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

91–100 of 485 posts

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#91

Post by pishpash »

webXL wrote: post #38
meekmockmook wrote: post #17

I 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…

They already had plenty of enemies on the left. Now they got a ton more on the right. Elon Musk was just tweeting about the hatred headed their way. Time to check my investments.

Left or right? No no, it's got nothing to do with that. They're in trouble because they've now got enemies in power. Did you notice things only move when those in power are threatened?

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#92

Post by tptacek »

chrisco255 wrote: post #48
hctaw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-gril…

"Collusion" isn't generally a thing. Providers can lawfully cooperate for all sorts of reasons; the exceptions are the cases they can't, not the cases they can. For instance, providers could run private channels for banning users that spread CSAM (and I'd be surprised if they didn't).

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#93

Post by 101008 »

drocer88 wrote: post #10

"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?

By the other comments, it seems was true but Twtiter moderated it quickly.

However, I remember when J.K. Rowling gave her opinion on transgender issues, RIP JK Rowling was trendin gtopic for hours, and she received a lot of hate and threats on Twitter. Not only that, a lot of people started replying to her tweets with dick pics, which was dangeours because she was in the middle of an activity with children (they could see those replies).

So yeah, definitely Twitter chooses what to moderate and what not.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#94

Post by bigtones »

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 AWS customer agreement, which Parler agreed to.

https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#95

Post by mrkurt »

newfeatureok wrote: post #8

Out 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.

It depends _entirely_ on the contract terms and reason for termination / suspension.

On month to month services, 30 days is normal for almost any reason. But abuse and related ToS violations don't ever get 30 days.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#96

Post by duskwuff »

meekmockmook wrote: post #47
tw04 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It isn't a valid argument. AWS is under no obligation to treat all of their customers equally.

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#98

Post by webXL »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #79
greesil wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but these threats were actually carried out. Not the first time for Parler either, as I recall.

A terror attack was literally live streamed on Facebook.

Which one and why is live streaming (aka what TV news occasionally does) bad?

Re: Parler LLC vs. Amazon Web Services Inc

#100

Post by cal5k »

tbenst wrote: post #18
drocer88 wrote: post #10

"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...

Also false equivocation. Twitter failed/refused to moderate content for years throughout their meteoric growth, and only now are they barely getting a handle on it - and even then they seem to apply the rules in an uneven fashion.

Expecting any potential competitor to instantly achieve perfect moderation seems like a perfect way to entrench FB, Twitter and others as the de-facto public square.

Post reply on HN