5 ms·

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read the AWS response. Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far wo

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I read the AWS response. Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far worse). Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok.

dralley 6y ago
>Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. In this case, they pointed to it weeks prior and it wasn't removed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  Amazon claims this, and Parler disputes that this was brought to their attention. (it's not easy to ramp up moderation overnight -- and FB/Twitter have consistently had far worse, even with far larger moderation teams.)
  - rodone 6y ago
    Doing just easy things isn't much of a business model.
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      How many years did Twitter exist before hiring big teams of moderators?
  - 8note 6y ago
    Removing the specific examples included in the complaint can't be that hard though. One person should be able to do it in a day or two
    - skynet-9000 6y ago
      I agree, which makes Parler's dispute over Amazon's claimed timeline far more plausible to me.
watwut 6y ago
> Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. That is not what happened however. That is quite manipulative framing spread by Parler. What happened was that Amazon itself identified those few dozen posts and asked Parler to remove them. Parler did not done that and claimed it is difficult for them. Amazon is not Parlers competitor. Amazon gave Parler plenty of time to remove those posts. The issue was that Parler was unwilling to do so, because they whole thing was to be safe place of exactly that sort of comments. Twitter does not have too good moderation, but they are not refusing to take down inciting posts on principle. They did regularly took down accounts and tweets in the past. There is difference between not doing it perfectly and refusing to even try.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  This may be true. It wouldn't surprise me if Parler said "no" when asked to take them down, but I didn't see that even in Amazon's court filing. However, I don't think Amazon should interfere in customers' businesses and harm the relationship between customers and third parties (the users). What if Amazon had said, "Netflix, we find the Cuties movie offensive. We have shut you off and will delete all of your data within 24 hours."
  - watwut 6y ago
    > didn't see that even in Amazon's court filing. That is exactly what is in Amazons court response. You either did not read it or are lying.
throwaway19937 6y ago
> Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far worse). https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png is a Parler post with a racial slur and 25k upvotes. Twitter has its issues but an equivalent comment isn't going to survive two days. The court documents from their case against Amazon are available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a.... Amazon's declarations contain other examples of content that wouldn't survive on Twitter. > Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. According to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/13/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/13/parler-llc-... it took several months of moderation problems before AWS dropped Parler as a client. If Parler had done more active moderation and tried harder to keep Amazon happy they'd still be hosted on AWS.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  Yeah, that's a disgusting comment and it's far worse that it received upvotes if that screenshot is accurate. Nevertheless, it is legal free speech, even if it makes me very angry.
  - CathedralBorrow 6y ago
    Legal free speech does not mean that a private company is obligated to host it.

dralley 6y ago

>Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. In this case, they pointed to it weeks prior and it wasn't removed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
skynet-9000 6y ago
Amazon claims this, and Parler disputes that this was brought to their attention. (it's not easy to ramp up moderation overnight -- and FB/Twitter have consistently had far worse, even with far larger moderation teams.)
- rodone 6y ago
  Doing just easy things isn't much of a business model.
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    How many years did Twitter exist before hiring big teams of moderators?
- 8note 6y ago
  Removing the specific examples included in the complaint can't be that hard though. One person should be able to do it in a day or two
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    I agree, which makes Parler's dispute over Amazon's claimed timeline far more plausible to me.

watwut 6y ago

> Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. That is not what happened however. That is quite manipulative framing spread by Parler. What happened was that Amazon itself identified those few dozen posts and asked Parler to remove them. Parler did not done that and claimed it is difficult for them. Amazon is not Parlers competitor. Amazon gave Parler plenty of time to remove those posts. The issue was that Parler was unwilling to do so, because they whole thing was to be safe place of exactly that sort of comments. Twitter does not have too good moderation, but they are not refusing to take down inciting posts on principle. They did regularly took down accounts and tweets in the past. There is difference between not doing it perfectly and refusing to even try.

skynet-9000 6y ago
This may be true. It wouldn't surprise me if Parler said "no" when asked to take them down, but I didn't see that even in Amazon's court filing. However, I don't think Amazon should interfere in customers' businesses and harm the relationship between customers and third parties (the users). What if Amazon had said, "Netflix, we find the Cuties movie offensive. We have shut you off and will delete all of your data within 24 hours."
- watwut 6y ago
  > didn't see that even in Amazon's court filing. That is exactly what is in Amazons court response. You either did not read it or are lying.

throwaway19937 6y ago

> Nothing there seemed to be much worse than I've seen on Twitter (actually, Twitter stuff was far worse). https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png https://i.redd.it/om90nwadqca61.png is a Parler post with a racial slur and 25k upvotes. Twitter has its issues but an equivalent comment isn't going to survive two days. The court documents from their case against Amazon are available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/parler-llc-v-a.... Amazon's declarations contain other examples of content that wouldn't survive on Twitter. > Regardless, this is besides the point: all a competitor has to do is post some garbage and point to it, and boom, you're dead. That's not ok. According to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/13/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/13/parler-llc-... it took several months of moderation problems before AWS dropped Parler as a client. If Parler had done more active moderation and tried harder to keep Amazon happy they'd still be hosted on AWS.

skynet-9000 6y ago
Yeah, that's a disgusting comment and it's far worse that it received upvotes if that screenshot is accurate. Nevertheless, it is legal free speech, even if it makes me very angry.
- CathedralBorrow 6y ago
  Legal free speech does not mean that a private company is obligated to host it.