10 ms·
"Oh please. Laws exist, platforms must ensure their customers follow the laws, and when a customer refuses to remove illegal content" Don't make this about 'la
by jariel 5y ago
"Oh please. Laws exist, platforms must ensure their customers follow the laws, and when a customer refuses to remove illegal content"
Don't make this about 'laws' - this was definitely not about 'laws' or the 'law' would have stepped in - and it's definitely not Amazon's job to enforce the law.
Amazon knowingly sells fake goods and suppresses unions so let's not give them the moral high ground.
Apple's concern I don't think was arbitrary: there was a lot of 'really bad discourse' on Parler, and it was not moderated at all (or community moderated which had no effect).
I don't like Apple's App Store 'monopoly' however they were within reason to not want Parler in the store.
If Apple allowed non-AppStore downloads, then I think it would have sat much better.
Amazon however, I think did something a few steps more inappropriate and more nakedly political.
Amazon has a zillion customers that do arguably more nefarious things, in the 'big picture' they look hypocritical, though they are surely within legal rights as well.
I do feel however, that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to drop customers without a 3 month notice unless said customers have done something actually illegal, and by that I mean 'illegal as designated by an actual Judge'.
- tekstar 5y ago> and it's definitely not Amazon's job to enforce the law. It's about liability, and big corp's allergy to it. > I do feel however, that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to drop customers without a 3 month notice unless said customers have done something actually illegal, and by that I mean 'illegal as designated by an actual Judge'. That's not how liability works
- octopoc 5y ago> > I do feel however, that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to drop customers without a 3 month notice unless said customers have done something actually illegal, and by that I mean 'illegal as designated by an actual Judge'. > That's not how liability works The post you're replying to is describing a better process (note the use of the word "shouldn't"), and your reply seems to be saying, "no, because that's not the current process." The fact that the system we have now exists does not mean it's the best system possible. I could have misunderstood your comment though.
- zackees 5y agoWhat liability? Section 230 specifically says they are immune from liability.
- jariel 5y agoIt has nothing to do with liability. Amazon hosts all sorts of content that could make them otherwise liable, and they are selling billions in knock-off products every month. They are able to insulate themselves from it quite well - much like 'Avis Car Rental' is not 'liable' for agency or person that does something bad while renting their car. Amazon's response was at least about PR, and probably a little bit politics.