3 ms·

Sure. Does AWS owe them the amount of time it should take to reorganize? Why? It's business. I just don't get your point. I certainly wouldn't choose to contin

Sure. Does AWS owe them the amount of time it should take to reorganize? Why? It's business. I just don't get your point. I certainly wouldn't choose to continue serving a client if I thought doing so was costing me money.

Closi 6y ago
I never said they did, you said that they could just set up their own infra so it’s not a big deal - I just said that wasn’t possible as they can’t stand up 500 servers in 24 hours. As an aside, I actually would continue serving a client if I had sold them a service, they were paying for it at the agreed price and keeping on top of invoices, and if me reneging would cause them to go out of business. And then if I had to end it, I would give them as much notice as I could practically provide (particularly if they were willing to profitably pay during the notice period). I wouldn’t personally do business with you if I thought you would instantly back out of an agreement that you had already profited on with almost zero notice. AWS is no charity here, Parler were paying them for servers.
- kingdomcome50 6y ago
  So it's not possible. So what? What is your point? We are back to square one. What conclusion are you trying to draw from the fact you can't set up 500 servers in 24 hours? Are you trying to say it's unfair? I just don't see it that way. If Amazon violated the terms of their agreement then fine, let it be litigated. But if Parler can't get back up quick enough in the mean time that's on them. That's how business works. I know. I conduct it. It's not personal.
  - Closi 6y ago
    The inference is that these cloud/tech companies can shut down businesses they don't like by behaving as an oligopoly. And oligopolies pose antitrust issues.
    - kingdomcome50 6y ago
      You are connecting unrelated dots. While it could be argued that the "cloud provider" space is an oligopoly (though I would not argue that), simply deciding to not serve a specific business, even as group, is not an antitrust issue. No business has a "right to service". Antitrust is more concerned with anti-competitive behaviors: pricing-fixing, group boycotts[0], buying a competitor with the express purpose of removing competition, etc. Amazon and Parler are not in the same market - they are not competing for anything. Antitrust is not going to be a fruitful legal avenue. If Amazon were somehow influencing Parler's ability to "do it themselves" (e.g. preventing a seller from providing them with boxes), then yes, there may be some legal standing. [0] Look this one up. It's not what you are thinking.

Closi 6y ago

I never said they did, you said that they could just set up their own infra so it’s not a big deal - I just said that wasn’t possible as they can’t stand up 500 servers in 24 hours. As an aside, I actually would continue serving a client if I had sold them a service, they were paying for it at the agreed price and keeping on top of invoices, and if me reneging would cause them to go out of business. And then if I had to end it, I would give them as much notice as I could practically provide (particularly if they were willing to profitably pay during the notice period). I wouldn’t personally do business with you if I thought you would instantly back out of an agreement that you had already profited on with almost zero notice. AWS is no charity here, Parler were paying them for servers.

kingdomcome50 6y ago
So it's not possible. So what? What is your point? We are back to square one. What conclusion are you trying to draw from the fact you can't set up 500 servers in 24 hours? Are you trying to say it's unfair? I just don't see it that way. If Amazon violated the terms of their agreement then fine, let it be litigated. But if Parler can't get back up quick enough in the mean time that's on them. That's how business works. I know. I conduct it. It's not personal.
- Closi 6y ago
  The inference is that these cloud/tech companies can shut down businesses they don't like by behaving as an oligopoly. And oligopolies pose antitrust issues.
  - kingdomcome50 6y ago
    You are connecting unrelated dots. While it could be argued that the "cloud provider" space is an oligopoly (though I would not argue that), simply deciding to not serve a specific business, even as group, is not an antitrust issue. No business has a "right to service". Antitrust is more concerned with anti-competitive behaviors: pricing-fixing, group boycotts[0], buying a competitor with the express purpose of removing competition, etc. Amazon and Parler are not in the same market - they are not competing for anything. Antitrust is not going to be a fruitful legal avenue. If Amazon were somehow influencing Parler's ability to "do it themselves" (e.g. preventing a seller from providing them with boxes), then yes, there may be some legal standing. [0] Look this one up. It's not what you are thinking.