Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 485 posts

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#321

Post by jschulenklopper »

dboreham wrote: post #230
bigtones wrote: post #94

1). 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?

Even not using the proprietary AWS services, migrating from one to another cloud hosting provider - and which one will take their business now? - isn't easy. Not only for the size of the data store (50-70 TB?) but many development, testing, deployment and operating processes need to be retrofitted to a new infrastructure provider. I guess they didn't pro-actively plan for this.

They can consider themselves very lucky and capable if it can be done within a week, but I think it'll take longer.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#322

Post by mumblemumble »

Phil_Latio wrote: post #286
bigtones wrote: post #94

1). 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…

I see the following: > We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice. and > 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. The latter obviosuly applies here. Am I missing something?

Up one section:

> 6.1 Generally. We may suspend your or any End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we determine:

> (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;

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#323

Post by jcranmer »

Natsu wrote: post #193
mhh__ wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really scared to trust Greenwald on anything political at the moment. For a start, the silencing competitors argument doesn't really work with AWS because they just do hosting.

> For a start, the silencing competitors argument doesn't really work with AWS because they just do hosting. The complaint alleges there are deeper ties: Less than a month ago, AWS announced with a press release a new multi-year deal with Twitter. AWS will “provide global cloud infrastructure to deliver Twitter timelines.” Twitter Selects AWS as Strategic Provider to Serve Timelines, Press Center, Amazon, (Dec. 15, 2…

That doesn't actually allege there are deeper ties. It's a pretty standard corporate PR piece about $SUPPLIER providing $SERVICE to $BIG_CUSTOMER, that $SUPPLIER can turn around and shop to other $PROSPECTIVE_CUSTOMERs as evidence of their ability to handle their needs. The company I work for puts this kind of PR out all the time, and no one thinks that it's a conspiracy to shut out all other competitors to $BIG_CUSTOMER.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#324

Post by afuchs »

nullc wrote: post #299
afavour wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Hunter Biden is under investigation. But the investigation Glenn wrote about was separate, and a transparent fraud.

If the allegations about hunters laptop were transparently fraudulent, why do the gmail originated messages pass DKIM validation?

> If the allegations about hunters laptop were transparently fraudulent, why do the gmail originated messages pass DKIM validation?

The refusal to release the full messages with complete headers was a point of contention in the original reporting of this story. If enough information was released, to let the public inspect the messages and verify the DKIM signatures themselves, this is a new development that goes beyond what was originally reported and alleged.

Have the full messages been released to the public so this can be verified?

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#325

Post by meekmockmook »

gameswithgo wrote: post #186
matz1 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not broken up but the point is something need to be done to reduce the power of these company. They are simply too powerful. Maybe some policy to make it easy for some new company/startup to disturb/compete ?

Are they more powerful than the big oil companies? the big 3 financial companies? the military industrial complex?

My hot take? I think they are, yes. Information is literally everything.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#326

Post by alwdgxzubpxnzcy »

tbenst wrote: post #129
Nacdor wrote: post #80

Glenn Greenwald has been investigating the planning of the Capitol protests and says "it was largely done on Facebook". So far he hasn't been able to identify a single person who was arrested and active on Parler: > Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler? Zero. The planning was largely done on Facebook. This is all a bullshit pretext for silenci…

This is almost certainly false. For example, see the arrest of the leader of the Proud Boys (for events prior to Capitol, but played active role on Parler encouraging proud boys violence that day): https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/several-well-know...

Proof that they planned... to be in DC.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#327

Post by adrr »

mech422 wrote: post #89
adrr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a business we only do business with vendors that don’t host controversial sites due to risk from boycotts and negative press. I picked AWS because it was a safe choice because of actions like kicking off Parler.

not to pick on you... but customers like you are probably why AWS is taking the position they are. They don't want to risk other customers just to keep parler. That actually sounds like something a profit motivated company would do.... no conspiracies required. edit: should probably note, customers/advertisers have boycotted companies before for having a whiff of scandal around them..

Sendgrid is a good example. We moved to mandrill because we don’t want any drama with our vendors. Sendgrid was ddosed over some drama with their evangelist and it affected our business. Last thing I want to do is having to explain to my exec team that our emails aren’t going out because of a vendor choice I made.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#328

Post by dcolkitt »

acdha wrote: post #275
dcolkitt wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like there's at the very least a product-market fit for a cloud provider with less nebulous TOS. From the wording of the AWS contract, it sounds like the language is loose enough that any user can pretty much be terminated at whim. If/when this lawsuit gets publicity, my guess is a lot of C-suite executives are gonna be looking over their shoulders and evaluating how screwed they'd be if their current cloud…

> If/when this lawsuit gets publicity, my guess is a lot of C-suite executives are gonna be looking over their shoulders and evaluating how screwed they'd be if their current cloud provider decided to deplatform them. Do you really think there are “a lot” of companies which host user content, refuse to moderate it, and refuse to deal with complaints forwarded by their service provider? Most C-level people are going t…

The question is what constitutes "refusal to moderate". As far as I can tell, simply calling the election fraudulent is grounds for banning on all the major platforms.

To be clear, I don't believe that position, but at least 30 million Americans do. So now any company that hosts user content without the will or resources to censor the opinions held by one fifth of the electorate, can find its infrastructure turned off at the drop of hat. As a CEO, that would seem like unacceptable TOS to me.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#329

Post by Phil_Latio »

bigtones wrote: post #316
Phil_Latio wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the following: > We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice. and > 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. The latter obviosuly applies here. Am I missing something?

7.2 B ii). We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6

Ahh thanks. Looks like Parler missed it too.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#330

Post by Natsu »

tptacek wrote: post #312
Natsu wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parler's complaint references here says that they did remove them and also that the article referenced was leaked before it was sent to Parler. We'll have to watch this play out in court, later.

I don't know whether that's true or false but I also don't know why it matters. Absent a confidentiality clause AWS is free to publish whatever they want. Certainly, people routinely publish their private communications with AWS.

I may be misreading things, but it sounds to me like they published the list of things to remove and Parler removed them after notification, but they're using the publication to try to make it look like they were notified before they actually were.

But this is a complaint, so I can't just assume that any of these things are actually true and that's why I want to reserve judgement until we hear how all the evidence plays out in court.

Post reply on HN