Parler

Tue Jan 12 22:54:20 UTC 2021

On 1/12/21, Kevin McCormick <kmccormick at mdtc.net> wrote:
> Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies
> like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or
> have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars
> per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry.
>
> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/

Clickbait title.
  "The company said Monday it decided to block Facebook and Twitter
for customers who request that starting next Wednesday after the
company received several calls from customers about both websites."

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 <nanog-bounces+kmccormick=mdtc.net at nanog.org> On Behalf Of mark
> seery
> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM
> To: K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms at gmail.com>
> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
> 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 these reasons, or would that be
> new territory?
> Sent from Mobile Device
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms
> <kscott.helms at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.helms at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Right, it's not a list for content hosting.
>
> Scott Helms
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM
> <sronan at ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan at ronan-online.com>> wrote:
> No, this is a list for Network Operators.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms
> <kscott.helms at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.helms at gmail.com>> 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
> <sronan at ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan at ronan-online.com>> 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
> <kscott.helms at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.helms at gmail.com>> 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
> <ben at 6by7.net<mailto:ben at 6by7.net>> 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
> ben at 6by7.net<mailto:ben at 6by7.net>
> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in
> the world.”
> FCC License KJ6FJJ
>
>
> <Speedtest9118.png>
> <Ben LIC.png>
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms
> <kscott.helms at gmail.com<mailto:kscott.helms at gmail.com>> 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
> <sronan at ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan at ronan-online.com>> 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
> <mikebolitho at gmail.com<mailto:mikebolitho at gmail.com>> 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
> <sronan at ronan-online.com<mailto:sronan at ronan-online.com>> 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
> <mikebolitho at gmail.com<mailto:mikebolitho at gmail.com>> 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
> <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> 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
>
>