4 ms·
It claimed Parler was exclusively used for violence, the burden of proof is on them. All Parler's lawyer need to do is show them the exact same vitrol on Twitt
by f430 6y ago
It claimed Parler was exclusively used for violence, the burden of proof is on them.
All Parler's lawyer need to do is show them the exact same vitrol on Twitter to highlight how shaky Amazon's argument is.
I don't expect a fair trial free from political furor going on right now. It's amazingly easy to manipulate the crowd when they are too tired to be objective from the information overload. 1984 might as well been the Les Prophéties of 21st century.
- vkou 6y ago> It claimed Parler was exclusively used for violence This is completely false. > In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective. > “Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.” I am not an English major, but from a reading of those two paragraphs, it does not seem to me that AWS has claimed that Parler is solely used for violence.
- f430 6y agoso AWS is the arbitrator of truths and justice? When did we put the billionaires and monopolies in charge?
- vkou 6y agoIt sounds like we have agreed that it never claimed Parker is solely used for violence. And, no, that's also not a claim it has made. They are just an arbiter of their TOS. Your understanding of this situation seems to be defined by how you want the facts of the case to be, rather than what the actual facts of the case are.