Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#131

Post by boringg » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #2

Here's the denial of the TRO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg... Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose. I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believ…

I think they probably know they have no case but are trying to fan the flames of the culture war to generate support and keep their name in the media until they find other hosting services.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#132

Post by xxpor » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

fjabre wrote: post #74

triceratops wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting how much actual political power the right in America has, despite being about 50% of voters. The Senate and electoral college favor them massively. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to change any laws that might counter their preferences.

This is false. The left now has the Senate and the Presidency. The electoral college does not matter. They go the way their states go as was made quite clear in the last election. EDIT: Of course it matters how the voting system was designed. The EC votes the way their State votes. The forefathers intended for states to have some say in the matter. We are a representative democracy. That is how the system was designe…

You can not seriously argue the EC doesn't matter when the republicans have won the popular vote once since 1988 yet have held the presidency for 3 terms.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#133

Post by travisoneill1 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:51 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #50

travisoneill1 wrote: post #40

1. Democratic party threatens tech industry with heavy regulation because they don't censor to the degree that the Democrats want. 2. Democratic party takes over control of the government. 3. Major companies in the tech industry work together to boot a competitor, and political opponent of the Democratic party off the internet. At what point is this a legit first amendment issue? The government can't just pressure pr…

An alternative framing: 1. Republican party threatens teach industry with heavy regulation if they censor to the degree that the tech industry wishes to. 2. Republican party looses power. 3. Major companies in the tech industry do what they wanted to do the whole time. At what point is (1) a first amendment issue? The government shouldn't pressure private companies to do things that violate those groups first amendme…

This would be an issue, but I dispute point 1 because the leaders of the tech industry would very much like to wash their hands of politics and be seen as neutral platforms so they can save money on moderation. Most of these same platforms pretty much had an anything goes unless it's illegal attitude from the time they were started until a few years ago when they started getting a lot of political blowback and blame for "helping Trump" by not moderating more.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#134

Post by xoa » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #92

xoa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues I'm sorry for the caps but you and a host of others are forgetting something repeatedly and it's getting fairly annoying: AMAZON HAS FREE SPEECH RIGHTS TOO. Just as Parler does, and you do, and I do, and Twitter does, and the various owners and employees of these organizations do, and on and on. It's Free Speech all the way down. And a funda…

Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure?

>Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then?

Try reading the whole paragraph (emphasis added):

>particularly if they in some way are significantly making use of government power themselves (limited spectrum allocation for cellular carriers for example

Come on.

>Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure?

Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#135

Post by standeven » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #42

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

It's worth noting how much soft power the political left in America has, despite being about 50% of voters. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, academia, and the news media all lean left. This means you should expect to have an uphill battle if you want to do anything in these areas that might counter their preferences. I think all this soft power actually hurts the left in America, because our country's default state is a bi…

Do they lean left, or is it that reality has a well known liberal bias?

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#136

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

snoshy wrote: post #43

mensetmanusman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently mostly facebook was used, not parler.

This smacks of whataboutism to me. No doubt Facebook hosted large amounts of this activity, but it does not negate the fact that Parler did so as well. Amazon's court filing detailed hundreds of incidents that they had given Parler months to fix.

Crying "whataboutism" is just a meme-y way to shutdown claims of hypocrisy.

Husband: Two glasses of white wine in one night honey? You need to cut back for your health's sake

Wife: But dear, you drink a handle of vodka every night and have refused any attempts at intervention.

Husband: A-ha, classic whataboutism

edit: I'd love to respond to the people below me, but HN has decided that one post an hour is too much (despite having a 10 year old account and 4000+ karma)

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#137

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

mercurialshark wrote: post #55

snoshy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seemed apparent right when the case was filed that Parler didn't have a leg to stand on. It was partly a play for publicity that plays well into their customer demographics, and a dying gasp of trying to seek some kind of injunctive help from the administration, no matter how impossible it seemed. Judging by how weak their infrastructure was in the first place, getting any kind of resilient hosting in place after…

Tech attorney here (with no relation to this specific matter). I wouldn't say they don't have a leg to stand on. I think it will prove to be very interesting.

Not an attorney, but I've read all the briefs in the case (you can too at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a...).

Count 1 (antitrust) fails because you need to actually allege a conspiracy, not just say "Twitter is also a customer of AWS!" I mean, I immediately realized it was deficient on their initial brief, because they didn't even back up enough evidence to satisfy their own citations, let alone explain how they can pass the big citation they conveniently omit (Twombly).

Counts 2 and 3 fail because the gravamen is that AWS violated its own contract by not giving 30 days' notice. Ignoring the very next paragraph that says AWS can terminate with no notice. Their own response to that point in the reply brief was pitiful.

Actually, their response was so pitiful they tried a second reply brief (that's the "supplemental authority" brief) where they instead changed their argument to "this is our reading of the contract, and you have to endorse it because it's a contract of adhesion." Which instead comes across as "we totally missed that part in the contract, and now we're trying to legal fu our way out of not reading a contract." Changing your argument on the fly doesn't tend to go very well in the courts.

The quality of their legal briefs is not impressive, and when you're going up a large corporation with deep pockets and competent legal attorneys to defend themselves, you're going to have a very rough time of it.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#138

Post by nickysielicki » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #2

Here's the denial of the TRO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg... Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose. I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believ…

IANAL and I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusion, but I do think the case is more interesting than just AWS booting a malicious customer (with regards to their TOS).

> there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed

This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it's only technically correct.

They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that's set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter's content with respect to AWS' ToS? It's not like twitter just signed up for an AWS account like the rest of us do. There was a bidding and negotiation process. Sales teams on both sides worked on that contract. I don't think it's so unreasonable to take the existence of that contract as evidence that AWS reviewed twitter's content and deemed it acceptable content.

Why does this matter? Legally, I don't think it does. I don't see any good reason why AWS shouldn't be allowed to selectively enforce their ToS.

But Parler sought to compete directly with twitter. At the time of account termination, they were growing at a rate of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users per day, and in a way where it's not hard to imagine it being zero-sum (twitter users terminating their accounts and going to parler).

I don't think the case would succeed, but I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser.

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#139

Post by bob33212 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #57

ojnabieoot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am very sympathetic to the idea that ISPs should be common carriers, but definitely not colos and platforms like AWS. Let’s use an old-fashioned analogy. An ISP is like a post office, and people’s letters should not be meddled with (outside of violent threats or pursuant to a legal criminal investigation). In particular, ISPs are relevant to most individuals and ISPs (should) have respect for individual rights. But…

If we had a fully P2P and distributed architecture for information exchange, this wouldn't be a problem. As it stands, we choose centralized websites and platforms to be how we exchange information. They're an essential ingredient in the "common carrier" recipe. How can your parents share messages without Comcast + Facebook?

E-mail

Re: Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down

#140

Post by Consultant32452 » Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #44

throwaway45349 wrote: post #5

As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad. Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand an…

The premise of Parler directly contravenes the AWS AUP, which demands that companies ensure their users comply with AWS's AUP and that companies kick users that don't. The whole point of Parler is to host Twitter users who violate Twitter's TOS, which is a cohort significantly comprised of people who are also violating AWS's TOS. To believe that Parler would have been viable on AWS to begin with, they had to actively…

I think a big part of this is accepting Amazon's claims as fact, which I would not. For example, Amazon claims Parler was not moderating when in fact Parler had some pretty strict moderation enforcement. One could make an argument of whether or not it was successful "enough" and you'd have to compare it to other industry leaders like Facebook and Twitter which both have copious amounts of child pornography, calls for violence, etc.

What I've seen is basically some screenshots of some bad posts, which doesn't tell me anything about what was really going on in a very large and complex system.