3 ms·
I am not a lawyer, but it seemed to me upon reading the original complaint that the case was going nowhere. Amazon has no obligation to serve anyone anything.
by ivraatiems 6y ago
I am not a lawyer, but it seemed to me upon reading the original complaint that the case was going nowhere. Amazon has no obligation to serve anyone anything.
Now, if ISPs and other Internet service providers were regulated as utilities, that could change. Arguably, it should.
But that's not where we stand, and Parler makes just about the worst argument in favor of that kind of regulation possible: "Companies should be forced to host our awful, dangerous, and high-liability content, which we will not properly moderate or manage!"
It was always going nowhere.
- blendergeek 6y agoI think Parler's argument was that Amazon broke their contract with Parler. Amazon does have a legal obligation to uphold their end of the Amazon Terms of Service. These terms also are only enforceable through arbitration (a point I disagree strongly with and wish to see done away with). This is an argument that Amazon could have used.
- hackcasual 6y agoAmazon's contract let's them immediately terminate accounts they find offensive. They gave Parler 30 days
- cm2187 6y agoParler's CEO claimed they did not.