3 ms·
AWS market share just isn't large enough for anybody to succeed on anti-trust grounds. Now when they also get rejected by every other web host, or a sufficient
by IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
AWS market share just isn't large enough for anybody to succeed on anti-trust grounds.
Now when they also get rejected by every other web host, or a sufficiently large fraction, it gets more interesting: are they coordinating, actively or implicitly? Or are they following the same thought process, and ending uo at the same result, independently? Does it matter?
Any supermarket can ban you for not wearing a shirt. What if they all ban you, and you just can't buy either a shirt or food?
Is the latter different, because it's about survival?
if you get thrown out of every bar in town for bad behaviour, do you have an anti-trust case against them? What if they operate a ban list, and one or two incidents are enough to cut you off?
Anyway... Parler is mouldy: both toxic and toast. And slippery slope is a fallacy. So this is really all upside, as far as I can tell.
- XorNot 6y agoThey're still not going to able to prove anti-trust. If we start from the idea that the internet is a vital service, the problem very much becomes at what point is somebody compelled to host you on their infrastructure? Providers will quite rightly claim a right to compensation for reputational damage. If I have to provide service to Parler, I want it known that this is not my choice, for example. The most case I could see them actually having would be if IANA refused to allow them to be listed in the root zone DNS servers, and if basic connectivity were being denied - because that's the very basics of internet connectivity. Everything else is just making things easier, but it's all being done because someone else wants to do it. Freedom of association then becomes a significant issue because hate speech is not a protected class.