources?
Nick
Aurora MySQL can absolutely be replicated with on-prem SQL, we did it at
$dayjob.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 11, 2021, at 12:03 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> 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 He
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 12:19 +, Rod Beck wrote:
> Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by
> replacing with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not
> always work. Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one
> site to connect with all their 'friends'.
as social media platform.
They want one.
Regards,
Roderick.
From: John Levine
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 11:57 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Rod Beck
Subject: Re: not a utility, was Parler
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Unless the courts rule or
ser-generated content. Snapchat
eventually won the case on a different theory.
I don't expect to find much if anything that's both directly on point
for Amazon/Parler and contrary to John's citations. But then I didn't
claim there would be. What I actually said was that the &qu
.
Are there examples that do not conflate other areas of the law?
Given the subject here, it seems relevant to want examples closer to
what Parler and service providers providing them services or connectivity
might need to consider.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwau
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:19 AM Danny O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 8:54 PM William Herrin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yo
On 1/11/21 1:33 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the
> hell you are replying
If you use a threaded email client (MUA), it's really easy to see it. It was
a reply to sro...@ronan-online.com's email of 10 Jan 2021 08:42:56 -0500
His MUA set
On Mon, 11 Jan 2021, h...@interall.co.il wrote:
I would assume Google and Azure would act the same to Parler. So what will
end up happening is that US based fringe content will end up being hosted in
China or Russia, and Chinese and Russian fringe content will end up being
hosted in the USA
Toma,
I would assume Google and Azure would act the same to Parler. So what
will end up happening is that US based fringe content will end up
being hosted in China or Russia, and Chinese and Russian fringe
content will end up being hosted in the USA.
-Hank
Caveat: The views expressed
Hey look, someone posted every link to every post and video uploaded to the
platform during the DC Capitol attack ...
https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347896132798533632
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:02 PM Valdis Klētnieks
wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:08:24 -0500, Izaac said:
>
> > demon
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 18:08:24 -0500, Izaac said:
> 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
How does that square with the White
> 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,
>>
Sorry for intruding one more time but in my experience, which is
absolutely vast, amateurs argue written law, professionals (i.e.,
lawyers) generally argue precedent; how courts have interpreted the
law in cases applicable to the issue at hand.
If no useful precedent exists professionals tend to
Maybe read Holmes' dissent where he uses the phrase "fire in a crowded
theater" or at least listen to the cliff notes:
https://www.popehat.com/2018/06/28/make-no-law-episode-seven-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
.
-A
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 2:59 PM Jay Hennigan wrote:
> On 1/10/21 13:50, Rod Beck wr
Sometimes it's worth turning the issue around and looking at it right
up the...um, whatever.
A friend who is rather right-wing (tho mostly sane) said angrily that
AWS terminating Parler was "Stalinist" (apparently his metaphor for
totalitarian.)
I said no, the government _forcin
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
> >> lo
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
> >wha
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 c
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
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 publ
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 al
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.
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
