3 ms·

> Parler should not have been de-platformed With this statement you are implying one of two things: * You are very unhappy with AWS for de-platforming them *

> Parler should not have been de-platformed With this statement you are implying one of two things: * You are very unhappy with AWS for de-platforming them * You think AWS should not have been allowed to do so If it's the first one, well, you are free to treat that however you like. Stop using AWS yourself, especially if you now fear AWS will do this to you. Don't do business with other companies that use AWS -- you can even block all AWS IPs at your firewall. Tell everyone how bad they are, and encourage others to boycott them too. If AWS continues to de-platform customers that don't seem to deserve it, this will get even easier over time. If it's the second one though, that raises all kinds of tricky issues. If you run anything that allows user content, and a user posts something that hurts you, are you now obligated to host it (leaving aside illegal content and the tricky jurisdiction issues that go with that)? What if other major customers or users start leaving because you're hosting said content -- are you just supposed to let your site/business effectively die? Are you also forbidden from raising the price to that harmful user to $1-trillion-per-month (since that effectively is a way to "de-platform" them), and if so, what is the maximum price you're allowed to charge and who figures that out?

AnHonestComment 6y ago
Telephones, mail, and electricity seem to operate just fine. Why would it be problematic is web hosting was treated as common civil infrastructure?
jariel 6y ago
If AT&T started banning any traffic: emails, websites etc. that 'talked poorly about AT&T' then it would be a breach of net neutrality, right? And totally unacceptable. Twitter and Partler are content platforms, AWS is not. They are an infrastructure, not a content company and there is a material difference. Ford, GM and Telsa collectively refusing to sell to XYZ customers for whatever reasons gets out of hand very quickly. 'You can just use another service' generally doesn't work as an argument in oligarchic situations. If AWS style services were as varied as grocery stores, maybe, but they are not.

AnHonestComment 6y ago

Telephones, mail, and electricity seem to operate just fine. Why would it be problematic is web hosting was treated as common civil infrastructure?

jariel 6y ago

If AT&T started banning any traffic: emails, websites etc. that 'talked poorly about AT&T' then it would be a breach of net neutrality, right? And totally unacceptable. Twitter and Partler are content platforms, AWS is not. They are an infrastructure, not a content company and there is a material difference. Ford, GM and Telsa collectively refusing to sell to XYZ customers for whatever reasons gets out of hand very quickly. 'You can just use another service' generally doesn't work as an argument in oligarchic situations. If AWS style services were as varied as grocery stores, maybe, but they are not.