Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?

[tall73]

To update my answer to the OP post with a different wording, more concise, I think AWS may reasonably continue to serve Twitter -- unlike Parler -- exactly or only because it appears as if Twitter is making a good faith effort to moderate.

Which is inevitably imperfect, by the very nature of the internet, for one.

But so long as it is a good faith effort, then it's reasonable for AWS to simply continue to require such.

And it was reasonable for them to stop serving Parler when Parler broke the the contractual terms of service (see post #71 above), and didn't repair that.

Neither of them complied with the terms of service. And both made good faith efforts. I quoted earlier the statement that the effort of Parler was rejected as insufficient.

I think the line was more about pressure as Parler is widely perceived as dangerous by those on the left, who are now in power, and would be the ones now more likely to modify section 230, this time to increase liability for illegal speech or hate speech.

They want to bend over backwards to avoid that by saying they will do it themselves, even if the end result is still a problem in regards to Twitter, but a less perceived one from the left.

 

[timothyu]

Corporate manipulation carries on as usual and it carries a lot of weight as it's fingers have grown long and access many areas. Parler made arrangements with other servers to restart only to find a bit later they had suddenly changed their minds for some reason. I doubt it was morality that drove them to succumb. Parler said they would release names shortly so connections could be made to see where the trail of authourty leads and if indeed there might be pressure to back off from other sources. That is a problem in a multi-national corporate world..

 

[tall73]

This discussion has made me a bit more sympathetic to the difficult position some of these companies are in.

In theory their best bet would be to come out and say that section 230 is necessary to a functioning internet, and they are doing their best to edit content, but that section 230 reform would be misguided. They have done that in testimony I believe.

But in the more public discussion some are upset about offending content and don't care about the benefits of section 230, and others are upset their post was removed.

And the result could be sinking the whole way the internet works if they mess with it too much.

 

[tall73]

Corporate manipulation carries on as usual and it carries a lot of weight as it's fingers have grown long and access many areas. Parler made arrangements with other servers to restart only to find a bit later they had suddenly changed their minds for some reason. I doubt it was morality that drove them to succumb.

From what I read on some tech site, not sure I can find it now, it may be rather difficult. AWS has a way their system works and it takes a long time to migrate it to another system, even if they have the data.

It may not be feasible to do that within a reasonable time to regain their momentum with users who may already be moving on to Gab or other competitors.

 

[timothyu]

This discussion has made me a bit more sympathetic to the difficult position some of these companies are in.

Considering 230 existed before these companies or their platforms, I don't see how they could see themselves as losing anything. They were the latecomers who took advantage of something not even intended for them in the first place because the concept of what they offer did not even exist. Everything needs amendments accordingly.

 

[tall73]

For clarity let me say we completely agree on this part. So, I'm talking instead about other things above, though I'm still thinking it out loud also. 'Good faith' is a requirement for shielding. But to get that shielding, they have to be acting to counter (not perfectly, but doing something )about posts they know are harmful or planning violence, etc.

No, not quite. It is not saying they are required to remove harmful content. They could leave it up and not be liable.

The provision for good faith content moderation is that they will not be penalized for moderating, and thereby treated as a publisher.

In other words, they could leave it up, because they are shielded, but we want to encourage them to take it down because illegal content is bad.

Therefore we won't consider them a publisher, and therefore liable, if they remove some content, but not others. By doing so they don't become a publisher.

 

[tall73]

Considering 230 existed before these companies or their platforms, I don't see how they could see themselves as losing anything. They were the latecomers who took advantage of something not even intended for them in the first place because the concept of what they offer did not even exist. Everything needs amendments accordingly.

Well in the AOL case that was not true. The action actually happened before the passage of the bill, but the filing happened after, so they still applied it.

But more to the point, they invested in these companies because congress made it possible to not be sued into oblivion as a platform. To now reverse that would be a loss to them of all the resources they invested based on the current framework, which congress specifically stated they made to encourage such platforms, and free speech.

The bill acknowledged this would increase, and was thinking ahead.

 

[timothyu]

To now reverse that would be a loss to them of all the resources they invested based on the current framework

Not to mention the benefit to the intelligence community, to both of which I say 'so what?'.

 

[tall73]

To me, that seems to rule out a situation where a party definitely knows as fact (not just a claim from someone else, but their own internal awareness by their own people) about an illegal activity, and then does nothing.

The closest I have seen to that is Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc

Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc.

The company ran a model network. Some folks posed as people looking to hire models, but then drugged and raped them while filming it for inappropriate contentography. (Ouch-So many of these cases are horrific).

The company in this case was found to be liable not because of the content placed by the wrong doers, but because of a duty to warn.

The model was a member of their network, and they knew from previous incidents that had already gone to court that people were using their service in this way and didn't warn their models of the danger.

So it was not a section 230 deal completely, but the company still had some duty to act on outside info.

Perhaps they were concerned about this possibility.

 

[tall73]

Not to mention the benefit to the intelligence community

Yeah, Darpa.

 

[Halbhh]

I quoted earlier the statement that the effort of Parler was rejected as insufficient.

See, the way I figure it, AWS is very very aware that Parler would be used to attack violently in Washington in the future, and wanted to remove themselves from being even just partly involved in that clear ongoing process, for more than 1 reason. But "insufficient" moderation effort is of course 1 reason already. Even if not even the main one. I think serious $$$ liability is a more main reason. But I could be wrong on that. But it seems to me once they have definite knowledge, then they have to act, or it's not "good faith" and then 230 doesn't help them.

 

[tall73]

See, the way I figure it, AWS is very very aware that Parler would be used to attack violently in Washington in the future, and wanted to remove themselves from being even just partly involved in that clear ongoing process, for more than 1 reason. But "insufficient" moderation effort is of course 1 reason already. Even if not even the main one. I think serious $$$ liability is a more main reason. But I could be wrong on that. But it seems to me once they have definite knowledge, then they have to act, or it's not "good faith" and then 230 doesn't help them.

By case law I think section 230 would shield them.

But they would not be shielded from from politicians who want to change 230.

The reference to terms of service is just a way out. Even if they lose that lawsuit I don't think they will see it as a big deal if it helps them delay or avoid immediate calls to reform section 230. They can then tell the politicians they are going above and beyond to deal with such things. But I also doubt they just made a snap decision on that either, and probably covered their legal bases on the termination. We will find out if the case goes forward.

 

[Halbhh]

...

You raised maybe in this thread or another a really interesting aspect on this (same topic really), I didn't respond to already. If you don't mind me paraphrasing just from memory, I think you said that the Parler users need a "place to blow off steam" or something like that. It seemed if I got you right, you might feel that unless they have a forum to do that, they would get more angry? (perhaps this isn't what you meant, and you can please correct my impression then )

 

[tall73]

You raised maybe in this thread or another a really interesting aspect on this (same topic really), I didn't respond to already. If you don't mind me paraphrasing just from memory, I think you said that the Parler users need a "place to blow off steam" or something like that. It seemed if I got you right, you might feel that unless they have a forum to do that, they would get more angry? (perhaps this isn't what you meant, and you can please correct my impression then )

That may have been another poster.

Unless you are referring to the days ago exchange where thatRobGuy talked about how those banned in one place will go to an echo chamber and their ideas will not be challenged. But I wouldn't consider that blowing off steam so to speak.

 

[Halbhh]

By case law I think section 230 would shield them.

But they would not be shielded from from politicians who want to change 230.

The reference to terms of service is just a way out. Even if they lose that lawsuit I don't think they will see it as a big deal if it helps them delay or avoid immediate calls to reform section 230.

They can then tell the politicians they are going above and beyond to deal with such things.

But AWS (not Parler) would not be in good faith, themselves, if they didn't act once they know (as we can know AWS definitely knew for sure, as shown in post #75).

230 requires the party act in good faith, it seems, by that wording above, in the summary.

So, if I understand then:
if AWS warned Parler, and then Parler did little, and then AWS just let it ride, suddenly it's goodbye 230 protection for AWS.

 

[timothyu]

Why is this not being addressed simply as a case of anti-competition?

 

[Halbhh]

Why is this not being addressed simply as a case of anti-competition?

How do you mean? (you don't mean that lacking AWS Parler can't find internet services, since that is a very wide open free market of competitors. I know I would not myself sell them service if I were a CEO because I'd not want the liability for their actions that are clearly visible).

 

[Halbhh]

For reference --

"AWS told Parler in the email that it had flagged 98 examples to Parler of posts that “clearly encourage and incite violence.” Among the posts it reported to Parler, which were viewed by CNBC, users on the platform made violent threats directed at “liberal leaders, liberal activists #blm leaders and supporters,” in addition to other groups.

"Screenshots of the Parler app viewed by CNBC show users posting references to firing squads, as well as calls to bring weapons to the presidential inauguration later this month."

Amazon drops Parler from its web hosting service, citing violent posts

Who would want the liability for that!

 

[timothyu]

After years on forums everybody knows the prime motivation of most people is to ridicule or discredit and avoid the subject at hand. It is the American way so why should one expect any different in these cases when the subject at hand is being avoided. Is anti-competition legal?

 

[Halbhh]

After years on forums everybody knows the prime motivation of most people is to ridicule or discredit and avoid the subject at hand. It is the American way so why should one expect any different in these cases when the subject at hand is being avoided. Is anti-competition legal?

I'd respond to whatever extent I can, but I can't understand yet what you mean. What 'anti-competition' precisely? (give the concrete detailed instance)