4 ms·

There has been no ruling by the court on the merits of the case. A TRO is simply a request for injunctive relief, asking the court to compel AWS to reinstate se

There has been no ruling by the court on the merits of the case. A TRO is simply a request for injunctive relief, asking the court to compel AWS to reinstate services pending litigation. -- > Packinghan v North Carolina (2017) - Access to social media and digital infrastructure cannot be prohibited by the state. Amazon isn't the state. - Correct. My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the industry.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> There has been no ruling by the court on the merits of the case. Correct, but as part of the TRO process, the court is asked to view the merits of the case given what it knows, as part of the determination of granting a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The courts opinion, quite plainly, is that Parler is unlikely to succeed on the merits: > In short, Parler has proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation. > Parler has not denied that at the time AWS invoked its termination or suspension rights under Sections 4, 6 and 7, Parler was in violation of the Agreement and the AUP. > Parler has failed to allege basic facts that would support several elements of this claim. Most fatally, as discussed above, it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS’s actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means. > IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. This argument will fail, for reasons I outlined in a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25781560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25781560. To briefly reiterate: Marsh v. Alabama concerned a privately owned town using state force (e.g. police) to enforce trespassing law. But nothing about those rulings prevents the town from putting up a fence and a gate, and banning people from re-entering. Twitter (and AWS) have a fence and a gate, and a guard who checks your ID anytime you try to enter the area.
Someone1234 6y ago
> My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the industry. Seems like the core of your argument is that private companies could be subject to constitutional protections if they got too big enough/powerful. Even ignoring that you've essentially invented a new interpretation of US law/ignored all existing precedent, the fact that AWS (32% market share) isn't a monopoly by either common definition or as defined by federal law completely undercuts even such a novel legal theory. So you're on the outskirts of both law and basic facts here.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  Up and down this thread people are mixing questionable legal ingredients in hopes of finding a recipe that makes sense.
- mercurialshark 6y ago
  There are separate issues. i) Antitrust - AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel. A party does not need to have majority market share to function in coordination with other dominate players in order to form a cartel that can manipulate the market. There's case law concerning market manipulation, access to industry and consumer protection issues where parties didn't need to directly coordinate to be considered a cartel. ii) Practical dependence on service providers for access to critical digital infrastructure. To what extent do we depend on particular services for participation in society and the marketplace will influence the analysis. At what point does a data service provider begin to resemble a common carrier (i.e. cable, phone or internet provider) and in what context would common carrier laws apply? iii) Contract issues - A few of the foreseeable issues include sufficient notice, contract breach, degree of harm (irreparable harm?), performance obligations.
  - tptacek 6y ago
tw04 6y ago
>- Correct. My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the industry. How on earth is Amazon kicking them off "monopolistic behavior"? There are literally thousands of hosting providers in just about every country on this planet. Parler was quick to point out none of their infrastructure is in any way tied to Amazon.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "monopolistic behavior" is behavior that leverages a company's dominant position in the market to hurt its competition. The contrary is the case here. If anything, AWS is helping its competition by giving them Parler's users.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> There has been no ruling by the court on the merits of the case. Correct, but as part of the TRO process, the court is asked to view the merits of the case given what it knows, as part of the determination of granting a preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. The courts opinion, quite plainly, is that Parler is unlikely to succeed on the merits: > In short, Parler has proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation in support of a Sherman Act violation. > Parler has not denied that at the time AWS invoked its termination or suspension rights under Sections 4, 6 and 7, Parler was in violation of the Agreement and the AUP. > Parler has failed to allege basic facts that would support several elements of this claim. Most fatally, as discussed above, it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS’s actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means. > IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. This argument will fail, for reasons I outlined in a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25781560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25781560. To briefly reiterate: Marsh v. Alabama concerned a privately owned town using state force (e.g. police) to enforce trespassing law. But nothing about those rulings prevents the town from putting up a fence and a gate, and banning people from re-entering. Twitter (and AWS) have a fence and a gate, and a guard who checks your ID anytime you try to enter the area.

Someone1234 6y ago

> My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the industry. Seems like the core of your argument is that private companies could be subject to constitutional protections if they got too big enough/powerful. Even ignoring that you've essentially invented a new interpretation of US law/ignored all existing precedent, the fact that AWS (32% market share) isn't a monopoly by either common definition or as defined by federal law completely undercuts even such a novel legal theory. So you're on the outskirts of both law and basic facts here.

x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
Up and down this thread people are mixing questionable legal ingredients in hopes of finding a recipe that makes sense.
mercurialshark 6y ago
There are separate issues. i) Antitrust - AWS's behavior may be viewed as an antitrust issue, acting in conjunction with a cartel. A party does not need to have majority market share to function in coordination with other dominate players in order to form a cartel that can manipulate the market. There's case law concerning market manipulation, access to industry and consumer protection issues where parties didn't need to directly coordinate to be considered a cartel. ii) Practical dependence on service providers for access to critical digital infrastructure. To what extent do we depend on particular services for participation in society and the marketplace will influence the analysis. At what point does a data service provider begin to resemble a common carrier (i.e. cable, phone or internet provider) and in what context would common carrier laws apply? iii) Contract issues - A few of the foreseeable issues include sufficient notice, contract breach, degree of harm (irreparable harm?), performance obligations.
- tptacek 6y ago

tw04 6y ago

>- Correct. My point is that Packinghan, viewed in combination with Marsh, provides an interesting lens for issues concerning potentially monopolistic behavior. IF data storage and/or social media can be viewed as critical digital infrastructure, an argument can and will likely be made that the services are tantamount to a digital company owned town. We'll see! Either way it's very interesting and highly relevant to the industry. How on earth is Amazon kicking them off "monopolistic behavior"? There are literally thousands of hosting providers in just about every country on this planet. Parler was quick to point out none of their infrastructure is in any way tied to Amazon.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"monopolistic behavior" is behavior that leverages a company's dominant position in the market to hurt its competition. The contrary is the case here. If anything, AWS is helping its competition by giving them Parler's users.