12 ms·

> Parler wasn't kicked off AWS because of a political disagreement. It was kicked off for multiple terms of service violations and unwillingness to adequately m

by IncRnd 6y ago

> Parler wasn't kicked off AWS because of a political disagreement. It was kicked off for multiple terms of service violations and unwillingness to adequately moderate its platform to ensure that further ToS violations didn't occur. It's a little strange, then, how Amazon took Parler's money until a day after others deplatformed Parler right after the election. Amazon's decision doesn't seem as arms-length and independent as you believe.

whoknew1122 6y ago
The decision wasn't political. It was based on repeated terms of service violations (as proven by the emails from AWS that Parler itself leaked). Whether AWS was able to make that decision because of the political calculus had changed (e.g. there was demonstrable evidence of real-life violence stemming from plans made on Parler; others had taken action against Parler; AWS's employees were publicly calling for Parler to be removed from AWS) -- that's a different question. The timing can be political but the decision apolitical. This is ignoring that Parler's continued prior existence was likely in part due to the politics (i.e. American conservative allegations that Big Tech's pervasively censors right-wing and Republican voices).
jcranmer 6y ago
This is the actual email that AWS sent to Parler informing them of its intent to suspend Parler: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.1.1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... Quoting AWS's literal rationale: > Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. [...] This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but you plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  Thanks!

by IncRnd 6y ago

whoknew1122 6y ago

The decision wasn't political. It was based on repeated terms of service violations (as proven by the emails from AWS that Parler itself leaked). Whether AWS was able to make that decision because of the political calculus had changed (e.g. there was demonstrable evidence of real-life violence stemming from plans made on Parler; others had taken action against Parler; AWS's employees were publicly calling for Parler to be removed from AWS) -- that's a different question. The timing can be political but the decision apolitical. This is ignoring that Parler's continued prior existence was likely in part due to the politics (i.e. American conservative allegations that Big Tech's pervasively censors right-wing and Republican voices).

jcranmer 6y ago

This is the actual email that AWS sent to Parler informing them of its intent to suspend Parler: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.1.1.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664... Quoting AWS's literal rationale: > Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms. [...] This morning, you shared that you have a plan to more proactively moderate violent content, but you plan to do so manually with volunteers. It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts.

IncRnd 6y ago
Thanks!