3 ms·

That means you as a Infrastructure provider can jugge what normally justice will do, but when you have the money to run your own DC you can jump over that probl

That means you as a Infrastructure provider can jugge what normally justice will do, but when you have the money to run your own DC you can jump over that problems? You can't since you still need to have an upstream internet provider. (or in the case of Facebook, access to internet exchange points). If Facebook was promoting illegal content, even if they host their own servers, they'd lose their internet connectivity.

nix23 6y ago
>If Facebook was promoting illegal content Did Parler promote illegal content? Again, Amazon is NOT a Court.
- Closi 6y ago
  Why let pesky 'courts' and 'due process' get in the way of efficient ruling by capitalism and mega-corporations?
  - Johnny555 6y ago
    What are you talking about? The courts are involved. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/tech/parler-amazon-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/tech/parler-amazon-lawsuit/in...
    - Closi 6y ago
      Their business is already shut down - guilty until proven innocent, which is great because it really streamlines the whole justice process. In fact this new form of justice is so efficient we can even shut down a company before the court proceedings have even started. By we I mean our corporate overlords, but they wouldn’t ever turn on us.
      - Johnny555 6y ago
        If they can prove that they were wrongfully shut down, then they can sue for damages, which is what keeps companies from abusing their power. This isn't a new form of justice, this is how the civil legal system works.
        nix23 6y ago
        >This isn't a new form of justice, this is how the civil legal system works. Funny, Hitler and Staling would agree with you 100%
        Johnny555 6y ago
        This lasted surprisingly long until you invoked Godwin's law. I'm done.
- Johnny555 6y ago
  Then it's a good thing it's being decided in a court. Which is what provides checks and balances, AWS says "You violated our ToS, we're cutting you off", "Parler sues and says 'No we didn't and here's why'". If Parler wins and can prove that they were unfairly targeted, then they can sue Amazon for damages. Which is what keeps Amazon from unfairly applying its ToS. And if they can demonstrate irreparable harm, then they can get an injunction forcing AWS to restore their services immediately rather than waiting for the court case to be decided. But I think the best they could do is present monetary damages, which the court could decide AWS is able to pay.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Again, Amazon is NOT a Court. If you want entitlement to a court on the legality of content before getting cutoff from service, negotiate a contract that specifies that you can carry any legal content, and the other party must assume content is legal absent a determination by a court to the contrary. OTOH, that’s not part of anyone’s boilerplate, and adds a lot of potential cost, so expect to pay an extremely hefty premium to get a business to agree to those terms.

nix23 6y ago

>If Facebook was promoting illegal content Did Parler promote illegal content? Again, Amazon is NOT a Court.

Closi 6y ago
Why let pesky 'courts' and 'due process' get in the way of efficient ruling by capitalism and mega-corporations?
- Johnny555 6y ago
  What are you talking about? The courts are involved. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/tech/parler-amazon-lawsuit/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/11/tech/parler-amazon-lawsuit/in...
  - Closi 6y ago
    Their business is already shut down - guilty until proven innocent, which is great because it really streamlines the whole justice process. In fact this new form of justice is so efficient we can even shut down a company before the court proceedings have even started. By we I mean our corporate overlords, but they wouldn’t ever turn on us.
    - Johnny555 6y ago
      If they can prove that they were wrongfully shut down, then they can sue for damages, which is what keeps companies from abusing their power. This isn't a new form of justice, this is how the civil legal system works.
      - nix23 6y ago
        >This isn't a new form of justice, this is how the civil legal system works. Funny, Hitler and Staling would agree with you 100%
        Johnny555 6y ago
        This lasted surprisingly long until you invoked Godwin's law. I'm done.
Johnny555 6y ago
Then it's a good thing it's being decided in a court. Which is what provides checks and balances, AWS says "You violated our ToS, we're cutting you off", "Parler sues and says 'No we didn't and here's why'". If Parler wins and can prove that they were unfairly targeted, then they can sue Amazon for damages. Which is what keeps Amazon from unfairly applying its ToS. And if they can demonstrate irreparable harm, then they can get an injunction forcing AWS to restore their services immediately rather than waiting for the court case to be decided. But I think the best they could do is present monetary damages, which the court could decide AWS is able to pay.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Again, Amazon is NOT a Court. If you want entitlement to a court on the legality of content before getting cutoff from service, negotiate a contract that specifies that you can carry any legal content, and the other party must assume content is legal absent a determination by a court to the contrary. OTOH, that’s not part of anyone’s boilerplate, and adds a lot of potential cost, so expect to pay an extremely hefty premium to get a business to agree to those terms.