6 ms·

There is now a new risk that needs to be mitigated by the business, that of its business being taken down for any reason at all - subject to the whims of a chan

There is now a new risk that needs to be mitigated by the business, that of its business being taken down for any reason at all - subject to the whims of a changing culture, and possibly even outside of the laws of the land one is in. This will hopefully make folks think through the entire supply chain including cloud and SaaS providers. AWS was always like renting an apartment, or even, a fully furnished apartment. At some point, you want your own house and land... I hope that there will be a new impetus to replace the above with colocated servers that are just being managed, and by services that are sold for a period of time, and hosted by the applications themselves. k8s might hopefully be used to build a more resilient infrastructure that can take these systemic shocks. There could be good business for a new class of sub-contractors who would have templates to automate this for their clients.

lliamander 6y ago
This threat is already mitigated by service contracts. AWS pretty obviously broke contract here, and will almost certain suffer legal consequences for that. Why they thought they could get away with it is unclear, but their rebuttle to Parler's claims is pretty weak.
- cm2187 6y ago
  But critical infrastructure is built on AWS. I don't understand how any CEO of any large company would be comfortable with the risk of getting the rug pulled underneath all of its critical systems given that this is just what happened. I think the reputational damage is, or at least should, be much greater than any Parler litigation.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > I don't understand how any CEO of any large company would be comfortable with the risk of getting the rug pulled underneath all of its critical systems given that this is just what happened. If you are trying to make a case that Amazon arbitrarily pulls the plug on customers, Parler should not be your poster child. Amazon gave them 7 weeks of advance notice that their content was in violation of their agreement. Then they only severed the agreement once criminal activities were tied to the platforms content. CEO's aren't going to bat an eye at this any more than they are concerned that YouTube removed copyrighted content.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > Amazon gave them 7 weeks of advance notice that their content was in violation of their agreement. Not the same thing as giving them notice of intent to terminate the contract. If Amazon said "some of your content is in violation, but let's work together to improve your moderation, you have nothing to worry about" that does not give Amazon the right to turn around and terminate them after only 24 hours notice.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        Parler was in breech. Amazon could have stopped providing service at any point where Parler was knowingly hosting content that violated their contract. The fact that they continued providing service was a curtesy, not an obligation. For most smaller/ non connected entities they'd have been dropped much much sooner, and likely without notice.
        lliamander 6y ago
        I believe these assertions are contested by Parler. It will be very interesting to see how the case goes.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Quite the opposite. Everything Amazon did was within the terms of their contract. Amazon could have terminated the agreement sooner. Since Amazon waited until after it was abundantly clear that harmful content was being posted on Parler, its going to be quite difficult for Parler to find much sympathy in any court.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > Everything Amazon did was within the terms of their contract. Everything except for 30 days notice. Oops.
    - lliamander 6y ago
      And opportunity to cure.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        Parler was in breech. They were notified and given nearly 2 months to remedy.
      - pixl97 6y ago
        >Amazon started investigating violent threats on Parler in November and reported more than 100 pieces of content over the next seven weeks, but the site never took action, according to one executive.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Amazon gave them 7 weeks notice that they were violating the contract. Once Parler breeched the contract, Amazon no longer had an obligation to them. The fact that they continued operating without making significant efforts to get into compliance makes it pretty unlikely the court will be sympathetic.
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    Just to play the Devil's advocate here: Now, Amazon had given notice to Parler that they want some moderation that is automated... What are the specs for that? What would satisfy Amazon? Can it be delivered within that timeframe setting aside whatever else is going on? These are real concerns for a company going forward. I guess many do not state because of the political ramifications of this particular case, but it will be discussed in board rooms. as an example, i had a bad experience once with a HOA while living in my own home; the next home i bought, i ensured that i did not have to deal with the HOA.
foolinaround 6y ago
i see a bunch of replies - stating that Amazon followed the contract. Regardless, even if 30 days notice is given to a business to change something, it simply might not be enough. So, the risk as I stated, still stands.

lliamander 6y ago

This threat is already mitigated by service contracts. AWS pretty obviously broke contract here, and will almost certain suffer legal consequences for that. Why they thought they could get away with it is unclear, but their rebuttle to Parler's claims is pretty weak.

cm2187 6y ago
But critical infrastructure is built on AWS. I don't understand how any CEO of any large company would be comfortable with the risk of getting the rug pulled underneath all of its critical systems given that this is just what happened. I think the reputational damage is, or at least should, be much greater than any Parler litigation.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > I don't understand how any CEO of any large company would be comfortable with the risk of getting the rug pulled underneath all of its critical systems given that this is just what happened. If you are trying to make a case that Amazon arbitrarily pulls the plug on customers, Parler should not be your poster child. Amazon gave them 7 weeks of advance notice that their content was in violation of their agreement. Then they only severed the agreement once criminal activities were tied to the platforms content. CEO's aren't going to bat an eye at this any more than they are concerned that YouTube removed copyrighted content.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > Amazon gave them 7 weeks of advance notice that their content was in violation of their agreement. Not the same thing as giving them notice of intent to terminate the contract. If Amazon said "some of your content is in violation, but let's work together to improve your moderation, you have nothing to worry about" that does not give Amazon the right to turn around and terminate them after only 24 hours notice.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Parler was in breech. Amazon could have stopped providing service at any point where Parler was knowingly hosting content that violated their contract. The fact that they continued providing service was a curtesy, not an obligation. For most smaller/ non connected entities they'd have been dropped much much sooner, and likely without notice.
      - lliamander 6y ago
        I believe these assertions are contested by Parler. It will be very interesting to see how the case goes.
ogre_codes 6y ago
Quite the opposite. Everything Amazon did was within the terms of their contract. Amazon could have terminated the agreement sooner. Since Amazon waited until after it was abundantly clear that harmful content was being posted on Parler, its going to be quite difficult for Parler to find much sympathy in any court.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > Everything Amazon did was within the terms of their contract. Everything except for 30 days notice. Oops.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    And opportunity to cure.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Parler was in breech. They were notified and given nearly 2 months to remedy.
    - pixl97 6y ago
      >Amazon started investigating violent threats on Parler in November and reported more than 100 pieces of content over the next seven weeks, but the site never took action, according to one executive.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Amazon gave them 7 weeks notice that they were violating the contract. Once Parler breeched the contract, Amazon no longer had an obligation to them. The fact that they continued operating without making significant efforts to get into compliance makes it pretty unlikely the court will be sympathetic.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  Just to play the Devil's advocate here: Now, Amazon had given notice to Parler that they want some moderation that is automated... What are the specs for that? What would satisfy Amazon? Can it be delivered within that timeframe setting aside whatever else is going on? These are real concerns for a company going forward. I guess many do not state because of the political ramifications of this particular case, but it will be discussed in board rooms. as an example, i had a bad experience once with a HOA while living in my own home; the next home i bought, i ensured that i did not have to deal with the HOA.

foolinaround 6y ago

i see a bunch of replies - stating that Amazon followed the contract. Regardless, even if 30 days notice is given to a business to change something, it simply might not be enough. So, the risk as I stated, still stands.