7 ms·
> being slow to remove it They just didn't. There's a difference between being slow and just not doing it at all.
by midasz 6y ago
> being slow to remove it
They just didn't. There's a difference between being slow and just not doing it at all.
- _-david-_ 6y agoTwitter has just not removed stuff as well so I don't think that is actually a difference between them.
- user-the-name 6y agoTwitter hosts their own servers rather than agreeing to another company's terms of service.
- _-david-_ 6y agoTwitter uses AWS. You are probably thinking of Facebook https://www.techradar.com/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-its-cloud-needs https://www.techradar.com/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-its-...
- user-the-name 6y agoTwitter will use AWS, is what your article says?
- _-david-_ 6y agoThe article was from last year. It does not say when they will move and there is no update saying they have already moved. If they have not already moved they will be shortly. Other articles say they will be using AWS in 2021. Regardless, from the sound of it Twitter was working with Amazon on this integration. This means Amazon knew Twitter was at least planning on migrating. If Amazon was serious about being consistent they should have told Twitter right there and then that they would not be allowed on AWS since they violate AWS' terms of services in the same way Parler does.