4 ms·
>To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believe that Amazon's lawyers are so stupid that they set out a TOS for the world's largest hosting provider that
by barbacoa 6y ago
>To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believe that Amazon's lawyers are so stupid that they set out a TOS for the world's largest hosting provider that didn't give AWS the right to boot customers, which is something AWS --- really, every hosting provider --- has to do all the time.
They haven't released the actual contract itself but from what Parler said in their lawsuit, they had a clause in their contract that if AWS wanted to terminate their contract with cause, AWS would have to give Parler 30 days notice to cure the contract breach or get booted. AWS did not do this instead giving them 24 hours.
Edit:
Reading AWS terms does appear to give them the right to terminate. not ashamed to be proven wrong.
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
- zaltekk 6y agoThe contract is the standard Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy to which it refers. As mentioned above, they don’t have to give you 30 days before suspending for violating the AUP.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- TylerE 6y agoAmazon had been warning parlor about their content and lack of moderation for months.
- bleah1000 6y agoThat is not what the contract says (at least from the current lawsuit). Amazon has to formally give a notice that gives them 30 days. Amazon telling Parler that they are violating is not in accordance what most people believe the contract says. Now it's possible that the contract has some other wording, or that Amazon will argue that they didn't need to be as formal as Parler thinks. But as this goes through the courts, we will find out more.
- tptacek 6y agoYou don't have to guess about this. The judge cites the AWS terms in the ruling. AWS was not required to give any notice under the circumstances.