3 ms·
> 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 pret
by 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 agoFor 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 agoAll 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 agoBanks 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.