3 ms·

It's weird how inconsistent they are about it Tweets from Ayatollah Khomeini talking about how Israel is a cancer[1] that needs to be violently eradicated[2] a

It's weird how inconsistent they are about it Tweets from Ayatollah Khomeini talking about how Israel is a cancer[1] that needs to be violently eradicated[2] apparently don't run afoul of the "Glorification of Violence" policy. OTOH Trump's 2 tweets, which were tame in comparison, were bannable. [1]: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1003332853525110784 [2]: https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263742339891298304 https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263742339891298304

uncledave 6y ago
Don’t try defending it with whataboutism...
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  If the complaint in the lawsuit is that the policy on websites with unmoderated violent content isn't applied equally, is it really "whataboutism" to point out that the policy isn't applied equally? Hypothetically, how would you be able to prove that point without providing examples?
throwaway19937 6y ago
Banning Ayatollah Khomeini from Twitter would probably cause an international incident. He might declare a fatwa[0] against Twitter, the US, or both. If none of these events happen, there's still a risk of Islamic terrorists attacking Twitter's offices. I'd probably leave his account in place too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
- dkirill 6y ago
  This makes sense on a personal level, but it highlights the hypocrisy of AWS decision
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    What is hypocritical about AWS's decision to terminate Parler? AWS doesn't make any claims to providing universal service and like most (if not all) service providers they can terminate service for a variety of reasons. I have no inside information but it was probably a combination of some of the following factors. 1. Compliance with the AWS acceptable usage policy. AWS says that Parler didn't comply with the AUP. All the facts won't come out unless this lawsuit goes to trial and that seems unlikely. Parler's CEO doesn't seem to think moderation is important so it's easy to believe that they didn't put a lot of effort in it. It's also possible that they can't afford to comply with the AUP but that isn't Amazon's problem. 2. Cancel culture. It was only a matter of time before AWS started getting bad PR for having Parler as a client. Petitions for dropping them were already circulating internally and externally. It's easy to say that you shouldn't drop clients in response to pressure but there is a point at which doing so is a rational decision. 3. Liability. Parler was allegedly used for planning illegal activities. If another significant attack occurs then a class-action lawsuit will pursue both Parler and AWS for contributing to the attack - this happened with the September 11th attack. The costs of defending or settling this lawsuit could easily run into the millions.

uncledave 6y ago

Don’t try defending it with whataboutism...

Rebelgecko 6y ago
If the complaint in the lawsuit is that the policy on websites with unmoderated violent content isn't applied equally, is it really "whataboutism" to point out that the policy isn't applied equally? Hypothetically, how would you be able to prove that point without providing examples?

throwaway19937 6y ago

Banning Ayatollah Khomeini from Twitter would probably cause an international incident. He might declare a fatwa[0] against Twitter, the US, or both. If none of these events happen, there's still a risk of Islamic terrorists attacking Twitter's offices. I'd probably leave his account in place too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa

dkirill 6y ago
This makes sense on a personal level, but it highlights the hypocrisy of AWS decision
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  What is hypocritical about AWS's decision to terminate Parler? AWS doesn't make any claims to providing universal service and like most (if not all) service providers they can terminate service for a variety of reasons. I have no inside information but it was probably a combination of some of the following factors. 1. Compliance with the AWS acceptable usage policy. AWS says that Parler didn't comply with the AUP. All the facts won't come out unless this lawsuit goes to trial and that seems unlikely. Parler's CEO doesn't seem to think moderation is important so it's easy to believe that they didn't put a lot of effort in it. It's also possible that they can't afford to comply with the AUP but that isn't Amazon's problem. 2. Cancel culture. It was only a matter of time before AWS started getting bad PR for having Parler as a client. Petitions for dropping them were already circulating internally and externally. It's easy to say that you shouldn't drop clients in response to pressure but there is a point at which doing so is a rational decision. 3. Liability. Parler was allegedly used for planning illegal activities. If another significant attack occurs then a class-action lawsuit will pursue both Parler and AWS for contributing to the attack - this happened with the September 11th attack. The costs of defending or settling this lawsuit could easily run into the millions.