2 ms·

The death threats angle is a complete red herring, considering that other social media absolutely does leave out such posts for even longer than parler did (and

The death threats angle is a complete red herring, considering that other social media absolutely does leave out such posts for even longer than parler did (and very rarely is held accountable for whatever their users are posting, even when it takes literal months to moderate). But regarding your last paragraph. Sure let's agree that everything you said was right. So what? It still shows that AWS does cut off consumers based on politics. I'm not aware of any legal action against Parler so I don't think they were accused of anything illegal. The fact that you agree with the political reasoning behind the decision does not make it any less political. Especially since the only time that they ever intervened for something like this was when it happened in the US. It didn't happen during the Arab Spring, or the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, or any other time where people used an AWS hosted platform to coordinate a coup.

mullingitover 2y ago
> The death threats angle is a complete red herring, considering that other social media absolutely does leave out such posts for even longer than parler did Other big social media companies generally own their own infra, so they they don't need to get into existential crises when their landlords go looking into their activities. > But regarding your last paragraph. Sure let's agree that everything you said was right. So what? It still shows that AWS does cut off consumers based on politics. Not sure how you're able contort this argument together. Parler was involved in crimes. AWS didn't need to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt like the justice system did, they merely had to have a good faith belief crimes were happening on Parler and Parler wasn't making good faith efforts to mitigate them. They didn't merely fail to moderate, they basically told Amazon to kick rocks when they were provided with evidence of crimes on their platform. It's honestly kind of insulting to cry about political repression when it was just garden variety crime the whole time.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  How was it involved in crimes? Again, can you be more specific? I agree with you about other social media platforms owning their own infra, by the way. But I'm not sure if that supports your point? If the only difference is that they own their own platforms, meaning they can do whatever, doesn't that show that AWS is actually unreliable for products like these? Which is what OP was arguing? Also, it's weird to say that I was crying about political repression. My point was that your comment itself was arguing that they were still removed for political reasons. Which meant that you agree with the person you replied to, it's just that you think that it was morally correct which is besides the point. And if Parler did commit a crime, or crimes, surely that would be public knowledge? Jan 6 lead to a rather intense series of prosecutions, so you'd think Parler would also face criminal charges. Unless you meant that it was used for criminal stuff, which is true. But that's a completely different standard, and one that AWS only applied to Parler (for obvious reasons). If you are saying that enabling criminal activities is a crime, then that would apply to other social media too (regardless of if they own their infra or no). Yet again, Facebook or YouTube has never been charged for anything like that. It's totally fine since AWS was within its rights to ban them, but it's weird to argue that it had nothing to do with the politics of the situation. Again, AWS does not care about coups outside the US, which are just as illegal.

mullingitover 2y ago

> The death threats angle is a complete red herring, considering that other social media absolutely does leave out such posts for even longer than parler did Other big social media companies generally own their own infra, so they they don't need to get into existential crises when their landlords go looking into their activities. > But regarding your last paragraph. Sure let's agree that everything you said was right. So what? It still shows that AWS does cut off consumers based on politics. Not sure how you're able contort this argument together. Parler was involved in crimes. AWS didn't need to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt like the justice system did, they merely had to have a good faith belief crimes were happening on Parler and Parler wasn't making good faith efforts to mitigate them. They didn't merely fail to moderate, they basically told Amazon to kick rocks when they were provided with evidence of crimes on their platform. It's honestly kind of insulting to cry about political repression when it was just garden variety crime the whole time.

mardifoufs 2y ago
How was it involved in crimes? Again, can you be more specific? I agree with you about other social media platforms owning their own infra, by the way. But I'm not sure if that supports your point? If the only difference is that they own their own platforms, meaning they can do whatever, doesn't that show that AWS is actually unreliable for products like these? Which is what OP was arguing? Also, it's weird to say that I was crying about political repression. My point was that your comment itself was arguing that they were still removed for political reasons. Which meant that you agree with the person you replied to, it's just that you think that it was morally correct which is besides the point. And if Parler did commit a crime, or crimes, surely that would be public knowledge? Jan 6 lead to a rather intense series of prosecutions, so you'd think Parler would also face criminal charges. Unless you meant that it was used for criminal stuff, which is true. But that's a completely different standard, and one that AWS only applied to Parler (for obvious reasons). If you are saying that enabling criminal activities is a crime, then that would apply to other social media too (regardless of if they own their infra or no). Yet again, Facebook or YouTube has never been charged for anything like that. It's totally fine since AWS was within its rights to ban them, but it's weird to argue that it had nothing to do with the politics of the situation. Again, AWS does not care about coups outside the US, which are just as illegal.