[HN Gopher] AWS disables ISIS propaganda website it had hosted s...
___________________________________________________________________
AWS disables ISIS propaganda website it had hosted since April
Author : mariojv
Score : 31 points
Date : 2021-08-28 14:47 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| tehbeard wrote:
| Have to wonder if one of the three letter agencies quietly told
| them to keep it up with some "additional oversight" in place..
| mberning wrote:
| More proof that these platforms have zero content moderation and
| actually do not give a shit until somebody notices. I don't see
| how such examples make their content policies and enforcement
| thereof highly questionable within the legal system.
| belltaco wrote:
| Are the free speech absolutionists against this move or not?
| torstenvl wrote:
| > _free speech absolutionists_
|
| I'm sure this was unintentional, but hilarious nonetheless.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Did banning the app magically stop ISIS and end terrorism?
|
| The terrorists will circumvent this and use some other app
| while law-abiding people continue to have their human rights
| infringed on by censorship and deplatforming.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It infringes Amazon's rights. Why should they be forced to
| host this?
|
| > _The company took down the site, which touted the suicide
| attack that killed at least 170 people in Kabul, after The
| Post reported extremists were using the service_
|
| 170 people. 13 service members. Amazon wants no part of
| this and that is their right.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| How would they notice it?
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| If the "correct politically aligned group" tells them about
| it.
|
| If it's the "incorrect" group, it will be ignored.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| It is incredible that all these tech companies colluded to ban
| Parler because Parler wouldn't enact their desired level and
| flavor of censorship, and banned Trump on unsubstantiated
| accusations of inciting violence. It is even more incredible that
| they are totally okay with Facebook/Twitter remaining in the App
| Store even though the Capitol riot was mostly organized there,
| okay with BLM-affiliated groups or Antifa groups organizing on
| their platforms despite a year of demonstrated political
| violence, and okay with the Taliban spreading their terroristic
| propaganda on their platforms. Why is it surprising that they
| were also hosting ISIS? These companies and their employees only
| care about censoring their direct political adversaries, and all
| the euphemisms they use (like "moderation") can't hide their
| intentions, due to how inconsistently they apply even their own
| rules.
|
| Tech companies have enough power to sway entire populations and
| influence elections. They are as powerful as many governments and
| must be reigned in. Other countries are recognizing this problem
| of big tech's political power (see
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/germanys-merkel-hits-out-at-...
| or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/20/biden-always-
| unf...), and America too must recognize it. We need updated anti
| trust laws and aggressive application of them, targeting
| companies that are too big and companies that benefit from
| network effects.
| DaveExeter wrote:
| >Taliban spreading their terroristic propaganda
|
| They are not "terrorists" anymore. The Taliban is the
| legitimate government of Afghanistan.
|
| Those opposed to the Taliban are now the terrorists!
| stinky613 wrote:
| The Taliban in Afghanistan isn't/wasn't listed officially as
| terrorist group by the US government. The Taliban in
| Pakistan, however, is a terrorist organization, according to
| the US government.
|
| The Taliban in Afghanistan may be morally repugnant, violent
| fundamentalists, but they are technically not a terrorist
| organization (in the context of the US)
|
| https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/
| OJFord wrote:
| (Whenever I vouch for a comment - and typically, as here, I
| don't also up-vote, because that's different - I feel the need
| to explain, so here goes.)
|
| I've vouched for this, because it seems like something some
| people obviously disagree with politically, but not something
| that there's any reason to _flag_. (Though _down-voting_ for
| disagreement is, however some (myself included) feel about it,
| explicitly allowed.)
|
| I'm not American, I've never used Parler (I've just about heard
| of it, know that it has far-right associations), don't care
| much for US-specific politics.
|
| I just think, agree or disagree, this is a reasoned comment
| that doesn't deserve flags.
| jhardy54 wrote:
| Respectfully, I disagree and have flagged the comment
| accordingly.
|
| I think my flag is appropriate because the comment contains
| blatant misinformation. While I tend to assume that the
| author is operating in good faith, I think they're parroting
| misinformation that does not belong on HN.
|
| Easy example: Trump's Twitter ban was not "unsubstantiated",
| it was clearly explained with direct examples [0]. I'm open
| to dissenting opinions on what action was appropriate, but
| the idea that the ban was "unsubstantiated" is unambiguously
| misinformation.
|
| Zooming out, I'm happy to have HN host opinions that I
| strongly disagree with, but outright misinformation should
| not be allowed.
|
| [0]: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspe
| nsio...
| ozzythecat wrote:
| I'm an engineer at Amazon. Your post is misguided and
| incorrect.
|
| This website staying online is a miss on Amazon's part. I don't
| work on whichever service was specifically used to host this
| content and don't know about what specific mechanisms they have
| to discover and take down illegal content.
|
| This was obviously a miss. Amazon should and has to do better.
| There's no question about that.
|
| By the way, no one colluded to ban Parler. I don't speak in
| behalf of Amazon, but the content on Parler, where people were
| calling for assassination of American government officials, had
| full visibility. It wasn't obscure or unknown to Amazon. It was
| a high traffic, well known app. That issue was very visible and
| corrective action was quickly taken.
|
| Unfortunately, this issue wasn't so visible. Once it was
| identified, corrective action was taken.
|
| And your accusations of being "okay with terror organizations"
| is wrong.
|
| For full disclosure: I'm not speaking on behalf of the company,
| and I see you have political grievances with Amazon. But to
| turn that into Amazon or it's employees being okay with hosting
| terrorist content is so absurd, it's not really even worth
| responding too.
| bobobob420 wrote:
| How brave of them. I'm sure it was a tough decision.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-28 23:02 UTC)