11 ms·

IANAL and I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusion, but I do think the case is more interesting than just AWS booting a malicious customer (with regards t

IANAL and I'm not saying I disagree with your conclusion, but I do think the case is more interesting than just AWS booting a malicious customer (with regards to their TOS). > there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it's only technically correct. They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that's set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter's content with respect to AWS' ToS? It's not like twitter just signed up for an AWS account like the rest of us do. There was a bidding and negotiation process. Sales teams on both sides worked on that contract. I don't think it's so unreasonable to take the existence of that contract as evidence that AWS reviewed twitter's content and deemed it acceptable content. Why does this matter? Legally, I don't think it does. I don't see any good reason why AWS shouldn't be allowed to selectively enforce their ToS. But Parler sought to compete directly with twitter. At the time of account termination, they were growing at a rate of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users per day, and in a way where it's not hard to imagine it being zero-sum (twitter users terminating their accounts and going to parler). I don't think the case would succeed, but I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser Parler made this specific allegation under the Sherman Act. It was rejected because "Parler...proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation. AWS, in contrast...submitted sworn testimony disputing Parler’s allegations." That said, Parler "has not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery," so maybe there's a bombshell text somewhere.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > Parler made this specific allegation under the Sherman Act. Well, tried to. They didn't do a good job of it at all. What they actually alleged (relevant towards this theory) was: * There was set to a mass exodus of Twitter users to Parler * AWS also hosts Twitter ... They didn't even allege that AWS conspire with Twitter. Sure, they don't have any evidence of that conspiracy without discovery, but they didn't even allege a fact that could be proven with discovery. These two facts are supposed to sustain the theory that AWS had no other reason to kick off Parler other than a conspiracy to keep Twitter the dominant platform. Despite the complaint itself opening up by alleging that AWS kicked off Parler because Parler espouses conservative views and later conceding that Parler knew that its content violated AWS's terms, albeit Parler was attempting to rectify it. There's another issue with Parler's claims that I haven't seen anyone else bring up: if Parler was expecting the influx of Twitter users as a result of Twitter banning Trump, how would kicking off Parler keep these users on Twitter or otherwise buttress Twitter's dominance?
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    > These two facts... No, the second of those is not a fact. Twitter does use AWS for some things, but the actual service is not hosted on AWS. And that's pretty much the end of it. As the judge rightly points out in today's filing, all of Parler's talk about Twitter is just a bunch of hot air. That could change if this lawsuit proceeds, and discovery reveals evidence of conspiracy. But that is all highly speculative at this point, and I would not be surprised if a company as lawyered up as Amazon has taken steps to make it all but impossible for such a thing to occur.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      For clarification: I'm detailing what Parler alleged as a fact (see ¶15 of the original Complaint for where Parler alleges this). My point is that if Parler's alleged facts are all true (which is not the same as saying they're all true!), that does not sustain its antitrust claims.
      - mumblemumble 6y ago
        All fair, but I think it still bears calling out. Repeating a claim that's well-known to be bunk, and using the unqualified word "fact" to describe it, will sow a lot of confusion. Especially when discussing a case that already rests at the center of a great big gyre of misinformation and misconception.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      Banks were just as well lawyered up and that didn't prevent damning communications in 2008. This case may not succeed but I can see it being re-used as part of a larger antitrust lawsuit. Though I doubt a democrat DOJ will actively drive such a lawsuit against big tech.
jcranmer 6y ago
> Why does this matter? Legally, I don't think it does. I don't see any good reason why AWS shouldn't be allowed to selectively enforce their ToS. Well, first off, it's not necessarily the case that AWS's contract with Twitter is the same as AWS's contract with Parler. But more importantly, whether or not a company chooses to enforce violations of contracts with third parties has no bearing on whether it can enforce violation of contract against you. The best you can argue is I think equitable estoppel: by not enforcing it on others, maybe they gave you a reasonable impression that your conduct wasn't violating. But AWS has a clause that says effectively "we don't waive any rights by not enforcing terms against you", and furthermore, AWS and Parler were already in communication about Parler's issues complying with the terms, which destroys any equitable estoppel claim.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Moreover, as I'm fond of pointing out: Amazon bounces people off AWS all the time, just like every hosting provider; abuse is a basic fact of life in hosting. Amazon will have no trouble establishing that what it did with Parler is routine, and that nobody could reasonably have an expectation that the AUP was merely performative.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    For technology abuse (e.g. spamming, botnets, etc), legal reasons (cp, pii dumps, etc), or for not liking the content being hosted? What happened to Parler is not routine when you exclude all of the cases of blatant abuse of the service.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Yes it is. It's right there in the AWS AUP. "Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable". Other providers have even stricter AUPs, for instance against otherwise-lawful pornographic content.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it’s only technically correct. This is one of the cases where technically correct is actually the best kind of correct, because it goes directly to Parler’s claim that Twitter is a similar situated entity hosted on AWS being treated differently. > They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that’s set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter’s content with respect to AWS’ ToS? Um, no? (1) Because if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone else. Bringing someone on on those terms simply means you have the same trust as you’d extend to a random member of the public that they won’t break your TOS. (2) Since they just “negotiated a fat contract”, they may or may not even be under the same TOS as are offered to people who just want to pick up hosting without negotiation. Which would be even farther from an endorsement of their content adhering to the general TOS. > I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser. Its possible that they could do so in the abstract, but they have made an argument along those lines, and its pretty clear that that concrete argument, as opposed to any hypothetical one they could have made, was, in the context of the particular evidence they’ve profferred to support it, unconvincing to the judge.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone els Twitter literally provides a soapbox for the leadership of Iran to call for the total destruction of Israel. It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen. AWS cancelling Parler is purely about domestic US politics.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen. Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence during that summer. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted. The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie. Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Literally only issue here is that you dont care about left wing radicals being censored, which is fine, but then you pretend it does not happen which is not fine.
ABeeSea 6y ago
AWS also a a very large contract with another Twitter competitor: Pinterest
- gbear605 6y ago
  In what way is Pinterest a Twitter competitor?
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    Social media companies that compete for engagement (eye ball time) to sell to advertisers.
    - aneemzic 6y ago
      I don't buy this argument at all. That's such a broad definition. By that logic every single business that sells any type of product or service is a competitor since they all compete for consumers money.
manicdee 6y ago
Twitter and Parler are not comparable offerings. The only similarity is being in the vague space of “social media” or “microblogging”. After that there is a major divergence between the type of content they host, moderation processes, and documented outcomes of moderation (eg: people espousing left-wing views being banned from Parler) that show the real difference between the two products and why one was booted and the other wasn’t.
onion2k 6y ago
I don't think it's so unreasonable to take the existence of that contract as evidence that AWS reviewed twitter's content and deemed it acceptable content. Twitter content isn't on AWS now though, and there's no way to know what Twitter has agreed to remove in the move over to AWS, so essentially this argument says that Parler should be allowed to stay on AWS because it's possible that AWS might host similar content in the future. That argument obviously doesn't work. A business can't be judged on what might happen in the future.
snowwrestler 6y ago
I’m not a lawyer either but I’ve dealt with AUP enforcement. You don’t have to be perfect at content moderation. You do, however, need to be very responsive to the hosting provider. If they contact you about a piece of content in violation of the AUP, you better take it down ASAP. Ultimately I think that is the core distinction between Parler and Twitter. Twitter has a professional moderation program that is responsive; Parler was not responsive, according to Amazon (and I’m sure they have the receipts).
jmcqk6 6y ago
>At the time of account termination, they were growing at a rate of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users per day [citation required] This is an absurd claim.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser Parler made this specific allegation under the Sherman Act. It was rejected because "Parler...proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation. AWS, in contrast...submitted sworn testimony disputing Parler’s allegations." That said, Parler "has not yet had an opportunity to conduct discovery," so maybe there's a bombshell text somewhere.

jcranmer 6y ago
> Parler made this specific allegation under the Sherman Act. Well, tried to. They didn't do a good job of it at all. What they actually alleged (relevant towards this theory) was: * There was set to a mass exodus of Twitter users to Parler * AWS also hosts Twitter ... They didn't even allege that AWS conspire with Twitter. Sure, they don't have any evidence of that conspiracy without discovery, but they didn't even allege a fact that could be proven with discovery. These two facts are supposed to sustain the theory that AWS had no other reason to kick off Parler other than a conspiracy to keep Twitter the dominant platform. Despite the complaint itself opening up by alleging that AWS kicked off Parler because Parler espouses conservative views and later conceding that Parler knew that its content violated AWS's terms, albeit Parler was attempting to rectify it. There's another issue with Parler's claims that I haven't seen anyone else bring up: if Parler was expecting the influx of Twitter users as a result of Twitter banning Trump, how would kicking off Parler keep these users on Twitter or otherwise buttress Twitter's dominance?
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  > These two facts... No, the second of those is not a fact. Twitter does use AWS for some things, but the actual service is not hosted on AWS. And that's pretty much the end of it. As the judge rightly points out in today's filing, all of Parler's talk about Twitter is just a bunch of hot air. That could change if this lawsuit proceeds, and discovery reveals evidence of conspiracy. But that is all highly speculative at this point, and I would not be surprised if a company as lawyered up as Amazon has taken steps to make it all but impossible for such a thing to occur.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    For clarification: I'm detailing what Parler alleged as a fact (see ¶15 of the original Complaint for where Parler alleges this). My point is that if Parler's alleged facts are all true (which is not the same as saying they're all true!), that does not sustain its antitrust claims.
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      All fair, but I think it still bears calling out. Repeating a claim that's well-known to be bunk, and using the unqualified word "fact" to describe it, will sow a lot of confusion. Especially when discussing a case that already rests at the center of a great big gyre of misinformation and misconception.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    Banks were just as well lawyered up and that didn't prevent damning communications in 2008. This case may not succeed but I can see it being re-used as part of a larger antitrust lawsuit. Though I doubt a democrat DOJ will actively drive such a lawsuit against big tech.

jcranmer 6y ago

> Why does this matter? Legally, I don't think it does. I don't see any good reason why AWS shouldn't be allowed to selectively enforce their ToS. Well, first off, it's not necessarily the case that AWS's contract with Twitter is the same as AWS's contract with Parler. But more importantly, whether or not a company chooses to enforce violations of contracts with third parties has no bearing on whether it can enforce violation of contract against you. The best you can argue is I think equitable estoppel: by not enforcing it on others, maybe they gave you a reasonable impression that your conduct wasn't violating. But AWS has a clause that says effectively "we don't waive any rights by not enforcing terms against you", and furthermore, AWS and Parler were already in communication about Parler's issues complying with the terms, which destroys any equitable estoppel claim.

tptacek 6y ago
Moreover, as I'm fond of pointing out: Amazon bounces people off AWS all the time, just like every hosting provider; abuse is a basic fact of life in hosting. Amazon will have no trouble establishing that what it did with Parler is routine, and that nobody could reasonably have an expectation that the AUP was merely performative.
- kortilla 6y ago
  For technology abuse (e.g. spamming, botnets, etc), legal reasons (cp, pii dumps, etc), or for not liking the content being hosted? What happened to Parler is not routine when you exclude all of the cases of blatant abuse of the service.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Yes it is. It's right there in the AWS AUP. "Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy, or otherwise objectionable". Other providers have even stricter AUPs, for instance against otherwise-lawful pornographic content.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> This is funny (as in, LOL funny) to point out because it makes parler seem completely inept, but it’s only technically correct. This is one of the cases where technically correct is actually the best kind of correct, because it goes directly to Parler’s claim that Twitter is a similar situated entity hosted on AWS being treated differently. > They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that’s set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter’s content with respect to AWS’ ToS? Um, no? (1) Because if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone else. Bringing someone on on those terms simply means you have the same trust as you’d extend to a random member of the public that they won’t break your TOS. (2) Since they just “negotiated a fat contract”, they may or may not even be under the same TOS as are offered to people who just want to pick up hosting without negotiation. Which would be even farther from an endorsement of their content adhering to the general TOS. > I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser. Its possible that they could do so in the abstract, but they have made an argument along those lines, and its pretty clear that that concrete argument, as opposed to any hypothetical one they could have made, was, in the context of the particular evidence they’ve profferred to support it, unconvincing to the judge.

goatinaboat 6y ago
if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone els Twitter literally provides a soapbox for the leadership of Iran to call for the total destruction of Israel. It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen. AWS cancelling Parler is purely about domestic US politics.
- watwut 6y ago
  > It provided the platform for organising the summer of rioting the US has just seen. Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence during that summer. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted. The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie. Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Literally only issue here is that you dont care about left wing radicals being censored, which is fine, but then you pretend it does not happen which is not fine.

ABeeSea 6y ago

AWS also a a very large contract with another Twitter competitor: Pinterest

gbear605 6y ago
In what way is Pinterest a Twitter competitor?
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  Social media companies that compete for engagement (eye ball time) to sell to advertisers.
  - aneemzic 6y ago
    I don't buy this argument at all. That's such a broad definition. By that logic every single business that sells any type of product or service is a competitor since they all compete for consumers money.

manicdee 6y ago

Twitter and Parler are not comparable offerings. The only similarity is being in the vague space of “social media” or “microblogging”. After that there is a major divergence between the type of content they host, moderation processes, and documented outcomes of moderation (eg: people espousing left-wing views being banned from Parler) that show the real difference between the two products and why one was booted and the other wasn’t.

onion2k 6y ago

I don't think it's so unreasonable to take the existence of that contract as evidence that AWS reviewed twitter's content and deemed it acceptable content. Twitter content isn't on AWS now though, and there's no way to know what Twitter has agreed to remove in the move over to AWS, so essentially this argument says that Parler should be allowed to stay on AWS because it's possible that AWS might host similar content in the future. That argument obviously doesn't work. A business can't be judged on what might happen in the future.

snowwrestler 6y ago

I’m not a lawyer either but I’ve dealt with AUP enforcement. You don’t have to be perfect at content moderation. You do, however, need to be very responsive to the hosting provider. If they contact you about a piece of content in violation of the AUP, you better take it down ASAP. Ultimately I think that is the core distinction between Parler and Twitter. Twitter has a professional moderation program that is responsive; Parler was not responsive, according to Amazon (and I’m sure they have the receipts).

jmcqk6 6y ago

>At the time of account termination, they were growing at a rate of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of users per day [citation required] This is an absurd claim.