Facebook, Section 230, and how we all might be affected

[Oh!]

Amazon isn't anywhere near dominating hosting (though they are the largest "cloud" hosting provider). For instance, OVH has the third-largest data center in the world in Canada. They, and many others, host millions, sometimes tens of millions, of web sites. Godaddy is the largest hosting provider, and they have a small slice of the entire market at about 15%. Amazon is 2nd at about 9%.

And Amazon is losing market share, especially in cloud services, with Alibaba, Google Cloud, IBM, Azure and others cutting into their market.

I guess I was only considering cloud hosting, where I believe their grip is only tightening. And I expect that cloud hosting is only going to further dislodge dedicated and shared servers. I did indicate that there are other, more pressing areas of their operation which need addressing first. But I take your point - their share of hosting as whole is not of major concern at this time.

The problem with Amazon is that we have seen them enter many markets in which they end up in very dominant positions. Books and electronics are two obvious areas. As of December 2020, Amazon commanded a 37.9% market of all online retail sales in the US. Granted, it is more about 6% of the whole retail market there. But it sells about 50% of all books (in the US); and more than 3/4 of all ebooks.

I just tried some searches - I see that Amazon accounts for about 34% of all cloud hosting, and cloudflare, about 32% (in 'top 100K sites'). And higher still for the top 10K sites. But yes, you are correct, it is far lower for the market as a whole.

AWS Market Share: Revenue, Growth & Competition

Amazon Web Services offers a variety of products in the cloud computing sector. Learn more about AWS market share and how it stacks up against competitors.

kinsta.com

 

[DigNap15]

My webhosting company moved to Google Cloud six months ago
I am now not very happy with that after what has happened since January 20th
Epic looks good!'
GoDaddy shut off Domain Names
This is beoming like China

 

[Oh!]

My webhosting company moved to Google Cloud six months ago
I am now not very happy with that after what has happened since January 20th
Epic looks good!'
GoDaddy shut off Domain Names
This is beoming like China

Do you operate contrary to Amazon's TOS? Will you be happier sharing the same host with the likes of 8Chan and Daily Stormer?

I am finding it difficult to understand what your fear is here. What is it about your operation that might cause Amazon to cut off services to you? I am guessing, nothing. But, I note, Epik rely on Voxility for their server space, and Voxility took Epik (and their customers) offline. Only when Epik stopped hosting 8Chan did they regain their server space. So, why is Epik better?

 

[DigNap15]

I said that my webhost moved to Google Cloud six months ago
I run a general and political forum. (its 75% politics)
We allow free speech but not hate speech.
Indeed the word hate is even banned on our forum
But I am very concerned about the moves by Google, Yotube, Amazon, GoDaddy etc in censoring and desrtoying peoples lives and businesses

If you run a forum about cars or knitting then you will have no worries.

Thanks for the heads up on Epik

 

[Oh!]

Right you are - I misread. But, we can substitute Amazon for Google and the argument is identical.

Parler refused to apply any reasonable moderation policy to their platform. All manner of hate speech and threats of violence went unchallenged and unmoderated. Presumably, this does not describe your forum. Just as you are free to (and do) apply reasonable restrictions on what content you will allow at the space you manage and operate, so will Google (and Amazon). It seems that you are more restrictive in the content you will allow than either of those two webhosts. So as a practical matter, you are very unlikely to be affected by Google's TOS.

Re: Epik - you are welcome.

 

[Nev_Dull]

But I am very concerned about the moves by Google, Yotube, Amazon, GoDaddy etc in censoring and desrtoying peoples lives and businesses

You have a valid concern. The T&Cs that appear in these service and software agreements (including our own forums) are often quite arbitrary and subject to change. Essentially, companies can put anything in them. Support or service can be lost for having different political views or religious affiliation; really, using the product or service in any way the company doesn't agree with or might reflect badly on. And while many of the terms would not stand up in court, you still lose service in the short term. Further, when dealing with deep-pocketed companies, attempting to fight is out of reach for many.

This is an area where lawmakers need to put some focus, especially with software and online services. A few countries have strong consumer protection laws that help mitigate company T&Cs (Your neighbours in Oz, for one) but there is still plenty of work to do.

 

[DigNap15]

Oh! and Nev_Dull
Our fourm rules, written by me and a friend, ban the use of the word "hate"
We have a lot of political discussion.
I read my webhosts terms of service Their terms are really very limiting and they could remove my forum based on many of their clauses if they wanted to
This is not right or fair
They may have written their terms of service many years ago to protect their interests.
But now these same terms are being used by Google and Amazon to ban any sites they see as growing opposition to them (Parler, Telegram, and can ban discussion on any topic they like - climate change, covid-19 etc

Over the next few days I will try to post some of these clauses.

 

[Oh!]

Hi DigNap15,

I'd be interested to know what other forms of content you disallow? Presumably, it is not just the word 'hate' which is restricted at your forum. My point being, perhaps your members will feel similarly and that you are restricting their freedom of expression. Why is it OK for you restrict the content of those who make use of your services, but it is not OK for Amazon of Google to restrict the content generated by users of their services?

 

[DigNap15]

Hi DigNap15,

I'd be interested to know what other forms of content you disallow? Presumably, it is not just the word 'hate' which is restricted at your forum. My point being, perhaps your members will feel similarly and that you are restricting their freedom of expression. Why is it OK for you restrict the content of those who make use of your services, but it is not OK for Amazon of Google to restrict the content generated by users of their services?

I also don't allow the f and c words (and the t word - troll and trolling)
But I think that's about all
Quite a few of my members complained about the fact they could not accuse other members of trolling - really just posting something they don't like) other than that I get very few if any complaints.

I look at Amazon and Google cloud and other webhosters as electricity suppliers or phone companies.
Can they cut you off if they supsect you are you are a drug dealer or an axe murderer.

It is quite clear to me that these BigTech companies are in collusion with each other to take down all of our free speech.
And to get political its part of the leftist democrats, global elites plan to control us all.
And people like you that stick up for them are part of the problem.

 

[Nev_Dull]

I think it's a matter of distance. You directly run and/or participate on your forum, whereas the hosting company is at arms length. Unless you are doing something explicitly illegal, they should have no say over how you use the service they provide. This is like a company that owns a block of flats evicting you because they don't like what you watch on television.

 

[Oh!]

I also don't allow the f and c words (and the t word - troll and trolling)
But I think that's about all
Quite a few of my members complained about the fact they could not accuse other members of trolling - really just posting something they don't like) other than that I get very few if any complaints.

I look at Amazon and Google cloud and other webhosters as electricity suppliers or phone companies.
Can they cut you off if they supsect you are you are a drug dealer or an axe murderer.

It is quite clear to me that these BigTech companies are in collusion with each other to take down all of our free speech.
And to get political its part of the leftist democrats, global elites plan to control us all.
And people like you that stick up for them are part of the problem.

Okay...

I am not sure why you had to include the personal dig at the end. Anyhoo.

I find it odd when CEOs and large companies are characterized as 'leftist' or similar. It makes absolutely no sense.

What evidence do you have for 'collusion'?

If what you mean by 'global elites' is (near) monopolies and antitrust violations, then we are in agreement. But I suspect that you mean something rather different.

The plain fact of the matter is that you too apply restrictions upon those who you use your forum. You restrict some language - I expect that you restrict some types of content too. Perhaps some of your members would take exception to those restrictions. None of us can make of the services of any company without adhering to reasonable TOS. You cannot, for example, circumvent the electricity meter to steal electricity and expect the supplier to be OK with that. There have been cases of utility suppliers summarily cutting-off customers - and there have been laws enacted to restrict these kinds of behavior. The same thing has occurred with ISPs - which is the more analogous comparison - since access to the Internet has become an essential utility and ISPs are the gateway. However, we are talking about individual webhosts and interfaces for downloading apps. The restriction of these two services from Amazon and Google does not actually prevent Parler from being hosted elsewhere or provide other avenues for downloading their app.

 

[Oh!]

I think it's a matter of distance. You directly run and/or participate on your forum, whereas the hosting company is at arms length. Unless you are doing something explicitly illegal, they should have no say over how you use the service they provide. This is like a company that owns a block of flats evicting you because they don't like what you watch on television.

But the exact same argument could be made about forum operators being forced to allow content they do not like. It was heading in the direction in the mid-90s and it was a real problem for the Internet and its development. This is why Section 230 (parts 1 and 2) of the Communications Decency Act was created.

 

[mysiteguy]

I also don't allow the f and c words (and the t word - troll and trolling)
But I think that's about all
Quite a few of my members complained about the fact they could not accuse other members of trolling - really just posting something they don't like) other than that I get very few if any complaints.

I look at Amazon and Google cloud and other webhosters as electricity suppliers or phone companies.

Can they cut you off if they supsect you are you are a drug dealer or an axe murderer.

It is quite clear to me that these BigTech companies are in collusion with each other to take down all of our free speech.
And to get political its part of the leftist democrats, global elites plan to control us all.
And people like you that stick up for them are part of the problem.

It seems odd that you don't like it when other people don't want to associate their business with people like you, yet you're okay with denying basic human rights to Muslims:

"Don’t rent to one, don’t sell to one, don’t employ one, don’t buy from one."

It seems to be a large double standard.

 

[DigNap15]

It seems odd that you don't like it when other people don't want to associate their business with people like you, yet you're okay with denying basic human rights to Muslims:

"Don’t rent to one, don’t sell to one, don’t employ one, don’t buy from one."

It seems to be a large double standard.

Wow, that must have been some detective work
Thats just killed the debate
I thoght this forum was about forum administration!

 

[mysiteguy]

Wow, that must have been some detective work

Considering the large trail of anti-Muslim, sexist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Maori remarks you've made the past couple of years, it took only a few minutes to find rather provocative remarks. Like the one about putting all African immigrants in a plane headed over the Atlantic and pushing them out with a parachute -- except Syrian Christians and South African whites, you were okay with them.

It tells me a great deal about the motivation of your defense of the companies that were de-platformed, and that changes the context of your remarks.

Thats just killed the debate

It puts the debate in context, and context is important.

I thoght this forum was about forum administration!

It is. Because we're dealing with online communities I believe intellectual honesty about laws, policies, and standards are important as well as motivations.

For example, the context changes dramatically if someone says they want an addon to spy on a user's personal life in their PMs versus saying they need an addon to catch a spammer who keeps registering to use the PM system to broadcast spam. If someone wasn't honest about their reasons for wanting such an addon, any discussion about it is off-track.

 

[Wes of StarArmy]

Surprise surprise, the guy upset about violence-promoters getting dropped is promoting violence against minorities. I wish I could like your post more than once, mysiteguy. Context absolutely matters!

 

[mysiteguy]

Surprise surprise, the guy upset about violence-promoters getting dropped is promoting violence against minorities. I wish I could like your post more than once, mysiteguy. Context absolutely matters!

Indeed it does.

If the context was merely conservative speech (or liberal, communist, socialist, libertarian speech for that matter) causing the de-platforming I would be among the first to say I think Amazon and/or Facebook made the wrong decision. Yet still asserting their right to do it.

 

[zappaDPJ]

Considering the large trail of anti-Muslim, sexist, anti-immigrant, and anti-Maori remarks you've made the past couple of years, it took only a few minutes to find rather provocative remarks. Like the one about putting all African immigrants in a plane headed over the Atlantic and pushing them out with a parachute -- except Syrian Christians and South African whites, you were okay with them.

It tells me a great deal about the motivation of your defense of the companies that were de-platformed, and that changes the context of your remarks.


It puts the debate in context, and context is important.


It is. Because we're dealing with online communities I believe intellectual honesty about laws, policies, and standards are important as well as motivations.

For example, the context changes dramatically if someone says they want an addon to spy on a user's personal life in their PMs versus saying they need an addon to catch a spammer who keeps registering to use the PM system to broadcast spam. If someone wasn't honest about their reasons for wanting such an addon, any discussion about it is off-track.

And this is why I'm generally against censorship and the removal of a right of reply. As I said recently...

My preference has always been to let things stand but not go unchallenged or unpunished if I consider something to be unreasonable. I think it better to know your enemy so to speak and attempt where possible to reeducate them rather than force them to use more clandestine means of communication.

To be clear, the reference to knowing your enemy is a euphemism and not a direct reference to any member here. I do however like to know who I'm interacting with and welcome the opportunity to debate opinions that I feel are outside of the mainstream or perhaps I should say middle ground.

 

[Nev_Dull]

But the exact same argument could be made about forum operators being forced to allow content they do not like. It was heading in the direction in the mid-90s and it was a real problem for the Internet and its development. This is why Section 230 (parts 1 and 2) of the Communications Decency Act was created.

I have never heard of a forum being forced to allow any sort of content. I'd like to see any examples you might have. In my opinion, forums were better moderated back in the 90s. Even the BBSs I frequented in the early days were well run and moderated. I rarely came across one that had been taken over by trolls or abusive members. That is something that seems to happen now on forums with more "hands off" moderation styles.

 

[Oh!]

I have never heard of a forum being forced to allow any sort of content. I'd like to see any examples you might have. In my opinion, forums were better moderated back in the 90s. Even the BBSs I frequented in the early days were well run and moderated. I rarely came across one that had been taken over by trolls or abusive members. That is something that seems to happen now on forums with more "hands off" moderation styles.

The Stratton Oakmont vs Prodigy decision:

Section 230: Legislative History

Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) was Congress' response to two court cases decided in New York in the early 1990's that had conflicting results.Cubby and Stratton OakmontThe first case involved CompuServe, which in the early days of the Internet hosted "an on-line general information service"...

www.eff.org

Four years later, in 1995, another New York court took a different approach in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co. Prodigy was a web services company with two million subscribers that hosted online bulletin boards, including the popular site MoneyTalk. Because Prodigy moderated its online message boards and deleted some messages for "offensiveness and 'bad taste,'" the court found that it had become akin to a publisher with responsibility for defamatory postings that made it onto the site. At the time, Prodigy received 60,000 postings a day—far too many to review in their entirety. But the decision in Stratton Oakmont meant that just for attempting to moderate some posts, Prodigy took on liability for all posts. To avoid liability, the company would have to give up moderating all together and simply act as a blind host, like CompuServe

This is why CDA Section 230(c)(2) - the so-called 'Good Samaritan' clause - of the CDA is just as important as Section 230(c)(1) (which provides general immunity against third-party content).