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

421–430 of 485 posts

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#421

Post by meekmockmook »

whymauri wrote: post #143
Miner49er wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parler is founded on the idea of absolutely unmoderated speech. They claim they are for free speech, but they aren't even close. They remove all kinds of things, just not enough of the things that Amazon wanted. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...

No 'obscene usernames' is actually hilarious to me. The bastion of free speech won't even allow users to choose their own handles.

"Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words"

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#422

Post by cudgy »

nip180 wrote: post #271
modernpacifist wrote: post #176

In seeing all of these complaints about the cloud providers getting too big, owning the internet etc, have folks forgotten how to run their own equipment or what renting a dedicated server is? The internet did function prior to cloud computing existing and surprise, running a rack full of NUCs can give you a lot of capacity to run a glorified message board.

Let’s be clear, access to cloud computing companies like AWS is a competitive advantage because it requires less upfront capital and less engineering time to manage. I can 100% see why Parler would prefer having access to AWS compared to running their own hardware. Ianal, so I can’t judge the merits of this legal case. To be honest I’m surprised Parler can find lawyers willing to bring it to court on their behalf, or…

“I’m surprised Parler can find lawyers willing to bring it to court on their behalf, or banks willing to process transactions to pay said lawyers.”

Personally, I am surprised at the opposite. That a company cannot find lawyers to defend their position or process payments from their customers without due process is horrible.

The fact that you were not surprised by it is quite worrisome. I don’t mean that as a personal attack on you, but more as an observation of what has become acceptable or at least ordinary in a society.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#423

Post by jcranmer »

dragonwriter wrote: post #232
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…

Yeah, I think the contract claims are the most transparently weak (I think all the claims are weak and that the lawsuit is more perfomative gesture for PR grievance than filed with substantial expectation of recovery, but its not laughable on the level of most of the Trump election lawsuits.)

> but its not laughable on the level of most of the Trump election lawsuits.

I don't know, they do have some of the greatest hits from those lawsuits:

* Let's ask the court to prevent things that have already happened (it wants to restrain AWS from cutting off service to Parler, but it filed the suit after that happened).

* File exhibits that are atrociously unusable (the PDF of the service agreement clearly cuts out several lines of text, although I think this was unintentional).

* Provide a single paragraph of argument to address the single claim that actually gives your claim federal jurisdiction at all.

* Clearly incapable of reading contract plain text (in this case). The contract claims are likely to fail since AWS has a right to terminate it unilaterally (which they don't address in their filing all), but it's moot anyways because binding arbitration clause means the court has no right to hear it.

* Evidence for their claim boils down to "there's no other possible reason anyone would want to shut us down than CONSPIRACY!"

* Urgency is requested, but there's no motions to actually grant urgent relief (e.g., an emergency filing or motion for expedited relief).

* Plaintiff fails to spell its own name correctly in a few cases (admittedly, only one here).

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#424

Post by Rapzid »

FBI is warning of armed protests at all state capitals between now and 20th.

I can't help but feel that by the time anything comes of this, the primary goal of AWS and a lot of other companies involved in the recent bans will have already been accomplished; smothering an escalation of the current situation until after the 20th.

It feels like we are witnessing a sort of immune response from these companies triggered to protect them from an existential threat to their business. Set off by Wednesdays events. Instability is bad for business.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#425

Post by tenebrisalietum »

cudgy wrote: post #363
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…

If that is so, why would any company that has a critical business utilize these cloud services? For example, a 911 emergency software provider, a law enforcement agency, a hospital or other medical organization, political organizations, religious organization, or any other organization that either has critical services to deploy or may get caught in the crosshairs of a political movement. I think given these events c…

A social network is not a critical business, like a hospital or 911 emergency software provider.

No one needs Facebook, Twitter, or Parler to survive.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#427

Post by acdha »

dcolkitt wrote: post #328
acdha wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 of…

> 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.

What makes you think that? They mark those as disputed but haven’t generally touched the ones which aren’t calling for violence. The court filing in question clearly shows that Amazon wanted them to deal with violence, not dishonesty, too.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#428

Post by Jochim »

jschulenklopper wrote: post #358
dboreham wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely they're observing best practice cloud process and can therefore just spin up the service in another provider pronto?

No, not according to the lawsuit: "Parler has tried to find alternative companies to host it and they have fallen through. It has no other options. Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online."

There are thousands of hosting companies out there. They either haven't tried very hard or people really don't want to deal with them. Neither of those things seem to be AWS' problem.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#429

Post by binaryblitz »

senkora wrote: post #366
yellowpencil wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> antitrust battles against Big Tech will dominate the next four years of economic policy Almost zero chance this happens, imo. Big tech spent _heavily_ on Democrats (98% of contributions [0]) and the Democrats have complete control for the next 4 years. an awfully prescient allocation of funds. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-electi...

Nit: Congressional elections are held every two years, so complete control may disappear in 2022. If you’re implicitly depending on the presidential veto to block Republican attempts if they take control of congress, then yeah that’s fair.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the GOP over the next two years. I'm thinking there could be a split.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#430

Post by arminiusreturns »

jf22 wrote: post #412
arminiusreturns wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Turn on anyone who doesn't support the narrative. So sad to see someone who has been so principled for so long on all the modern topics we should care about get viciously character assasinated so readily by people without a moments hesitancy. I have had my disagreements with GG, particularly in his naive taking on of PO for the money, but this refusal to acknowledge both his dedication to truth (which often make…

It's not that he "didn't support the narrative". He believed a story with little evidence and his journalistic integrity became questionable.

Thats a mischaraterization at best, which is sort of my point. What GG said and his real positions don't matter. What matters is he bucked the narrative (mostly when he pushed against the propaganda push that the HB laptop leak was of Russian origin) and that made him bad, and then the justifications for his "bad" label were found afterwards. They don't hold up to scrutiny but the character assassination is done already.

In his own words:

“I don’t think that the emails — so far — reveal a huge scandal. They so far just establish standard sleaze and DC corruption. The huge scandal to me is the blatant rank-closing and cone of silence — a prohibition — erected by journalists around this story to defend Biden,”

“Is there a single journalist willing to say with a straight face they believe the emails relating to the Bidens are either fabricated or otherwise fraudulently altered, but the Bidens just aren’t saying so?,”

“When you report a huge archive, there’s no way to prove the negative that none of it is altered. You investigate & confirm as much as you can, then use your journalistic judgment. The only way you get confirmation is when the subjects of the reporting don’t deny the authenticity,”

“You know the subjects of the reporting will immediately claim they’re fake if the are. Of course they will: that would kill the reporting!”

“There’s a reason the Bidens aren’t claiming they’re fake,”

https://greenwald.substack.com/

Post reply on HN