5 ms·

That was a clearly partisan act Asking a customer to stick to the rules they agreed to and eventually ending the business relationship when the customer choose

by pvg 6y ago

That was a clearly partisan act Asking a customer to stick to the rules they agreed to and eventually ending the business relationship when the customer chooses not to is hardly a 'partisan act'. Parler could have just done what AWS asked (even temporarily, to keep themselves online while looking for alternatives). They didn't.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnHonestComment 6y ago
What, specifically, did AWS ask them to do that they could have done? From outside appearances, it seems they were given non-specific demands to remedy problems that Twitter has in greater magnitude (eg, Twitter being sued for their hosting of child porn, unremedied). Picking and choosing how to enforce rules based on political sentiments is a “partisan act”.
someguydave 6y ago
AWS also did not give Parler any time to cure their problems after making it clear that they wanted to terminate the contract for problematic content.
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  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.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Not only that, but Parler ran directly afoul of contract provisions they agreed to that specifically gave AWS the right to terminate without notice. People making these arguments about Parler's relationship with AWS don't seem to have actually read the AWS terms.
  - skynet-9000 6y ago
    According to Amazon. Parler has vociferously disputed this.
    - throwaway19937 6y ago
      Parler isn't disputing that abusive content was posted. Their claim is for breach of contract, antitrust, and torturous interference. The following is an excerpt from https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/34/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/34/parler-llc-... the order denying the injunction. "AWS has submitted to the Court multiple representative examples, reflecting content posted on Parler during this period, that AWS claims violated the terms of the AUP and the parties’ Agreement. ... Parler has not denied that these posts are abusive or that they violate the Acceptable Use Policy. "
    - tptacek 6y ago
      You can read 100 different takedowns of Parler's arguments, but they're all mooted by the fact that Parler was self-evidently hosting material that contravened the AWS term allowing them to be cut off without notice. Parler has no case here. Broken record: I'm still surprised so many people here have so little exposure to the hosting business to believe that there's actually an inviolate right to due process in keeping your stuff hosted somewhere. Hosting providers have to kick users off all the time. It is a basic fact of life in hosting: people abuse stuff. Parler wasn't running a phishing scam, spamming, or DDoS'ing people, but that's not my point; my point is: if you're a hosting provider, your contracts basically have to give you the right to boot people at your discretion. The idea that anyone thought AWS's might not? Baffling.
jariel 6y ago
ISIS had Twitter accounts in which they showed beheadings and other things [1], largely as a recruiting tool in order to bring young Western Men to Syria to commit atrocities. "The Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) continues to use social media as an essential element of its campaign to motivate support. On Twitter, ISIS’ unique ability to leverage unaffiliated sympathizers that simply retweet propaganda has been identified as a primary mechanism in their success in motivating both recruitment and “lone wolf” attacks." [2] Apparently US authorities were happy to want Twitter to keep those accounts alive for some time as they could use them to track activity - the point remains it's wrong to the point of naive to believe that these decisions are not political. Facebook was enabling genocidal activity [3]. It's incredibly hypocritical to look at the historical activities of ISIS on Twitter, Facebook and all of these platforms, and then to hear about the 'political violence' caused by Parler. I don't like Parler, the hypocrisy is staggering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_media_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_media_by_the_Isl... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181405 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...
- pvg 6y ago
  You can definitely make the case that the large moderation infrastructure fielded by gigantic social media companies has been anywhere from imperfect to outright irresponsible. The difference is, there was actual moderation. Parler, a tiny (2 orders of magnitude tinier than Twitter) appears to have had no moderation infrastructure at all. Even the data in your first reference seems to suggest that Twitter alone has probably moderated more accounts than Parler has actually had.

by pvg 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnHonestComment 6y ago

What, specifically, did AWS ask them to do that they could have done? From outside appearances, it seems they were given non-specific demands to remedy problems that Twitter has in greater magnitude (eg, Twitter being sued for their hosting of child porn, unremedied). Picking and choosing how to enforce rules based on political sentiments is a “partisan act”.

someguydave 6y ago

AWS also did not give Parler any time to cure their problems after making it clear that they wanted to terminate the contract for problematic content.

throwaway19937 6y ago
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.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Not only that, but Parler ran directly afoul of contract provisions they agreed to that specifically gave AWS the right to terminate without notice. People making these arguments about Parler's relationship with AWS don't seem to have actually read the AWS terms.
- skynet-9000 6y ago
  According to Amazon. Parler has vociferously disputed this.
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    Parler isn't disputing that abusive content was posted. Their claim is for breach of contract, antitrust, and torturous interference. The following is an excerpt from https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/34/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/34/parler-llc-... the order denying the injunction. "AWS has submitted to the Court multiple representative examples, reflecting content posted on Parler during this period, that AWS claims violated the terms of the AUP and the parties’ Agreement. ... Parler has not denied that these posts are abusive or that they violate the Acceptable Use Policy. "
  - tptacek 6y ago
    You can read 100 different takedowns of Parler's arguments, but they're all mooted by the fact that Parler was self-evidently hosting material that contravened the AWS term allowing them to be cut off without notice. Parler has no case here. Broken record: I'm still surprised so many people here have so little exposure to the hosting business to believe that there's actually an inviolate right to due process in keeping your stuff hosted somewhere. Hosting providers have to kick users off all the time. It is a basic fact of life in hosting: people abuse stuff. Parler wasn't running a phishing scam, spamming, or DDoS'ing people, but that's not my point; my point is: if you're a hosting provider, your contracts basically have to give you the right to boot people at your discretion. The idea that anyone thought AWS's might not? Baffling.

jariel 6y ago

ISIS had Twitter accounts in which they showed beheadings and other things [1], largely as a recruiting tool in order to bring young Western Men to Syria to commit atrocities. "The Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) continues to use social media as an essential element of its campaign to motivate support. On Twitter, ISIS’ unique ability to leverage unaffiliated sympathizers that simply retweet propaganda has been identified as a primary mechanism in their success in motivating both recruitment and “lone wolf” attacks." [2] Apparently US authorities were happy to want Twitter to keep those accounts alive for some time as they could use them to track activity - the point remains it's wrong to the point of naive to believe that these decisions are not political. Facebook was enabling genocidal activity [3]. It's incredibly hypocritical to look at the historical activities of ISIS on Twitter, Facebook and all of these platforms, and then to hear about the 'political violence' caused by Parler. I don't like Parler, the hypocrisy is staggering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_media_by_the_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_media_by_the_Isl... [2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181405 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

pvg 6y ago
You can definitely make the case that the large moderation infrastructure fielded by gigantic social media companies has been anywhere from imperfect to outright irresponsible. The difference is, there was actual moderation. Parler, a tiny (2 orders of magnitude tinier than Twitter) appears to have had no moderation infrastructure at all. Even the data in your first reference seems to suggest that Twitter alone has probably moderated more accounts than Parler has actually had.