How could this be - I was told our corporate overlords are able to do whatever they'd regarding kicking people off their platforms?
Whatever shall we do?
The funny thing about the whole "do bad things and get kicked off" strategy is that every platform has abusers. Since Big Tech can arbitrarily decide the thresholds and circumstances that lead to being kicked off, this effectively means they can kick anyone off for any reason.
Even on here, on Hacker News, if you dig deep enough I guarantee you can find questionable content (albeit probably downvoted) to justify deplatforming if you were tasked with deplatforming this site anyways.
I'd love to see some research about this from an unbiased source showing that targeted advertising produces great results in small businesses (<100 employees, or <5M revenue yearly).
I wonder what percentage of Robinhood users hold GME - if it's more than 25% I'd say they're finished. If we assume 25% of users hold GME and 80% of GME holders will not return after this fiasco that's extremely significant IMO.
Not to say that they'll cease to exist, but I doubt they'll remain the "#1 trading platform."
I've been pretty skeptical on the whole game streaming thing until I installed moonlight and tried it out myself on my android device - it works surprisingly well on LAN.
I wonder if it's possible to play a local multiplayer game using this/parsec or moonlight. I'd love to set it up such that I could play something like Unreal Tournment split screen with two different people in two different locations streaming the same game to both devices and using our controllers are separate inputs on the same computer.
EmberJS is probably the most stable of the frontend frameworks in that it's very internally consistent and opinionated. As far as the back-end goes, I think PHP, Rails and Django are all pretty stable, but I'm not familiar with the microsoft stack.
I highly doubt it - what are you basing this on? I personally don't know a single person who actually pays for discord. Most people I know who use Teamspeak pay for it. That being said, Discord is way more popular than Teamspeak, it does remain to be seen if they can heavily monetize.
I understand, but that doesn't really have to do with the point I'm trying to make. Even if you use "organizing an insurrection against the government" as your baseline - is a single post on Facebook/Twitter enough to justify banning? Obviously not - the question is what metrics are acceptable given a certain level of capability by the forum/company.
Only so much moderation is possible given a certain amount of moderators and company resources. Are these rules inherently biased against smaller companies?
I have no particular comment about Parler specifically, but in the general case:
Suppose you're a single-person startup of an app called "Speak!". Speak! is pretty niche, but one day, a group of the X-People are ostracized on all the popular forums: Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Because Speak! is the only remaining bastion for the X-People all of them flock to Speak!. Let's say the X-People say things that aren't exactly popular among those who are not X-People.
BigCo claims that Speak! is not properly moderated. You say that you're only a single person and a certain level of moderation cannot be expected given N number of employees.
If BigCo bans Speak! on the grounds that Speak! is not sufficiently moderated, would that mean that any small person operation who operates a surprisingly large userbase cannot operate?
I think there should be objective quantitative measures that any company can use that's applied evenly across companies. Should a company with 10,000 moderators be held to the same standard of moderation as an extremely popular forum with only a single moderator? You decide.
Out of curiosity how much time for remediation is generally allowed before service is pulled? Surely the precedent is not "you do something bad and we ban you immediately"?
In FTA it says AWS generally gives 30 days per their contract with Parler, but I mean in general, if there is a general precedent. Even if Parler wanted to do the right thing here, they were pretty much banned everywhere immediately.
If @realDonaldTrump said all the same things through, let's say, White House press releases, but through Twitter it was relatively "clean" do you think Twitter would've banned it regardless?
I don't understand - obviously being #1 will not inherently result in being banned, so the implication is that Parler is bad. If that's the case, doesn't it basically just beg the question I posed in the parent post?
Keep in mind I'm talking about targeted advertising, not advertising in general.