4 ms·

It's complicated. If you own a giant bar, should you be able to close down a tiny bar next door because there is hate speech inside, because you happen to be fr

It's complicated. If you own a giant bar, should you be able to close down a tiny bar next door because there is hate speech inside, because you happen to be friends with the electric company? Parler wanted to open a new platform and attract its own users. Only incidentally was it (like everything else these days) dependent on a number of other services to work.

entropicdrifter 6y ago
If you own a building and find out that the owners of a bar that rents space in your building are allowing a terrorist group to plan an insurrection, are you allowed to cancel the lease and evict them? Sure seems like a breach of lease to me.
- ArtDev 6y ago
  I think this is a good analogy of where AWS sits here.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  A lease is just a contract. It can specify conditions for termination. Without reading the contract, it's impossible to know if it is being breached or not.
- flerchin 6y ago
  It's a good analogy, and yes, criminal activity often breaks your lease agreement.
- coryfklein 6y ago
  FTA > of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler
  - mcguire 6y ago
    As of this Thursday, 82 people have been arrested, according to one news report.
  - julienfr112 6y ago
    They may mostly use Android Phone. Should we ban them for Shops ?
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Yes, most likely. Eviction is a legal process, involving the courts. Did that happen with Parler?
- mcguire 6y ago
  Have you read the "lease" in question? https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ I suspect Amazon is not the one to breach the lease.
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    >I suspect Amazon is not the one to breach the lease. Yes, that was my point
eightysixfour 6y ago
> If you own a giant bar, should you be able to close down a tiny bar next door because there is hate speech inside. No, and I didn't suggest that. > electric company Regulated. The electric company is a regulated monopoly. Hosting companies aren't. If an ISP had banned traffic from Parler, that would be an issue, it is a regulated monopoly. If Amazon shuts them down, there's no issue, it is an unregulated service provider.
happyrock 6y ago
Thought exercise: what if say, Twitter, wanted to put one of its competitors out of business, and decided to engage in mass creation of accounts/content on that competing platform with the intention of violating their ToS and getting the platform kicked off of their hosting provider. Is this a viable business strategy now? Heck, is this even illegal?
wedn3sday 6y ago
Im not sure this is a good metaphor. None of Apple, Amazon, or Google (no matter how hard they try) are social media companies. None of them are in direct competition with Parler, and shutting it down wont increase their market share one iota. None of the social media companies are banning people because of things they said on Parler, and I doubt that the pressure applied to Apple/Amazon/Google came from outside the companies, this is most likely the result of engineers working on the AWS team pressuring their bosses, and it snowballing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cmiles74 6y ago
When Parler became a liability for any company associated with it, to their shock, it turned out no company wanted to be associated with it. In a world where people "vote with their wallets" companies like Amazon, Google and Apple would prefer to avoid giving people a reason to do just that. I don't understand the shock and surprise. No US company is going to choose anything over their own bottom line. Certainly not for a site as small and niche and literally riddled with hate speech as Parler. Parler and it's customers can say whatever they want to whoever they want. Can they force Amazon to take their money? Absolutely not. Should they be able to? No: forcing Amazon to host Parler would be a violation of Amazon's own right to free speech.[0] From Parler's point-of-view it would be unfortunate if they tied themselves to AWS specific infrastructure. There's absolutely no way that they now have some kind of "right" to be hosted by Amazon. Also, it's just poor planning on their part. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

entropicdrifter 6y ago

If you own a building and find out that the owners of a bar that rents space in your building are allowing a terrorist group to plan an insurrection, are you allowed to cancel the lease and evict them? Sure seems like a breach of lease to me.

ArtDev 6y ago
I think this is a good analogy of where AWS sits here.
stickfigure 6y ago
A lease is just a contract. It can specify conditions for termination. Without reading the contract, it's impossible to know if it is being breached or not.
flerchin 6y ago
It's a good analogy, and yes, criminal activity often breaks your lease agreement.
coryfklein 6y ago
FTA > of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler
- mcguire 6y ago
  As of this Thursday, 82 people have been arrested, according to one news report.
- julienfr112 6y ago
  They may mostly use Android Phone. Should we ban them for Shops ?
throwawayboise 6y ago
Yes, most likely. Eviction is a legal process, involving the courts. Did that happen with Parler?
mcguire 6y ago
Have you read the "lease" in question? https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ I suspect Amazon is not the one to breach the lease.
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  >I suspect Amazon is not the one to breach the lease. Yes, that was my point

eightysixfour 6y ago

> If you own a giant bar, should you be able to close down a tiny bar next door because there is hate speech inside. No, and I didn't suggest that. > electric company Regulated. The electric company is a regulated monopoly. Hosting companies aren't. If an ISP had banned traffic from Parler, that would be an issue, it is a regulated monopoly. If Amazon shuts them down, there's no issue, it is an unregulated service provider.

happyrock 6y ago

Thought exercise: what if say, Twitter, wanted to put one of its competitors out of business, and decided to engage in mass creation of accounts/content on that competing platform with the intention of violating their ToS and getting the platform kicked off of their hosting provider. Is this a viable business strategy now? Heck, is this even illegal?

wedn3sday 6y ago

Im not sure this is a good metaphor. None of Apple, Amazon, or Google (no matter how hard they try) are social media companies. None of them are in direct competition with Parler, and shutting it down wont increase their market share one iota. None of the social media companies are banning people because of things they said on Parler, and I doubt that the pressure applied to Apple/Amazon/Google came from outside the companies, this is most likely the result of engineers working on the AWS team pressuring their bosses, and it snowballing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cmiles74 6y ago

When Parler became a liability for any company associated with it, to their shock, it turned out no company wanted to be associated with it. In a world where people "vote with their wallets" companies like Amazon, Google and Apple would prefer to avoid giving people a reason to do just that. I don't understand the shock and surprise. No US company is going to choose anything over their own bottom line. Certainly not for a site as small and niche and literally riddled with hate speech as Parler. Parler and it's customers can say whatever they want to whoever they want. Can they force Amazon to take their money? Absolutely not. Should they be able to? No: forcing Amazon to host Parler would be a violation of Amazon's own right to free speech.[0] From Parler's point-of-view it would be unfortunate if they tied themselves to AWS specific infrastructure. There's absolutely no way that they now have some kind of "right" to be hosted by Amazon. Also, it's just poor planning on their part. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood