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.
Googling "Rob Monster Epik" will tell you just about everything you need to
know about that organization.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 3:42 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around
> their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from
> today on
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) registered
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
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%
>
> 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
- 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
John,
What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust
laws for a political cause? To bring this discussion back into the realm of
operational discussions, shouldn’t we be building infrastructure that has the
audit and change management components needed to detect
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 judge.
Aw, come on.
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
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's attorney:
f
> 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 cont
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 wrote
.
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.
isive. 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
>>Jeff P
>>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43
>>To: nanog@nanog.org
>>Su
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 Parler in September
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...@pubnix.net
n 6.
(especially with subsection (a) which seem to provide a lot of options for
interpretation and manoeuvring space)
adam
-Original Message-
From: Mel Beckman
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 5:02 PM
To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Cc: Keith Medcalf ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re:
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman wrote:
>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
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, Amazon had a duty to provide
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
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"? Is
there any precedent for this? Would seem like a game of whack-a-mole that
anyone would want to avoid.
Really that would seem like the only way to ratchet
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
* 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
Hi,
This is just their DNS, parler.com itself returns to 0.0.0.0 now.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443
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 notice and closing your account for all Services
>for which we provide
nder? 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'all yankee doodles had this th
quired.
--
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
>Jeff P
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re Parler
>
&
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
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
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 will
host the site, only providing registrar services for the
I think its more probable to say that AWS didn't even know about this. As far
as I can see, epik is just another AWS customer who spun up an instance and is
hosting dns on that instance. I doubt AWS is watching customers at a level
that would detect this. But, I'm also sure that AWS has since
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:02 PM Valdis Klētnieks
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said:
> > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com.
> > parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com.
> > ...
> > ns3.epik.com. 108450 IN A
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:41:55 -0500, Matt Corallo said:
> In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their
> enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from
> today on parler's new host:
>
> $ dig parler.com ns
> ...
> parler.com. 300 IN NS
- 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
- 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
- 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.
Ah! I admit I haven't been following the latest in drama-land too closely. I was still under the impression they had a
full hosting deal. Guess it'll be interesting to see where they land.
Matt
On 1/13/21 9:08 PM, Hunter Fuller wrote:
I see your point, but I am not sure running the
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 days ago.
Of
In case anyone thought Amazon was being particularly *careful* around their enforcement of Parler's ban...this is from
today on parler's new host:
$ dig parler.com ns
...
parler.com. 300 IN NS ns4.epik.com.
parler.com. 300 IN NS ns3.epik.com.
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
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' Group
Subject: Re: P
> The 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
>> seery
&
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 incitement to viole
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
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
ovider-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
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 previously for the
://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 multiple
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.
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
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
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
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
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 at 9:06 AM
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
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
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
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:
>
> >
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
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
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
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
> >>
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
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
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
>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
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
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,
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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?
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
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?
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\
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
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.
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
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
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
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: n
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 ;-)
--
>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 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
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
