Parler

That's not interesting or even a reasonable comparison.

Twitter wasn't involved in the former. There is a huge difference in
the President being told that he cannot block random citizens from
reading his tweets (no Twitter involvement), and Twitter declaring that
they no longer wish to provide service to the President (Twitter's
right as it is their private property). The President is free to
pursue alternative venues for his messaging.

Conflating unrelated things and drawing bad conclusions is not useful.

At some point, it seems likely that the networking community may be
faced with more choices such as what Cloudflare faced with 8chan. In
an ideal world, people would act responsibly and we could have the nice
things like libertarian ideals, but the reality as demonstrated by the
last quarter century seems to indicate otherwise, in many small and not-
so-small ways.

I find that distressing, but I am not so libertarian as to insist that
others pay for this stuff with their lives. I don't have any idea what
the correct answer is, though.

... JG

While I don’t like it - at the end of the day a private company can make a decision to have or not have a customer (unless somehow it’s racial or sexual orientation related apparently).

Nothing is stopping Parler from spinning up their own servers. They willingly chose to use AWS.

Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block people, because his Tweets were government communication.

Right, the _government_ can’t discriminate in which of its citizens it communicates with, and which it listens to.

So has Twitter now blocked government communication?

Sure. No problem with that. An unregulated, non-monopoly, private party isn’t required to provide a forum for anyone, government or individual.

                                -Bill

That's my understanding as well, from years of hosting email lists. As soon as one starts moderating, the rules change, and immunity goes away.

It's one of my issues with the whole notion of rules-of-conduct on email lists - particularly when folks get on my case for not "moderating" language that some individual or other finds offensive (like not using requested pronouns). Some folks get REALLY irate when I refuse to play thought police - and it seems particularly bad when the issue is a minor one. I've almost gotten to the point of imposing a policy of "the only grounds for moderation or expulsion from this list are repeated complaints about the list host's lack of moderation."

Sigh...

Miles Fidelman

sronan@ronan-online.com wrote:

Courtesy of someone who pays closer attention to all this than do I:

                                -Bill

Given that people on Parler are currently discussing/planning attacks
against Amazon/Google/Apple/etc.'s facilities and personnel, this seems wise.

---rsk

Well then... that’s a rather disturbing revelation.

Out of curiosity, do these big facilities have armed guards of some sort, especially if the facility hosts financial or govt sites?

Some yes, some no.

Hi Mike,

While there's certainly an opportunity to get political, there are
some obviously apolitical issues worth discussing here as well.

First, this would appear to be an illustration of the single-vendor
problem. You don't have a credible continuity of operations plan if a
termination by a single vendor can take you and keep you offline. It's
the single point of failure that otherwise intelligent system
architects fail to consider and address. But more than that, cloud
providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
facilitate cross-platform construction?

Second, Amazon strongly encourages customers to build use of its
proprietary services and APIs into the core of the customer's product.
That's quite devastating when there's a need to change vendors.
Parler's CEO described Amazon's action as requiring them to "rebuild
from scratch," so I wonder just how tightly tied to such Amazon APIs
they actually are. And if there isn't a lesson there for the rest of
us.

These two issues, at least, are technical in nature and on topic for
this forum. You may choose not to discuss them if they don't interest
you, of course.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Peace,

You can certainly build platform agnostic applications on top of AWS/Google/etc. but it requires more “work”. Using a platform like OpenShift from Red Hat is one solution.

First, this would appear to be an illustration of the single-vendor
problem. You don't have a credible continuity of operations plan if a
termination by a single vendor can take you and keep you offline. It's
the single point of failure that otherwise intelligent system
architects fail to consider and address. But more than that, cloud
providers like Amazon tend to make it inconvenient approaching
impossible to build cross-platform services. I kinda wonder what a
cloud services product would look like that was actively trying to
facilitate cross-platform construction?

I suppose it depends on how distributed your system design is. You certainly don't want to be running low latency necessary storage in one provider and servers in another. But you certainly need to architect for multi-region, and it seems to me that's the place to make the cut for cross provider as well. But AWS does have one incentive on the networking front: they want to peel off computing with corpro data centers which means they need to integrate with high speed vpn's and the like. Maybe somebody knows whether the likes of AWS and others are considered to be inside the corpro perimeter and how that works in a multi-tenancy world.

Second, Amazon strongly encourages customers to build use of its
proprietary services and APIs into the core of the customer's product.
That's quite devastating when there's a need to change vendors.
Parler's CEO described Amazon's action as requiring them to "rebuild
from scratch," so I wonder just how tightly tied to such Amazon APIs
they actually are. And if there isn't a lesson there for the rest of
us.

Yes, it's been obvious to anybody who's only paying even a little attention that AWS is trying to be build a walled garden. It always surprises me how little people take into consideration that that almost never ends well for the people lured into the garden. As it ever were, I guess. I guess the lesson is that if you're sketch consider portability. If you're not sketch, consider portability anyway.

Mike

From a business perspective, this clearly helps us understand risk of a single point of failure. Basic ORM tell us What is the Damage if it occurs, how likely is it to occur and then accept, mitigate or transfer.

For example in another life, I was responsible for the ‘last mile’ for a private city which included fiber in the road. We started to look at pop diversity (small private city that was near 2 pops, rare but happens). Instead we went with a pre negotiated contract with our fiber provider and accepted a 24 hour outage knowing that our Fiber provider was on emergency stand by if needed. They’d roll a truck and would have us back up within 24 hours (likely faster). The risk process included “How often do we have an actual fiber cut in the road.” It had happened in the past, but the private city owned the roads and road crew, so new communications procedures were put in place and it had not happened since.

I agree with Bill. This is a business problem.

Conclusion:

Companies are not permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a customer on the basis of the racial or sexual orientation (or a number of other bases).

Companies are permitted to discriminate amongst who they will have as a customer using other criteria. E.g. “No shirt, no shoes, no mask, no service.” Customers who disturb other customers can also get “fired” or banned by the company if they’re deemed not worth the trouble…but the reason for doing so must not be illegal itself.

Companies who are wary of the law may also be particularly concerned about serving customers who are using (or enabling others to use) the goods and services that company offers in ways that may violate the laws of the jurisdiction the company is under. (In some neighborhoods, Home Depot locks up all the spray paint cans, and limits sales to customers, as part of local anti-graffiti measures.)

At my previous job, I built a tool which could spin up a server farm given a platform agnostic design spec from a list of vendors as well as pricing it out. It was really more of a prototype since it only supported Chef on the spin-up side, but it showed that you could move things pretty quickly if need be. I hadn't considered this as a use case though.

Mike

Peace,

I’m not sure either Joe. I am a staunch proponent of free expression, but I remember a time when you could just. Totally trust an e-mail header.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
ben@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Yeah that still hits my “fuck directly off” button.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
CEO
ben@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Hi Töma,

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.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Peace,