Parler sues Amazon

[98cwitr]

BREAKING: Parler Sues Amazon After Being Suspended

The lawsuit claims that “AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching its contract with Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near future.”

 

[tall73]

BREAKING: Parler Sues Amazon After Being Suspended

We will see where it goes. Of the items listed it sounds like the termination without sufficient notice would be the most likely to succeed. However, the details of the contract itself may be more complicated. They may have different procedures for normal termination and for content that breeches contract.

Either way it is a bit hypocritical of Amazon who has had its own issues with underage streamers on its Twitch platform, etc. Moderation takes time. Parler indicated they were moderating and removing illegal content, just like all the other social media companies that were hit with it during recent events. But Amazon, Apple and Google were not happy with their proposed plan to do so.

Ultimately hosting the content with Amazon rather than independently was a weak spot. It was likely economically driven.

 

[durangodawood]

I think all Amazon has to do is present a timeline of horrid Parler content. IF they can do that, then their rationale is legally sound, I'd think.

I do think there are big monopoly problems brewing with Amazon. Would like to see a proper legal test of Amazon anticompetitive practices. But this case wont even get there.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Gotta love it when conservatives go up against hypocritical profiteering tech giants in a way that makes the tech giants look like the good guys.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think all Amazon has to do is present a timeline of horrid Parler content. IF they can do that, then their rationale is legally sound, I'd think.

Shouldn't be too hard, given the recent hack.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think all Amazon has to do is present a timeline of horrid Parler content. IF they can do that, then their rationale is legally sound, I'd think.

I do think there are big monopoly problems brewing with Amazon. Would like to see a proper legal test of Amazon anticompetitive practices. But this case wont even get there.

I've got serious doubt "legally sound" matters anymore, in politically charged situations.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Gotta love it when conservatives go up against hypocritical profiteering tech giants in a way that makes the tech giants look like the good guys.

I suspect the profiteering isn't the aspect that most people are concerned about...I think even the animus over the double-standards on the platforms themselves would've fizzled out eventually once they settled into other platforms.

It's the fact that the perception is that the entities that have the monopolies on the platforms themselves, are trying to form a monopoly on the cultural narrative with regards to influencing potential election outcomes in the future.


Once the precedent is set that "we can shutdown anything that we interpret as something that could cause violence", it becomes very easy to cast a wide net.

Brian Stelter was on CNN today claiming that language of "we need to fight for our candidate" should be targeted. If that standard were applied, millions and millions of people would be banned in an instant as most folks have used that type of metaphor or figure of speech to describe helping a candidate win or advocate for political causes.

It would be very easy for Twitter or Facebook pull the rug out from under a political candidate they didn't like and prevent them from being able to get their message out and interact with potential voters.

All it would take is something as simple as a republican posting something like "we need to fight for our religious freedoms", and then Twitter could simply say "welp, that person is saying 'fight', and that could cause other people took take hostile action, we're banning their account" and their opposition would be a shoe-in for the win.

Disclaimer: I think the move they made to get rid of Trump's account was the right one. However, I am concerned about that potentially being used to "ease into" a more sweeping form of actions unless a reasonable and pragmatic standard can be clearly defined, and quickly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think all Amazon has to do is present a timeline of horrid Parler content. IF they can do that, then their rationale is legally sound, I'd think.

I think that's only half of the equation.

They would also need to prove that Parler had ample time to address it and get the posts removed.

From what I read about it, Amazon's claim is that they notified Parler of 98 examples, and gave them only 24 hours to address it. Obviously, someone could manually delete 98 posts in 24 hours...however, I suspect the implication was that they'd need to be able to prevent potentially harmful material like that from popping up again.

That's a standard that not even the giants of the industry could live up to. I suspect, at any given time, there are 98+ concerning posts sitting out in Twitter and Facebook world that didn't get auto-flagged, but they haven't gotten around to manually addressing yet.

Would Twitter and Facebook have been given the same ultimatum?

 

[Michael]

I have no great sympathy for Parler, but I must admit that it doesn't seem fair or reasonable to me for Amazon to give Parler only 30 hours before cutting them off, particularly when they are promised a 30 *day* notice.

I think that specific issue is going to work against Amazon in court. Had Amazon given Parler 30 days to find another host or setup their own server farm, it wouldn't have been a death sentence for Parler, but 30 hours simply wasn't a reasonable amount of time to secure an alternative option IMO.

I see that Parler seems to be unreachable at this point, so clearly they weren't able to procure alternative arrangements. I think that's going to cost Amazon in court.

 

[trunks2k]

For those interested, here's a Twitter thread with a lawyer going through the lawsuit and explaining why Parler's lawyers did a bad job (not the intent, just the conclusion after going through it). As of typing this, he is still going through the whole thing, but he's doing a good job of explaining what is going on in it, and why it falls short from a legal perspective.

https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1348986942696935428

ETA: Though I disagree a teeny bit with his anti-trust opinion as he oversimplifies the revenue for AWS. Parler's argument is that AWS is colluding with Twitter to keep twitter from losing using. Akiva argues that it doesn't make any sense because both platforms use AWS, so a user dropping twitter and using parler instead is a net 0 gain/loss. I think that isn't necessarily true - Twitter could be using more AWS services more heavily than Parler which means Twitter brings in more revenue to AWS on a per-user basis. However, I think any loss there could be made up by Parler users who wouldn't use Twitter in the first place. Plus base costs of just having the system to begin with, if there's any revenue loss to AWS from users going from Twitter to Parler, it's negligible.

And before someone mentions it, it doesn't make sense for Twitter to abandon AWS and use a different service. That's a HUGE cost to them to do so.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

ETA: Though I disagree a teeny bit with his anti-trust opinion as he oversimplifies the revenue for AWS. Parler's argument is that AWS is colluding with Twitter to keep twitter from losing using. Akiva argues that it doesn't make any sense because both platforms use AWS, so a user dropping twitter and using parler instead is a net 0 gain/loss. I think that isn't necessarily true - Twitter could be using more AWS services more heavily than Parler which means Twitter brings in more revenue to AWS on a per-user basis. However, I think any loss there could be made up by Parler users who wouldn't use Twitter in the first place. Plus base costs of just having the system to begin with, if there's any revenue loss to AWS from users going from Twitter to Parler, it's negligible.

And before someone mentions it, it doesn't make sense for Twitter to abandon AWS and use a different service. That's a HUGE cost to them to do so.

The question will also be, if the CEO of Parler needs to make the case that it's politically motivated (as was one of their original claims, not sure how hard they're still pursuing that angle), what level of evidence would a court find sufficient as proof of that. Twitter's execs have an admitted political leaning.

And they've also allowed posts like this (which is still up as of 5 mins ago, and has been there for a few months)

Even some of the commenters were making some less than stellar comments in the comment section:

(however, there were some that have revisited it to provide some commentary)

...given the fact that they bring much more $$$ to AWS than Parler did, it may be tough to "explain away" AWS's rationale behind letting something like this fly, but then cracking down on other types of posts on a different platform that's not as big of a revenue generator for them.

 

[tall73]

Docket for Parler LLC v. Amazon Web Services Inc, 2:21-cv-00031 - CourtListener.com

There are now some filings in the case.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Parler could have been back up online quickly if they had caved to demands for extreme censorship:

The REAL Story Behind the Firing of the Parler CEO

Ep. 1450 Here’s the REAL Parler Story - The Dan Bongino Show

 

[rambot]

Parler could have been back up online quickly if they had caved to demands for extreme censorship:

The REAL Story Behind the Firing of the Parler CEO

Ep. 1450 Here’s the REAL Parler Story - The Dan Bongino Show

Your sources are not worth time.

Sorry.

I'm curious about what "extreme censorship" actually looks like to you though.

 

[mala]

Your sources are not worth time.

Sorry.

I'm curious about what "extreme censorship" actually looks like to you though.

not being allowed to make plans for a coup probably.

 

[rambot]

not being allowed to make plans for a coup probably.

Hey. That's just not okay.
Those guys are Parler were just practicing their biblica hermeneutics and then those communists at Amazon didn't like that.

 

[Erik Nelson]

not being allowed to make plans for a coup probably.

evidence? Or are people you deign not to like automatically guilty of your latest whim & accusation?

 

[rambot]

evidence? Or are people you deign not to like automatically guilty of your latest whim & accusation?

Prove to me
1) It's worthwhile putting up evidence for you
2) You ACTUALLY haven't seen any evidence.

Because 2) seems absolutely farcical if you've been paying attention to the investigation.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Here's another thread on which you can share your kind, caring, compassionate and understanding views:

‘Help us, don’t kill us’: Africans plead with Biden to not fund abortion in their countries

 

[Desk trauma]

Here's another thread on which you can share your kind, caring, compassionate and understanding views:

‘Help us, don’t kill us’: Africans plead with Biden to not fund abortion in their countries

The todays non-sequitur award goes to...