3 ms·

seems like they have been in talks for a little while at least, where they could've possible remediated the issues to buy some more time to avoid the TOS violat

• jlkuester7 6y ago
  Yeah, based on what was said in the NYT article they did act to remove some of the posts in question. Ultimately it seems like Parlor's own moderation system was insufficient in dealing with the troublesome posts (either because the moderators declined to adequately enforce Parlor policies or because of a lack of moderators to deal with the sheer volume of content). Either way, it seems like Parlor has some (albeit lax) content policies and it has a moderation system in place (this was how it was approved for the Apple store, etc in the first place). But when these failed to deal with content that Amazon did not like within the timeline that Amazon set, Amazon chose to cancel the contract. I assume these actions are all within the bounds of Parlor's AWS contract (or at least Amazon's lawyers believe they can successfully argue such). However, I remain surprised that this is how enterprise AWS contracts would be structured (though maybe this is just because I don't have any personal experience with them).