5 ms·

Parler most certainly does have a right to exist. And companies have a right to not associate with a platform that incites violence and foments activity agains

Parler most certainly does have a right to exist. And companies have a right to not associate with a platform that incites violence and foments activity against the very constitution it appeals to.

coryfklein 6y ago
You can be sure that any companies that host user-published content today are looking closely at the response to Parler, and are probably accelerating plans to get off of AWS. What happens when the Eye of Sauron turns to you and declares that you don't do enough to moderate?
- barnaclejive 6y ago
  then you go away too, grow up. There is no "Eye of Sauron". You allow shit that is illegal, then you don't get a platform to support you, simple.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  And nothing of value was lost. Won't even be a blip on AWS's radar. Aside from rightwingers self hosting, nothing will really change in an impactful way. Eye of sauron? Dramatic, much? It's not hard: Don't host incitement of violence, i.e. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action. It's not hard. But for these radical right wingers, it apparently is. Sad.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  For what it's worth, the terms of use of AWS require you to moderate content: > You are responsible for End Users’ use of Your Content and the Service Offerings. You will ensure that all End Users comply with your obligations under this Agreement and that the terms of your agreement with each End User are consistent with this Agreement. If you become aware of any violation of your obligations under this Agreement caused by an End User, you will immediately suspend access to Your Content and the Service Offerings by such End User. (https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/, §4.5). According to AWS's reply brief in the lawsuit with Parler (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...): > During one of the calls, Parler’s CEO reported that Parler had a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violated its community standards and remained on its service. This isn't something that popped up out of the blue; this was something that AWS was concerned about for a while (several months), and communicated with Parler about for a while. Given an existing backlog of unhandled reports, and the prospect of a rapid growth in new content that would presumably generate even more complaints, AWS did not believe that Parler could fulfill its contractual obligation to moderate with volunteers and terminated its service.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  Per Parler’s CEO, banks and payment vendors, law firms, text and mail services also cancelled on them. That’s why there’s talk of alternative currency, because otherwise AWS or not, when you don’t have a relationship with a bank or payment vendors, you’ve just turned into a financially conspicuous lemonade stand. There is no one ring to rule them all. If it were just AWS, then the conversation would turn to switching to Azure.

Parler most certainly does have a right to exist. And companies have a right to not associate with a platform that incites violence and foments activity against the very constitution it appeals to.

coryfklein 6y ago

You can be sure that any companies that host user-published content today are looking closely at the response to Parler, and are probably accelerating plans to get off of AWS. What happens when the Eye of Sauron turns to you and declares that you don't do enough to moderate?

barnaclejive 6y ago
then you go away too, grow up. There is no "Eye of Sauron". You allow shit that is illegal, then you don't get a platform to support you, simple.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
And nothing of value was lost. Won't even be a blip on AWS's radar. Aside from rightwingers self hosting, nothing will really change in an impactful way. Eye of sauron? Dramatic, much? It's not hard: Don't host incitement of violence, i.e. Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action. It's not hard. But for these radical right wingers, it apparently is. Sad.
jcranmer 6y ago
For what it's worth, the terms of use of AWS require you to moderate content: > You are responsible for End Users’ use of Your Content and the Service Offerings. You will ensure that all End Users comply with your obligations under this Agreement and that the terms of your agreement with each End User are consistent with this Agreement. If you become aware of any violation of your obligations under this Agreement caused by an End User, you will immediately suspend access to Your Content and the Service Offerings by such End User. (https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/, §4.5). According to AWS's reply brief in the lawsuit with Parler (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...): > During one of the calls, Parler’s CEO reported that Parler had a backlog of 26,000 reports of content that violated its community standards and remained on its service. This isn't something that popped up out of the blue; this was something that AWS was concerned about for a while (several months), and communicated with Parler about for a while. Given an existing backlog of unhandled reports, and the prospect of a rapid growth in new content that would presumably generate even more complaints, AWS did not believe that Parler could fulfill its contractual obligation to moderate with volunteers and terminated its service.
threatofrain 6y ago
Per Parler’s CEO, banks and payment vendors, law firms, text and mail services also cancelled on them. That’s why there’s talk of alternative currency, because otherwise AWS or not, when you don’t have a relationship with a bank or payment vendors, you’ve just turned into a financially conspicuous lemonade stand. There is no one ring to rule them all. If it were just AWS, then the conversation would turn to switching to Azure.