5 ms·

AWS drew attention to the violation of the TOS in mid November and provided extensive documentation of the kind of content they regarded as unacceptable in mid

by chalst 6y ago

AWS drew attention to the violation of the TOS in mid November and provided extensive documentation of the kind of content they regarded as unacceptable in mid December [1]. You seem unaware of the most basic facts of the case. 1: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-warned-parler-for-months-about-more-than-100-violent-threats/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/filing-amazon-wa...

roenxi 6y ago
I am unaware, I'm not planning on reading the case details until after a month or two has passed. Best to get a little hindsight. That is an interesting exhibit, thanks. It has swayed me on the time-frame, I'm not sure it changes my basic view - the AWS rep is talking about literally 3 posts in mid November, one of which seems to have 450 views in 5 days if the eye icon means what I think. From politely raising 3 horrible posts to extinguishing a business in a month and a half still leaves me questioning if the TOS was enforced politically.
- zaphar 6y ago
  Let's game plan for a moment. You are a hosting provider. One of your customers is violating your TOS and posting content that is objectionable. They are potentially big and growing customer so you are giving them time to respond while you try to weight the cost and benefit of enforcement at this time. While you are working though this the customer is used as a platform to organize an attack on the government of the the country you are based in. 5 people died as a result and there is every indication that if the attack had gone the way the attackers wanted it to that more would be dead including the Vice President of the United States. Suddenly the cost calculation changes. It has become evident over the several months of negotiation that the customer has 0 intention of coming into compliance. The speech they are hosting has already resulted in a very large and very visible terrorist act. They have ceased to be profit center and become a liability. What do you do?
  - roenxi 6y ago
    What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. I do suspect AWS was thinking that - which is why I'm not ruling out political bias. Even if that interpretation of the Capitol riot somehow, miraculously, turns out to be correct there hasn't been time to prove it with evidence. But, as chalst argues, there are interpretations where they were acting reasonably.
    - TomSwirly 6y ago
      > What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. "This site we host was just used to plan a violent revolution. It's more trouble than it's worth, let's dump them." Is this what you mean by "bias"?
      - roenxi 6y ago
        No, the bias is assuming that is true and acting on it without sufficient evidence.
        zaphar 6y ago
        What do you consider sufficient evidence here? There were multiple documented posts on Parler that have been documented running up to the events on Jan 6'th that show people organizing and preparing for it. The evidence was present before the decision by AWS. I know folks who were collecting that events weeks before the event and predicting violence based on what they were seeing. The evidence for it is only increasing now but there more than sufficient evidence on the day of the event to indicate that Parler was going to be a liability to anyone hosting them. Bias in this case works both ways. It makes some ignore the evidence that was already present. Businesses aren't courts that need to prove guilt. This was about getting rid of a high risk client who had made clear that they will not be changing their high risk behavior. There is no reason AWS needs to share in that risk after giving them the opportunity to change.
        roenxi 6y ago
- chalst 6y ago
  The most likely explanation for Amazon changing its approach is that the issue was taken over from risk-averse managers who hoped Parler would do the right thing by closure-hungry executives who were not willing to wait and were willing to risk a lawsuit and conservative backlash. The more interesting question is why Parler were willing to risk being shut down in this way. I see two possibilities: either they did not have a realistic understanding of their situation, or they preferred to have Amazon pull the plug rather than being responsible for unpopular moderation of their users.
- aegis4244 6y ago
  Why is it "being enforced politically" or not important ? You are worried about it being "fair" ? Some humans who run a biz serving other humans stood up and announced "you and you camp Auschwitz shirt friends are odious, we don't want that stank on us". Is it political ? Maybe. Or maybe they are simply decent humans calling out some pieces of shit. Other times and places in history people haven't stood up to the evil. In some, they did. Amazon is fighting the good fight here. Facebook has been an open collaborator. Amazon drew a line in the sand and said " we are on this side, hope you join us" Amazon was late, but ended up on the right side of history. Evil needs to be told that the rest of us think they are wrong. They can't figure it out on their own.

by chalst 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago

I am unaware, I'm not planning on reading the case details until after a month or two has passed. Best to get a little hindsight. That is an interesting exhibit, thanks. It has swayed me on the time-frame, I'm not sure it changes my basic view - the AWS rep is talking about literally 3 posts in mid November, one of which seems to have 450 views in 5 days if the eye icon means what I think. From politely raising 3 horrible posts to extinguishing a business in a month and a half still leaves me questioning if the TOS was enforced politically.

zaphar 6y ago
Let's game plan for a moment. You are a hosting provider. One of your customers is violating your TOS and posting content that is objectionable. They are potentially big and growing customer so you are giving them time to respond while you try to weight the cost and benefit of enforcement at this time. While you are working though this the customer is used as a platform to organize an attack on the government of the the country you are based in. 5 people died as a result and there is every indication that if the attack had gone the way the attackers wanted it to that more would be dead including the Vice President of the United States. Suddenly the cost calculation changes. It has become evident over the several months of negotiation that the customer has 0 intention of coming into compliance. The speech they are hosting has already resulted in a very large and very visible terrorist act. They have ceased to be profit center and become a liability. What do you do?
- roenxi 6y ago
  What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. I do suspect AWS was thinking that - which is why I'm not ruling out political bias. Even if that interpretation of the Capitol riot somehow, miraculously, turns out to be correct there hasn't been time to prove it with evidence. But, as chalst argues, there are interpretations where they were acting reasonably.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    > What you are presenting is the worldview of someone who is biased. "This site we host was just used to plan a violent revolution. It's more trouble than it's worth, let's dump them." Is this what you mean by "bias"?
    - roenxi 6y ago
      No, the bias is assuming that is true and acting on it without sufficient evidence.
      - zaphar 6y ago
        What do you consider sufficient evidence here? There were multiple documented posts on Parler that have been documented running up to the events on Jan 6'th that show people organizing and preparing for it. The evidence was present before the decision by AWS. I know folks who were collecting that events weeks before the event and predicting violence based on what they were seeing. The evidence for it is only increasing now but there more than sufficient evidence on the day of the event to indicate that Parler was going to be a liability to anyone hosting them. Bias in this case works both ways. It makes some ignore the evidence that was already present. Businesses aren't courts that need to prove guilt. This was about getting rid of a high risk client who had made clear that they will not be changing their high risk behavior. There is no reason AWS needs to share in that risk after giving them the opportunity to change.
        roenxi 6y ago
chalst 6y ago
The most likely explanation for Amazon changing its approach is that the issue was taken over from risk-averse managers who hoped Parler would do the right thing by closure-hungry executives who were not willing to wait and were willing to risk a lawsuit and conservative backlash. The more interesting question is why Parler were willing to risk being shut down in this way. I see two possibilities: either they did not have a realistic understanding of their situation, or they preferred to have Amazon pull the plug rather than being responsible for unpopular moderation of their users.
aegis4244 6y ago
Why is it "being enforced politically" or not important ? You are worried about it being "fair" ? Some humans who run a biz serving other humans stood up and announced "you and you camp Auschwitz shirt friends are odious, we don't want that stank on us". Is it political ? Maybe. Or maybe they are simply decent humans calling out some pieces of shit. Other times and places in history people haven't stood up to the evil. In some, they did. Amazon is fighting the good fight here. Facebook has been an open collaborator. Amazon drew a line in the sand and said " we are on this side, hope you join us" Amazon was late, but ended up on the right side of history. Evil needs to be told that the rest of us think they are wrong. They can't figure it out on their own.