Untitled topic

An interesting argument brought up in another thread was making this assessment based on whether we collectively agree and accept that AWS is some kind of "common carrier" / utility.

If that were the case, then of course the answer would be "no" AWS can't just cut off service, just like Verizon can't just drop calls if they think you're discussing political issues Verizon disagrees with over the phone.

I personally don't this AWS is a utility / common carrier (I can go and buy a server and serve a website all on my own for the entire internet to access). Therefore, I don't think the government should require AWS to provide services to clients that they believe are violating their TOS.

AWS has a very clear Acceptable Use policy: https://aws.amazon.com/aup/

This snippet can be found above the fold (not hidden in a long TOS) in their acceptable use policy:

> Illegal, Harmful or Fraudulent Activities. Any activities that are illegal, that violate the rights of others, or that may be harmful to others, our operations or reputation, including disseminating, promoting or facilitating child pornography, offering or disseminating fraudulent goods, services, schemes, or promotions, make-money-fast schemes, ponzi and pyramid schemes, phishing, or pharming.

If nothing else, by AWS hosting Parler they were risking their reputation, which alone is enough to terminate service by the standards set in their AUP.

All I know is, if my business was locked in to AWS (or any other single provider) I would take this as a warning to diversify my infrastructure.

My understanding is that Parler's terms of service already included a prohibition against illegal activities. The question then becomes, does an up-an-comer social media service dedicated to encouraging free speech have the resources to handle a sudden flood of Twitter refugees? I'm perfectly willing to believe the answer is no.

I saw a representative of Parler being interviewed. She said that they rely on users reporting violations. Perhaps that doesn't scale. But it's unreasonable to think that the problem could be addressed, given 24 hours to do so.

If anything, malicious actors on Parler are second-rate amateurs. Whoever thinks organizing an uprising on a public platform that requires two-factor authentication (via ones cellphone) to join is doing the work of the police and prosecutors for them. If the tech giants and government were really so worried about this, Parler has just created for them the greatest honeypot for simpleminded, would-be insurrectionists ever. And they do have the resources to capitalize on it.

What "single" post are you talking about?

Parler had thousands of offending posts and users and refused to moderate at all after being told to to be in compliance with various ToS.

It's no surprise that Amazon, Apple, Google, Twilio, etc., do not want to be associated with or support violent seditionists.

I'm surprised Parler didn't see this coming a mile off. Sure you can pretend to live in your own reality bubble, but you've got to realistic about decisions like "host our site on someone else's computer".