3 ms·

What was their reasoning? I only saw this. Amazon declined to comment on the suspension.

ceejayoz 6y ago
AWS's reasoning is included in the article; a direct copy of their email to Parler is quoted. > Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.” This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you. Given the unfortunate events that transpired this past week in Washington, D.C., there is serious risk that this type of content will further incite violence.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  Thank you. It does seem like Amazon requires professional moderation when someone's service is used to incite violence. I wonder if this is in part due to concerns about revising section 230.
  - organsnyder 6y ago
    I think it's more that they require an effective strategy for removing content that violates their ToS—it's more that volunteer moderation isn't cutting it. Coupled with Parler's pretty obvious mission of intentionally providing a home for that content, it's really not surprising that AWS is reaching this decision. Repealing section 230 would lead to many more proactive measures like this, by all platforms.
jazzyjackson 6y ago
My sibling here has the official response but I'll just add that "inciting violence" probably refers to a very out in the open effort to interrupt Biden's inauguration

AWS's reasoning is included in the article; a direct copy of their email to Parler is quoted. > Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service. It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. Your CEO recently stated publicly that he doesn’t “feel responsible for any of this, and neither should the platform.” This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you. Given the unfortunate events that transpired this past week in Washington, D.C., there is serious risk that this type of content will further incite violence.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
Thank you. It does seem like Amazon requires professional moderation when someone's service is used to incite violence. I wonder if this is in part due to concerns about revising section 230.
- organsnyder 6y ago
  I think it's more that they require an effective strategy for removing content that violates their ToS—it's more that volunteer moderation isn't cutting it. Coupled with Parler's pretty obvious mission of intentionally providing a home for that content, it's really not surprising that AWS is reaching this decision. Repealing section 230 would lead to many more proactive measures like this, by all platforms.

jazzyjackson 6y ago

My sibling here has the official response but I'll just add that "inciting violence" probably refers to a very out in the open effort to interrupt Biden's inauguration