Azure & Gab

Avatar
5

This is pretty interesting, Gab is given a notice for violating Azure’s Acceptable Use Policy, That’s just surprising to me that Azure would step in, at that point.

I understand if it were for other legal based issues (copyright, local laws) but I’m surprised by this.

What if another Twitter/Facebook/Youtube is built on Azure. Is it that social network’s responsibility or is it also the cloud providers responsibility?

Also as a developer, we’ve been told constantly to treat the cloud like a utility, all the microsoft evangelists have constantly said that Microsoft doesn’t care what you run in their cloud as long as you’re using their cloud.

Why do they care of the content is hosted on their platform provided it is legal.

I couldn’t care much about Gab, however what about Reddit, would the same policies apply to reddit for the content on the sub-reddits if they were hosted on Azure?

I’m interested to hear other people’s take on this.

Comments (5)

5 responses to “Azure & Gab”

  1. Avatar

    TheJoeFin

    Microsoft has to protect themselves as a the host of content and ensure it obeys the law. I wonder if they got a law enforcement request or how it got to Microsoft. Also they need to show that they are notifying their customers and performing their duty whether or not they actually take content down.


    It'll be interesting to see how this evolves

  2. Avatar

    ecumenical

    The content in question was a set of two specific posts, one of which was a Nazi fantasy of raising Jewish people in captivity to be ritually tortured and murdered for generations on end. It's important, I think, to be completely clear on the subject matter here.


    Microsoft, as a private company, is under no obligation to host that kind of filth. Sorry Nazis.


    If that's what people are posting on Reddit, I'd be happy to see those sub-reddits shut down. I'd feel exactly the same about someone posting horrific, violent fantasies involving the murder of any group. If someone could have shut down the radios that were calling Rwandan Tutsis cockroaches who needed to be exterminated at some point before nearly 1 million people were murdered with machetes, I would have been totally fine with that "censorship" too.


    There are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Calling for the torture and murder of people is one of them. This isn't really very complex.

  3. Avatar

    wright_is

    Gab.ai is mixing up its understanding of free speech.

    In the USA, people have the right to free speech, yes. But that only means that, as long as it doesn't fall within the exceptions, like yelling "fire" in a filled theatre, that the authorities cannot stop you.

    Microsoft, or any hoster, is not a government authority. They are more of a "publisher" in this context and it is their right, if they find something offensive or going against their principles (or company policies) to not publish it or eject the creator from their service. That is their right.

    I think the more civilized laws in the "old world" are possibly a better solution. There is no "freedom of speech" as such, but you can say what you want, within defined limits, which usually exclude racial hatred, insightment to hatred / riot, in Germany, for example, Holocaust denial and glorification of National Socialism, among others are also banned. You also cannot call for the harm of others. At least you know where you stand.

    Then there are also libel laws, but that is a (slightly) different matter.

  4. Avatar

    maethorechannen

    Why do they care of the content is hosted on their platform provided it is legal.


    Presumably because Microsoft, or any other provider, could be held liable.


    what about Reddit, would the same policies apply to reddit for the content on the sub-reddits if they were hosted on Azure?


    But reddit polices the content on their site when Gab's USP is that they won't. The real question is would another social network that also makes a big deal about how anything goes and is hosting equally objectionable (but not western far right) content is subject to same policy. I would expect that they would be.


    I’m interested to hear other people’s take on this.


    Seeing as it's Gab we're talking about, I'm surprised it's taken them this long to violate the AUP.

  5. Avatar

    jimchamplin

    It’s simple. As a private business, they reserve the right to refuse service. That’s part of business, to protect the enterprise from harm and because the clause must exist to say, eject an unruly customer.


    Disallowing that right would be like me telling you that if I’m allowed to come into your house then you can’t make me leave.


    One more thing... What they did is right. It’s not the government’s place to decide what viewpoints are allowed. It’s the community’s job. Society’s responsibility. Repugnant, evil people should be kept away from society and be disallowed from influencing others. Anyone who talks about the things these folks did are repugnant and evil. Get ‘em outta here!

Leave a Reply