61–70 of 485 posts
If you’re a business, do you really want to be on a provider that can pull your card with little to no notice? That’s a lot of power. The boot is coming down hard right now. The cloud is looking like a risky bet.
Paragraph 5 seems pretty damaging if AWS really did violate their contract as claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the companies involved here are monopolies, or even close to being monopolies. And this sort of 'collusion' isn't illegal - the illegal collusion is a completely different thing. Actually there isn't even any collusion of either kind to begin with.
Were there actually a joint agreement not to compete for particular customers, there would be a case that it was a combination in restraint of trade.
Also, 4chan exists why can’t Parler find a host?
Paragraph 5 seems pretty damaging if AWS really did violate their contract as claimed.
> 7.2 Termination.
> (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.
> (b) Termination for Cause.
> (i) By Either Party. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause if the other party is in material breach of this Agreement and the material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice by the other party. No later than the Termination Date, you will close your account.
> (ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6, (B) if our relationship with a third-party partner who provides software or other technology we use to provide the Service Offerings expires, terminates or requires us to change the way we provide the software or other technology as part of the Services, or (C) in order to comply with the law or requests of governmental entities.
(ii) (A) does not include the "breach of contract remains uncured for 30 days" stipulation; when Amazon has the right to suspend under Section 6 they may also terminate the agreement immediately.
Their "right to suspend under Section 6" includes:
> (a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, (ii) could adversely impact our systems, the Service Offerings or the systems or Content of any other AWS customer, (iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to liability, or (iv) could be fraudulent;
> (b) you are, or any End User is, in breach of this Agreement;
Under (a), I could certainly see Amazon make an argument that Parler's use of the service offings poses a security risk to third parties. Not an electronic one necessarily, but I would think "a bunch of people threatening to hang the vice president" would qualify.
And under (b), Parler's end users being in breach of the agreement, they have plenty of a case as well. See Section 4: Your Responsibilities in the link above (I'm not going to excerpt all of it), but it includes these lines:
> you are responsible for all activities that occur under your account, regardless of whether the activities are authorized by you or undertaken by you, your employees or a third party (including your contractors, agents or End Users)
> You will ensure that Your Content and your and End Users’ use of Your Content or the Service Offerings will not violate any of the Policies or any applicable law. You are solely responsible for the development, content, operation, maintenance, and use of Your Content.
> You will ensure that all End Users comply with your obligations under this Agreement and that the terms of your agreement with each End User are consistent with this Agreement. If you become aware of any violation of your obligations under this Agreement caused by an End User, you will immediately suspend access to Your Content and the Service Offerings by such End User.
Not a lawyer, but I don't think that's a clear-cut "Amazon violated the contract" win for Parler
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter has a moderation policy and applied it. Parler didn’t and didn’t apply anything. Edit: also fuck everyone related to Parler. Read in detail: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
Are you sure about that? I almost sure I read somewhere that Parler has a policy that prohibits incitement of violence.
Edit: I love how I’m being downvoted when quite frankly there are enough screenshots out there and on /r/ParlerWatch of their shit show of moderation. You’re deluded if you think there’s a moderation policy other than ignorance by design.
Parler could very well make more money suing Amazon than anything else.
This was a huge moment for Parler, and AMZN may have grounded them.
There's a difference between 'we don't want to do business with you' ... and 'we will make you dependent on us, but the we'll drop you like a rock and put you out of business'.
I have seen so many violent threats and incitements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram over the last 5 years that Parler could possibly make the case that they've been singled out, but I doubt it. They're just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho. That said, antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy, and rightfully so. GAFA is too big, too powerful, too manip…
It is weird to me that we people seem to be saying "These 4 companies need to be broken up". They are already 4 companies. It seems different than say, the Bell breakup, which was one company.
Paragraph 5 seems pretty damaging if AWS really did violate their contract as claimed.
>AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.
>5. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.
Remember, these are unchallenged claims from Parler.
I think the only interesting bit here is the 30h vs 30 day notice period. The cynic in me is interested to see the contract: if there was a 30 day notice in it, I imagine Parler could have gotten an emergency injunction to stay online. Unless there isn't or parler preferred to be "taken" off line for PR reasons?
Sorry if that view is a bit conspiracy-theory-esque...