3 ms·

In Parler's case their platform was proudly used to organise illegal activity. Which is against ToS, not ideological. If someone hosted an MP3 piracy site or t

In Parler's case their platform was proudly used to organise illegal activity. Which is against ToS, not ideological. If someone hosted an MP3 piracy site or torrent tracker or carding forum on AWS, it would likely terminated too, regardless of whether Amazon are ideologically against piracy.

freedomben 6y ago
I'm no fan of the content on Parler, but Twitter (who uses AWS) was used for far more organization of illegal activity than Parler was. Twitter wasn't targeted though. I don't think it was ideologically agreement with Twitter (although I'm sure there is much ideological agreement as the tech industry has become quite the echo chamber) as much as Twitter is just far too rich and powerful to be shut down. If you're a big fish with powerfu rich users like Twitter, then vendor lock-in isn't a risk. If you're a small, inconsequential platform that can be smashed like a fly on the window, then you really need to care about such things.
- koboll 6y ago
  >I'm no fan of the content on Parler, but Twitter (who uses AWS) was used for far more organization of illegal activity than Parler was. Parler outright refused to delete posts calling for the mass killing of politicians, even when those posts were specifically pointed out to Parler by AWS. This is all detailed in court documents. AWS very patiently tried to prod Parler into following AWS's terms of service, but Parler refused. This is a very clear-cut matter and those suggesting otherwise are either trying to deceive or being misled.
  - edbob 6y ago
    What specific posts did Parler refuse to delete, and what is the evidence that they refused to delete them? IIRC, Parler was deleting posts that AWS complained about as they reviewed them, but had a large backlog, and AWS decided they were moving too slowly. I haven't seen any sourced claims that Parler refused to remove "posts calling for the mass killing of politicians", only unsupported allegations. If it really is so very clear-cut, do you have a very good source for those claims?
    - freedomben 6y ago
      This matches my understanding as well. The CEO (at the time) was on a podcast and specifically said they were moderating/deleting the posts. AWS just wanted it to be done faster (in an automated fashion).
    - koboll 6y ago
      To reiterate, AWS provided this evidence in its court filings when it was sued by Parler. Pages and pages of email records where AWS customer service reps sent Parler specific posts that violated AWS's ToS, and Parler's responded refusing to take them down.
- rrdharan 6y ago
  > Twitter (who uses AWS) Twitter also uses GCP, and Azure I’m sure. Their serving layer is not hosted by AWS though, and I’m reasonably certain AWS could not shut down Twitter immediately simply terminating their AWS account.
- antihero 6y ago
  Parler was set up to harbour the exact sort of people that got banned from platforms like Twitter for being too unhinged and in some cases dangerous. It's not really comparable.

freedomben 6y ago

I'm no fan of the content on Parler, but Twitter (who uses AWS) was used for far more organization of illegal activity than Parler was. Twitter wasn't targeted though. I don't think it was ideologically agreement with Twitter (although I'm sure there is much ideological agreement as the tech industry has become quite the echo chamber) as much as Twitter is just far too rich and powerful to be shut down. If you're a big fish with powerfu rich users like Twitter, then vendor lock-in isn't a risk. If you're a small, inconsequential platform that can be smashed like a fly on the window, then you really need to care about such things.

koboll 6y ago
>I'm no fan of the content on Parler, but Twitter (who uses AWS) was used for far more organization of illegal activity than Parler was. Parler outright refused to delete posts calling for the mass killing of politicians, even when those posts were specifically pointed out to Parler by AWS. This is all detailed in court documents. AWS very patiently tried to prod Parler into following AWS's terms of service, but Parler refused. This is a very clear-cut matter and those suggesting otherwise are either trying to deceive or being misled.
- edbob 6y ago
  What specific posts did Parler refuse to delete, and what is the evidence that they refused to delete them? IIRC, Parler was deleting posts that AWS complained about as they reviewed them, but had a large backlog, and AWS decided they were moving too slowly. I haven't seen any sourced claims that Parler refused to remove "posts calling for the mass killing of politicians", only unsupported allegations. If it really is so very clear-cut, do you have a very good source for those claims?
  - freedomben 6y ago
    This matches my understanding as well. The CEO (at the time) was on a podcast and specifically said they were moderating/deleting the posts. AWS just wanted it to be done faster (in an automated fashion).
  - koboll 6y ago
    To reiterate, AWS provided this evidence in its court filings when it was sued by Parler. Pages and pages of email records where AWS customer service reps sent Parler specific posts that violated AWS's ToS, and Parler's responded refusing to take them down.
rrdharan 6y ago
> Twitter (who uses AWS) Twitter also uses GCP, and Azure I’m sure. Their serving layer is not hosted by AWS though, and I’m reasonably certain AWS could not shut down Twitter immediately simply terminating their AWS account.
antihero 6y ago
Parler was set up to harbour the exact sort of people that got banned from platforms like Twitter for being too unhinged and in some cases dangerous. It's not really comparable.