3 ms·
> 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 a
by 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.