- Sep 23, 2005
- 31,994
- 5,856
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Upvote
0