3 ms·
That is the point though. The reasons cited by AWS for their actions were due to violent posts and content moderation. When addressed with the issue Parler said
by nicmccool 6y ago
That is the point though. The reasons cited by AWS for their actions were due to violent posts and content moderation. When addressed with the issue Parler said they'd use volunteers to proactively moderate violent posts, but AWS said that "nascent plant to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts".
- nix23 6y ago>remove dangerous content Really disappointed in HN right now, hacking youtube videos are dangerous too no? Content is not dangerous, peoples are.
- nicmccool 6y agoYoutube has paid staff whose sole duty is to remove videos that violate their TOS. Parler does not. That is the distinction AWS used in there reasonings to terminate service.
- nix23 6y ago>TOS That's a private rule and with Amazon as big as it is, we need to have a discussion if a TOS is even legal, if you take a blind eye on that, nothing stands in the way that big company's take over everything, if you want such a world...well then welcome to cyberpunk.
- Johnny555 6y agoFor large customers, the TOS is not just a click through agreement, it's actually signed as a part of an overall MSA. I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it.
- nix23 6y ago>I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it. Because it clashes often with existing law, many TOS's you can simply ignore (at least in europe) and yes even when you signed it. A TOS does not stand above existing law.