3 ms·

I don't know if people trying to argue that twitter is just as bad as Parler are doing it out of ignorance of the issues or just bad faith. Parler isn't being

I don't know if people trying to argue that twitter is just as bad as Parler are doing it out of ignorance of the issues or just bad faith. Parler isn't being dropped by private companies because a user said something mean on their service. They're being dropped by AWS, Apple, Google etc because they allow, even encourages its users to conspire to commit violence and assassinate public officials. The main reasons its users went to Parler in the first place is because they weren't allowed to do that on twitter and reddit.

moate 6y ago
I feel like the AWS lawyer is going to make the following claims: 1- This action (dropping Parler) is within the actions established in our ToS. 2- Parler's very goal is to attract these sort of demographics and similar actions have been taken in the past (Stormfront comes to mind) The only chance this has is if Parler has language in their contract requiring that 30-day notice of service termination. My guess is that they don't. They also spend a LOT of time in this filing pointing out that AWS is a very big share of the market (the court won't care) and that they host Twitter (the court will again, not care) in an effort to say that AWS was worried the shift to Parler from Twitter would financially hurt Twitter and then AWS (which doesn't make sense, since AWS is hosting both so 6 million people shifting just means one check gets smaller and the other larger). This is the quality of legal filings I've begun to expect surrounding these issues. "They're bad, and it's pretty obvious to everyone, duh!" doesn't actually hold up in court though...
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The claim on contract violation is probably their strongest claim. Or probably would be were the exhibit of the contract offered not this: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.1.2.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... To be fair, that does look more like a mistake--the HTML-to-PDF conversion appears to truncate a decent amount of text per page. Ooh, just noticed, the contract also has this gem: > Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify. Which tosses out any claims of contract violation because you agreed to arbitrate it first!
  - moate 6y ago
    As I just said to my wife, you'd have a better shot with a lawsuit against the sky because you got a sunburn than you would trying to sue AWS for booting you from their servers. At least the sun never got you to agree to a draconian ToS. I also liked their idea that AWS is trying to protect their contract with Twitter because users are leaving Twitter(hosted by AWS) for Parler (which was hosted by AWS at the time). If I have a glass of beer in my left hand and switch to my right, have I lost my glass of beer? How would that possibly benefit AWS unless somehow Parler negotiated better terms than Twitter? If anything, the opposite seems likely.
    - curryst 6y ago
      They might even make more money. I'm guessing Parler doesn't get the same volume discounts that Twitter does.
sleepysysadmin 6y ago
>I don't know if people trying to argue that twitter is just as bad as Parler are doing it out of ignorance of the issues or just bad faith. The thing is, Trump never ever called for riots. You have to read between the lines and ignore his history of being anti-riots and go for a bad faith interreption to even consider him having called for what happened. Flipside, How many celebrities were calling for the death of the maga hat kit? They got away with it. Iranian's Khamanei has outright called for jews to be exterminated. Various other middle eastern leaders have called for gays to be killed. They are outright double standards. Regardless, it was very clear Trump was to be banned. At the end of the day it's very interesting how all these tech companies came together to ban not trump but vast array of their supporters. So far the known count for Twitter is >200,000 trump supporters. At all 200,000 inciting violence? Does the USA really have that many people looking to overthrow the government? >They're being dropped by AWS, Apple, Google etc because they allow, even encourages its users to conspire to commit violence and assassinate public officials. So the entire platform is to be removed because of some content. More specifically, if someone wants to destroy a platform, they need only have bots spam comments and therefore the platform goes offline? >The main reasons its users went to Parler in the first place is because they weren't allowed to do that on twitter and reddit. No, that's not accurate at all. there were millions of users on parler. Many of which weren't even american nor care what was going on. This is at best a rationalization for shutting down the platform.
yes_no_maybe 6y ago
> They're being dropped by AWS, Apple, Google etc because they allow, even encourages its users to conspire to commit violence and assassinate public officials. How is Parler "encouraging its users to conspire to commit violence"?

moate 6y ago

I feel like the AWS lawyer is going to make the following claims: 1- This action (dropping Parler) is within the actions established in our ToS. 2- Parler's very goal is to attract these sort of demographics and similar actions have been taken in the past (Stormfront comes to mind) The only chance this has is if Parler has language in their contract requiring that 30-day notice of service termination. My guess is that they don't. They also spend a LOT of time in this filing pointing out that AWS is a very big share of the market (the court won't care) and that they host Twitter (the court will again, not care) in an effort to say that AWS was worried the shift to Parler from Twitter would financially hurt Twitter and then AWS (which doesn't make sense, since AWS is hosting both so 6 million people shifting just means one check gets smaller and the other larger). This is the quality of legal filings I've begun to expect surrounding these issues. "They're bad, and it's pretty obvious to everyone, duh!" doesn't actually hold up in court though...

jcranmer 6y ago
The claim on contract violation is probably their strongest claim. Or probably would be were the exhibit of the contract offered not this: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.1.2.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... To be fair, that does look more like a mistake--the HTML-to-PDF conversion appears to truncate a decent amount of text per page. Ooh, just noticed, the contract also has this gem: > Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify. Which tosses out any claims of contract violation because you agreed to arbitrate it first!
- moate 6y ago
  As I just said to my wife, you'd have a better shot with a lawsuit against the sky because you got a sunburn than you would trying to sue AWS for booting you from their servers. At least the sun never got you to agree to a draconian ToS. I also liked their idea that AWS is trying to protect their contract with Twitter because users are leaving Twitter(hosted by AWS) for Parler (which was hosted by AWS at the time). If I have a glass of beer in my left hand and switch to my right, have I lost my glass of beer? How would that possibly benefit AWS unless somehow Parler negotiated better terms than Twitter? If anything, the opposite seems likely.
  - curryst 6y ago
    They might even make more money. I'm guessing Parler doesn't get the same volume discounts that Twitter does.

sleepysysadmin 6y ago

>I don't know if people trying to argue that twitter is just as bad as Parler are doing it out of ignorance of the issues or just bad faith. The thing is, Trump never ever called for riots. You have to read between the lines and ignore his history of being anti-riots and go for a bad faith interreption to even consider him having called for what happened. Flipside, How many celebrities were calling for the death of the maga hat kit? They got away with it. Iranian's Khamanei has outright called for jews to be exterminated. Various other middle eastern leaders have called for gays to be killed. They are outright double standards. Regardless, it was very clear Trump was to be banned. At the end of the day it's very interesting how all these tech companies came together to ban not trump but vast array of their supporters. So far the known count for Twitter is >200,000 trump supporters. At all 200,000 inciting violence? Does the USA really have that many people looking to overthrow the government? >They're being dropped by AWS, Apple, Google etc because they allow, even encourages its users to conspire to commit violence and assassinate public officials. So the entire platform is to be removed because of some content. More specifically, if someone wants to destroy a platform, they need only have bots spam comments and therefore the platform goes offline? >The main reasons its users went to Parler in the first place is because they weren't allowed to do that on twitter and reddit. No, that's not accurate at all. there were millions of users on parler. Many of which weren't even american nor care what was going on. This is at best a rationalization for shutting down the platform.

yes_no_maybe 6y ago

> They're being dropped by AWS, Apple, Google etc because they allow, even encourages its users to conspire to commit violence and assassinate public officials. How is Parler "encouraging its users to conspire to commit violence"?