Alexa, search for colocation services in Russia.
Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
261–270 of 485 posts
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesnt work as well as targeted ads. Why would hundreds of billions in ad spend willingly choose a lesser option?
Is there evidence for this?
Google and Facebook being two of the most valuable companies along with hundreds of billions of dollars and petabytes per hour.
What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly?
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#2631). AWS can suspend service for any customer immediately upon giving that customer notice. They do not have to provide a "remediation period" or give the customer any grace time at all. Every customer agrees to this as part of the AWS Customer Agreement 2). AWS can terminate an account immediately if they deem you in violation of their policies instead of a suspension - as was the case with Parler. It's all in the AW…
Surely they're observing best practice cloud process and can therefore just spin up the service in another provider pronto?
Parler have actually said they don't use any of the proprietary AWS Services because of the danger of lock in - so I think they could. They just have to move 50TB+ of data to a new provider, which is not something that can be done quickly.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#264It's amazing how arbitrarily lines are drawn in this thread. I'd be eager to see people that disapprove AWS's actions what they would say in the following situation:
1) Parler banning some of its own users for trolling.
2) Their own employer/company banning people that use it to distribute child porn.
3) A utility company disconnecting users that continuously disrupt its electrical grid.
Of course you'd be fine with 1, 2 because neither your company nor Parler are common carriers, as defined by law, and have no obligation to provide their service to anyone. Guess what - AWS is not a common carrier either. But even a common carrier such as the electric company can terminate users that purposefully violate its terms of service.
At the end of the day, we all know this. We know that private services have no First Amendment obligation. And yet, thread after thread, its all the same fake outrage that's masking a much simple emotion - "I hate it when my guys lose".
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is whether that's legal, or anticompetitive
Anticompetitive? Is parler competing with amazon in any ways, shape or form?
The whole claim by Parlor (read the linked complaint) is that AWS is doing this in coordination with Twitter to stop the flood of conservative people (including Trump himself, allegedly) moving from Twitter to Parlor after Twitter banned Trump (this is substantiated with links from media claiming that could happen and by the fact Parlor had become the most downloaded app on the AppStore after Twitter announced the Trump ban)... they claim AWS and Twitter are basically trying to kill Twitter's competition.
Why AWS would help Twitter is unclear to me, though.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#266I don't know if people trying to argue that twitter is just as bad as Parler are doing it out of ignorance of the issues or just bad faith. Parler isn't being dropped by private companies because a user said something mean on their service. They're being dropped by AWS, Apple, Google etc because they allow, even encourages its users to conspire to commit violence and assassinate public officials. The main reasons its…
I feel like the AWS lawyer is going to make the following claims:
1- This action (dropping Parler) is within the actions established in our ToS. 2- Parler's very goal is to attract these sort of demographics and similar actions have been taken in the past (Stormfront comes to mind)
The only chance this has is if Parler has language in their contract requiring that 30-day notice of service termination. My guess is that they don't. They also spend a LOT of time in this filing pointing out that AWS is a very big share of the market (the court won't care) and that they host Twitter (the court will again, not care) in an effort to say that AWS was worried the shift to Parler from Twitter would financially hurt Twitter and then AWS (which doesn't make sense, since AWS is hosting both so 6 million people shifting just means one check gets smaller and the other larger).
This is the quality of legal filings I've begun to expect surrounding these issues. "They're bad, and it's pretty obvious to everyone, duh!" doesn't actually hold up in court though...
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#267Parler has a moderation policy and they don’t apply it. Content that promotes illegal activity is not protected free speech and is also prohibited by Parler’s policies. They selectively applied that moderation after they became popular with MAGA. Also, 4chan exists why can’t Parler find a host?
1. 4chan has active and responsive moderation for all content. Illegal content is removed quickly.
2. 4chan is extremely simple - there is a max of content, content is anonymous, and old content decays and is removed. There are no notifications, replies, searches, etc.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#268I hope this gets to discovery. There was clearly some coordination between Facebook and Twitter simultaneously taking down offical Trump accounts, Google and Apple simultaneously taking down the Parler app listing, and then Amazon removing them from AWS. Slack chatlogs exist, and if those are made public, the public backlash is going to be real.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you remember the court testimony where Zuckerburge avoided the entire question about if they collude with other companies to make these decisions on the backend? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXuk-WSDDRw Apple may have banned Parler and then Google just decided to go with it, followed by AWS. However, it may also be equally valid they colluded via private channels to make this happen. BOTH ARE EQUALLY POSSIBLE.…
>Just because they're 4 different companies doesn't negate the fact they control over 80% to 90% of the American market for hosting, non-SMS text communication and mobile access. Citation please.
It was a ride range to indicate how large it is and meant to illustrate a point. You're asking for a fact is really just a way to say "I don't like your opinion so I'm going to challenge something that's obviously intended as a hyperbole" to discredit your statement in some arbitrary way.
Alright, AWS may not own 80% of the market, but let's be fair; it's fucking massive. On top of that Cloudflair has taken down websites before. DigitalOcean and DreamHost have removed people's hosting with less than 24 hours notice[0]. NameCheap and GoDaddy have both revoked peoples domains with less than 24 hours notice[1].
Initial searches seem to show AWS owns 50% of the market by themselves. You add in DO, Azure and GCE and that number quickly climbs[2].
[0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
[1]: https://twitter.com/GoDaddy/status/896935462622957573
[2]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/08/02/amazon-...
Edit: Also the lawsuit itself also claims AWS has 1/3 of the hosting market.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there evidence for this?
Google and Facebook being two of the most valuable companies along with hundreds of billions of dollars and petabytes per hour. What kind of evidence are you looking for exactly?
That it works better. I'm wondering because of this submission the other day: