Re: Parler
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. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) Hi Matt, As I recall, the finding in Masterpiece Cakeshop was that the commission screwed up the execution of their process so badly that the result was void. Although both sides badly wanted the court to set a precedent around excluding customers on a religious basis, it did not do so. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
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 unfortunately all too real. As soon as the US entered WW I the first amendment basically went out the window with the Espionage Act. Schenck was part of that. R's, John
Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler
> 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
RE: shouting draft resisters, Parler
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 in their front yard opposing what their belief is and argues "free speech" lol, totally joking... -Joe On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:18 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. mailto:amitch...@isipp.com>> 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 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. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre fire where 602 people died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Theatre_fire https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-theater-blaze-killed-hundreds-forever-changed-way-we-approach-fire-safety-180969315/ Thanks, Donald === Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:56 PM John Levine wrote: > In article <35226213b6fcdc4a9c94f0bf30472...@mail.dessus.com> you write: > > > >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; ... > > Probably none. 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 >
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:25 PM Joe Loiacono wrote: > Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. One can advocate for or against "free speech" and whatever it may ultimately include or not include without having to invoke a specific United States legal framework which doesn't apply in many (most) contexts. Freedom of speech as a right of humankind has existed as a concept since long before the US did, the US merely enshrined in its constitution that the government should generally not infringe on it, with very limited circumstances in which it may do so. This is, in my opinion and that of others, a good thing. Where those lines are to be drawn is largely up to the courts, and is often the subject of debate among both jurists and laypersons. I guess my overall point here is this: there's no reason you can't say "free speech is an important right that we must protect" without invoking any specific legal doctrine, if that's what you believe. That statement can easily apply to any government agency, private corporation, public corporation, or individual citizen, and be broadly relevant. Once you invoke the first amendment, you're now limiting the context of your advocacy. On 1/11/2021 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 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 >
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Maybe if one puts a sign/flyer up in their front yard opposing what their belief is and argues "free speech" lol, totally joking... -Joe On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:18 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 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. Mitchell, Attorney at Law > Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School > CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification > Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) > Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange > Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop > Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) > >
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech. On 1/11/2021 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 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. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
>> 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 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. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler
In article <35226213b6fcdc4a9c94f0bf30472...@mail.dessus.com> you write: > >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; ... Probably none. 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
Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler
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 >registrations. That's total registrations across all TLDs, not new registrations. Verisign is by far the largest registry with about 115M in .COM and 15M in .NET. I agree that the total annual revenue of the domain biz, add up everything from Verisign and Godaddy on down, is in the ballpark of $5 billion/year. 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. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: not a utility, was Parler
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'. No one is going to use several Facebooks as social > media platform. They want one. > > Regards, > > Roderick. > I think you would quickly find that Facebook became a much emptier place the moment you started charging standardized tariffs to access the service. How many people here would shell out $10/month to scroll endlessly through their timeline, or wall, or whatever facebook calls it these days? I don't even use Facebook for free these days; charging a tariff? Yeah, that's going to result in a ghost town pretty quickly. People want one *free* site to connect to all their friends. They've already learned that it's a non-starter trying to get their friends to join them on a platform that charges a monthly tariff. It's only a natural monopoly because the advertising is subsidizing the free nature of it. Take away the free aspect, and suddenly it's not a very natural monopoly at all. Matt
Re: Parler
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:53 PM William Herrin wrote: > 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. > ...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. Colorado Civil Rights Commission*, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) 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. > But if a customer is simply denied service based on a category that the business provider claims is against their religious beliefs, and no injury takes place, the courts have provided precedent in support of such exclusion. > "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. > Fair enough; I used the phrase "prior restraint" in a completely amateur and inaccurate way to indicate a business taking action against a customer prior to actual harm being done. > 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. > 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 say "you can't say the following words in any of your posts" -- which would have put them on shakier grounds; they simply said "sorry, we don't want you as a customer any longer." If you're my customer, and my terms of service allow me to terminate my relationship with you at any time for a list of reasons, then I can terminate my relationship with you at any time, based on those reasons. As ISPs, we depend on TOS clauses like that to allow us to terminate customers that are DDoSing others, are attacking others, are causing harm to others, are posting illegal content, etc. If you're notified of CSEI on your platform, removing access to it and turning it over to the FBI doesn't put you in jeopardy of violating section 230 immunity. You're not acting as a moderator of content, you're enforcing your terms of service and cooperating with law enforcement. If I kick a customer off because their check bounced, I'm not moderating their content, I'm severing my relationship with a customer for non-payment. Of course, I'm still a complete layman, and I bow to John Levine's *much* more nuanced and accurate explanation of the difference, which I've hopelessly mangled in this discussion. ^_^;; > Regards, > Bill Herrin > Matt
Just a heads up, apparently Ubiquiti had a breach.
Official statement: https://mailchi.mp/ubnt/account-notification?e=30527b2904 Sincerely, Eric Tykwinski TrueNet, Inc. P: 610-429-8300
Re: not a utility, was Parler
- 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 natural distributed database, with authoritative data > held by those with the most interest in its accuracy. But unlike DNS > data, there is money in collecting all the facebooky things - IF you > are allowed to sell them. Stop that, and Facebook is a natural > distributed database too. 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 registrations. At an average of $15 per domain(2), that equals a market of $5.5 billion dollars. Now, that's of course pocket change compared to Facebook's $21.4 billion Q3 revenue(3), but still. And that's without all those alt-root con schemes. Thanks, Sabri (1) https://www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml (2) https://www.websitebuilderexpert.com/building-websites/domain-name-cost/ (3) https://investor.fb.com/investor-events/event-details/2020/Facebook-Q3-2020-Earnings/default.aspx
Re: Amazon peering
Yes sir. I’ve now had a couple of fine folks respond and have got it sorted. Thanks to everyone for the quick responses. J~ > On Jan 11, 2021, at 13:10, Rob Duffy wrote: > > > We submitted a request recently and received a response a week later, stating > the request was being processed by their automated system. The automated > system takes 10 - 12 days to set up the session. > >> On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 18:14, JASON BOTHE via NANOG wrote: >> Hi all >> >> Just curious if anyone has recently requested Amazon peering and if they’ve >> gotten a timely response. I know historically it was months and months but I >> thought I had read where they had turned over a new leaf and were responding >> promptly. I have a pending request but it was done over the holidays so >> hoping it’s just in a small backlog :-) >> >> Thanks >> >> J~
Re: Amazon peering
We submitted a request recently and received a response a week later, stating the request was being processed by their automated system. The automated system takes 10 - 12 days to set up the session. On Mon, 11 Jan 2021 at 18:14, JASON BOTHE via NANOG wrote: > Hi all > > Just curious if anyone has recently requested Amazon peering and if > they’ve gotten a timely response. I know historically it was months and > months but I thought I had read where they had turned over a new leaf and > were responding promptly. I have a pending request but it was done over the > holidays so hoping it’s just in a small backlog :-) > > Thanks > > J~
Re: Parler
They certainly have been many many times, but that's an entirely different animal than the rules for content hosting and publishing. Actions from network providers have (AFAIK) always been in conjunction with some traffic from or to the violating party rather than an otherwise legal content hosting arrangement. Scott Helms On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:05 PM mark seery wrote: > > 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
We’re straying pretty far into OT here but they do run a network - Trump banning TikTok because they hurt his feelings would be Stalinist. Twitter banning Trump for TOD violations is the Free Market speaking. It’s pretty fundamental to civics, participation society, and sanity in general, to get these right. 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 9:33 PM, b...@theworld.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 > totalitarian.) > > I said no, the government _forcing_ AWS to carry Parler, or Twitter to > carry Trump (another 'plaint) would be "Stalinist". > > Imagine if a Chinese social media company refused to carry anything > posted by Xi Jinping (China's president) for similar reasoning. > > Then you'd likely, one can only speculate, see "Stalinist" in action. > > P.S. Does anyone know whether Trump is paid for his Twitter traffic as > many celebrities are? > > -- >-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: Parler
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 services screams LOCK IN. Does anybody know what the supposed value of this lock in is? Mike, wondering whether there exists database repair people like when my toilet explodes
Amazon peering
Hi all Just curious if anyone has recently requested Amazon peering and if they’ve gotten a timely response. I know historically it was months and months but I thought I had read where they had turned over a new leaf and were responding promptly. I have a pending request but it was done over the holidays so hoping it’s just in a small backlog :-) Thanks J~
RE: Parler
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; and the charge laid against the shouter was "reckless disregard for human life resulting in culpable homocide" and the elements of that offence being proved, was dismissed on the basis that the "speech" was protected by the first amendment? -- 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: 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 >instances. It is not just prior restraint. > > >Best, > > >Roderick. > > > > >From: NANOG on >behalf of Keith Medcalf >Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:11 AM >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: 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
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 at 9:06 AM Michael Thomas wrote: > > 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 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. > > it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the > > hell you are replying > > > +1 > > Mike > > -- Sincerely, Jason W Kuehl Cell 920-419-8983 jason.w.ku...@gmail.com
Re: Parler
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 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. it is really annoying that you leave not the slightest clue to who the hell you are replying +1 Mike
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
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 Erie >Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the >opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over >a defective third-party product. Good citations, but really, an edge case if you are not an online marketplace hosting third-party sellers. R's, John
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
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, 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. I have the case law and with all due respect, you are still wrong. The cases where the provider was liable are edge cases. In the 2008 Roommates case, an apartment matching service had a questionaire that asked demographic questions that landlords can't ask. and the court held that that asking users to provide the answers made them liable for the answers. Except four years later they ruled that roommates aren't landlords so never mind. The recent Malwarebytes case said (wrongly I believe) that the good faith filtering immunity doesn't apply when one antivirus program says another is a "potentially unwanted program." FOSTA/SESTA carved out an ill-defined hole for sex trafficing. For any sort of normal content moderation, Section 230 does what it says. R's, John
Re: Parler
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
Re: Parler
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 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: not a utility, was Parler
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'. No one is going to use > several Facebooks as social media platform. They want one. "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 natural distributed database, with authoritative data held by those with the most interest in its accuracy. But unlike DNS data, there is money in collecting all the facebooky things - IF you are allowed to sell them. Stop that, and Facebook is a natural distributed database too. But how to stop it - that is the question... Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Re: not a utility, was Parler
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'. No one is going to use several Facebooks 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 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: more bad lawyering about Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 2:51 AM Joe Greco wrote: > Are there examples that do not conflate other areas of the law? Hi Joe, I expect so. Maynard v. Snapchat, for example, in which the court found that snapchat had no section 230 immunity in a lawsuit related to its speed overlay feature for user-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 "courts have been all over the place" on how much control an online service had to have over third-party content before section 230 no longer applied. I think the three cases I've now cited for you illustrate that. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: more bad lawyering about Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 02:33:08AM -0800, William Herrin wrote: > 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. > > > > You really need to give citations here, because IMHO not only is this > > *exactly* the scenario that Section 230 was intended to provide legal > > clarity regarding (and so protect service providers from this kind of > > moderation double-bind), but as I understand it pretty much all the > > subsequent caselaw has *strengthened* the ability for providers to moderate > > and manage content, including user-generated content, without triggering > > liability. > > 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 Erie > Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the > opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over > a defective third-party product. These seem to be examples of situations where Amazon and Erie were selling things (other than Internet access/services), and were not merely acting as a service provider. I don't think that, back when the CDA was written, the service provider world ever expected random retailers or other sellers of products and services to be able to claim section 230 protections just because the transaction happened to be enabled by the Internet. It also isn't clear under what theory 230 protections would take precedence over other protections such as product liability law. I don't think that the fact that you might also sell Internet services creates an umbrella. 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 - 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: more bad lawyering about Parler
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. > > You really need to give citations here, because IMHO not only is this > *exactly* the scenario that Section 230 was intended to provide legal clarity > regarding (and so protect service providers from this kind of moderation > double-bind), but as I understand it pretty much all the subsequent caselaw > has *strengthened* the ability for providers to moderate and manage content, > including user-generated content, without triggering liability. 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 Erie Insurance case, with similar circumstances, the court found the opposite, that section 230 barred the plaintiff from suing Amazon over a defective third-party product. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
Re: Parler
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 the "In-Reply-To" header, and thus it was referencing the Mesaage-ID of 474fe6a6-9aa8-47a7-82c6-860a21b0e...@ronan-online.com of the email sronan sent. Most modern MUA's can process threads and make it really easy to read lists. This excludes outlook which doesn't set these headers and is basically impossible to use on any standard mailing lists for this and other reasons. I use Thunderbird and mutt, both support this threaded format. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net
