"Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was 'Hang Mike Pence.' But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account." Is this true?
[deleted]
Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
41–50 of 485 posts
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#42This coordinated banning of a service by Silicon Valley is indicative of collusion between these giant monopolies. If the Justice Department does not go after these companies for antitrust, we don't have a Justice Department.
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.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#43"Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was 'Hang Mike Pence.' But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s account." Is this true?
False equivocation. This did happen but Twitter promptly banned this and variants [1]. Parler is failing / refusing to moderate. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/hang-mike-pe...
EDIT: I see you changed your post from "Parler is refusing to moderate" to "Parler is refusing/failing to moderate". The post below is an answer to "Parler is refusing to moderate".
This is false. Parler has also been banning accounts explicitly calling for violence. I encourage you all to read the complaint:
> AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false—because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more.
I know my word probably doesn't mean much to you, but I verified this personally - almost all of the "example" violent post I could find on the news were all deleted and the accounts were banned before Parler was taken down.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#44I 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.
Technically its 3 companies. Facebook owns instagram.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#45Paragraph 5 seems pretty damaging if AWS really did violate their contract as claimed.
[deleted]
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#46Paragraph 5 seems pretty damaging if AWS really did violate their contract as claimed.
Count Two goes into more detail. They claim that AWS is calling this a service suspension as they're retaining the data and are helping to facilitate the transfer out of AWS. Parler disputes this and calls it a termination of the contract.
This will likely be be the source of the debate. It's not directly said, but I would assume AWS is suspending service until it ultimately terminates the account. So it'll be contested if the time that it's suspended, but services still somewhat being rendered, constitutes a termination.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#47Twitter is also dependent on AWS, as of December. Are they vulnerable too? https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-det...
If they aren't actively moderating offensive* content: absolutely. I think he's going to have a REAL tough time convincing a court that Twitter doesn't moderate content given that his justification for starting Parler was Twitter being too aggressive in moderating... https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f... *Offensive probably is the wrong term - content that violates the AWS TOS like calls for…
Twitter didn't actively moderate the President, who broke every single policy in their rulebook, until he lost power. An argument could easily be made that they selectively enforce from that alone, but I don't see Parler's lawyers using that argument lol
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#48This coordinated banning of a service by Silicon Valley is indicative of collusion between these giant monopolies. If the Justice Department does not go after these companies for antitrust, we don't have a Justice Department.
how is it indicative of collusion? Do you have evidence that they communicated with each other? If anything, the domino-like behavior (Google Play -> Apple ultimatum, AWS pulling support) suggests no one colluded about anything.
Did you watch the most recent Zuckerberg testimony in Congress? There, Senator Hawley grilled Zuckerberg about a communication platform, SENTRA, in which Twitter, Google, Facebook, absolutely are known to collaborate on who to ban and what to ban. He shows a screenshot in the hearing to Zuckerberg, and Mark is caught weaseling in his chair about it. That is collusion.
https://rumble.com/vbru89-republican-senator-grills-zuckerbe...
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#49Out of curiosity how much time for remediation is generally allowed before service is pulled? Surely the precedent is not "you do something bad and we ban you immediately "? In FTA it says AWS generally gives 30 days per their contract with Parler, but I mean in general, if there is a general precedent. Even if Parler wanted to do the right thing here, they were pretty much banned everywhere immediately.
There seem to be a few examples of gcp turning off service with little to no notice and no follow-up.
yeah - probably once a month(?) we hear about a new one on HN though that's in general and not google specific.
But plenty of people/business have been burned before, its not like this is some one-off.
edit: omg, my apologies to the english language! fix spelling/etc.
Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc
#50This coordinated banning of a service by Silicon Valley is indicative of collusion between these giant monopolies. If the Justice Department does not go after these companies for antitrust, we don't have a Justice Department.
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.
How can you possibly argue that google and apple don’t monopolize app distribution on their respective platforms? Are you disingenuous enough to suggest that the entirety of parler’s userbase should be jailbreaking their iPhones and sideloading .apks?