Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?

[tall73]

And I'm saying it seems by the wording of (c)(2) that there is also the situation "b" (as above) -- a 2nd aspect of how (c)(2) could shield a site like Parler or Twitter trying to remove illegal posts, and failing to get them all in some certain time frame, but only if they are making a 'good faith' effort which I take to mean as according to what they are aware of and what they can technically accomplish.

You have asserted this a number of times, based on your reading of it. But you haven't shown any evidence of this in the case law, or other articles, etc. Again, they don't have to remove any of it. They are allowed to edit for objectionable content. There is nothing about missing some.


The historical reason for putting in that provision is spelled out here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf

Legislative History
Section 230 was enacted in early 1996, in the CDA’s Section 509, titled “Online Family Empowerment.” In part, this provision responded to a 1995 decision issued by a New York state trial court: Stratton-Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.The plaintiffs in that case were an investment banking firm. The firm alleged that Prodigy, an early online service provider, had published a libelous statement that unlawfully accused the firm of committing fraud. Prodigy itself did not write the allegedly defamatory message, but it hosted the message boards where a user posted the statement. The New York court concluded that the company was nonetheless a “publisher” of the alleged libel and therefore subject to liability. The court emphasized that Prodigy exercised “editorial control” over the content posted on its site, actively controlling the content of its message boards through both an “automatic software screening program” and through “Board Leaders” who removed messages that violated Prodigy’s guidelines.Section 230 sought to abrogate Stratton-Oakmont. One of the sponsors of the “Online Family Empowerment” provision, Representative Chris Cox, argued on the floor of the House that the ruling against Prodigy was “backward.” Representative Cox approvingly referenced a different casein which a federal district court had held that CompuServe, another early online service provider, could not be held liable for allegedly defamatory statements posted on its message boards. Both Representative Cox and his co-sponsor, then-Representative Ron Wyden, emphasized that they wanted to allow online service providers, working with concerned parents and others, to be able to take down offensive content without exposing themselves to liability. These “Good Samaritan” provisions were intended to ensure that even if online service providers did exercise some limited editorial control over the content posted on their sites, they would not thereby be subject to publisher liability.

 

[Halbhh]

But you haven't shown any evidence of this in the case law

That's right. I haven't bothered. I've noticed (though I'm not a lawyerly type, and only am hearing news analysis level articles ) that the law interpretation changes over time for laws that are stated in very general ways (such as section 230).

In other words, tomorrow won't be like yesterday on this one.

 

[tall73]

That's right. I haven't bothered.

If you haven't "bothered" substantiating your suspicion then why do you keep raising it as though you have?

 

[Halbhh]

You have asserted this a number of times, based on your reading of it. But you haven't shown any evidence of this in the case law, or other articles, etc. Again, they don't have to remove any of it. They are allowed to edit for objectionable content. There is nothing about missing some.


The historical reason for putting in that provision is spelled out here:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10306.pdf

Legislative History
Section 230 was enacted in early 1996, in the CDA’s Section 509, titled “Online Family Empowerment.” In part, this provision responded to a 1995 decision issued by a New York state trial court: Stratton-Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.The plaintiffs in that case were an investment banking firm. The firm alleged that Prodigy, an early online service provider, had published a libelous statement that unlawfully accused the firm of committing fraud. Prodigy itself did not write the allegedly defamatory message, but it hosted the message boards where a user posted the statement. The New York court concluded that the company was nonetheless a “publisher” of the alleged libel and therefore subject to liability. The court emphasized that Prodigy exercised “editorial control” over the content posted on its site, actively controlling the content of its message boards through both an “automatic software screening program” and through “Board Leaders” who removed messages that violated Prodigy’s guidelines.Section 230 sought to abrogate Stratton-Oakmont. One of the sponsors of the “Online Family Empowerment” provision, Representative Chris Cox, argued on the floor of the House that the ruling against Prodigy was “backward.” Representative Cox approvingly referenced a different casein which a federal district court had held that CompuServe, another early online service provider, could not be held liable for allegedly defamatory statements posted on its message boards. Both Representative Cox and his co-sponsor, then-Representative Ron Wyden, emphasized that they wanted to allow online service providers, working with concerned parents and others, to be able to take down offensive content without exposing themselves to liability. These “Good Samaritan” provisions were intended to ensure that even if online service providers did exercise some limited editorial control over the content posted on their sites, they would not thereby be subject to publisher liability.

We don't need to go over the meaning of section (c) (2) that we already agree on.

Maybe it's confusing, but I've been pointing out that regardless of the definite clear and correct understanding of (c)(2) you've pointed out, and I have also, and we already agree on, that nevertheless another interpretation is possible, but it will have to show up to be demonstrated.

You don't have to agree!

But, it is quite significant though what section (e) means. I don't think Parler can ignore section (e) at all.

Or Twitter, or Facebook. None of them can ignore section (e).

If they continued to ignore (e), eventually they would in the case of deep pockets like Facebook be settling cases from ignoring (e) for $billions I'd guess (just my guess). Of course, they won't do that mistake.

 

[Halbhh]

If you haven't "bothered" substantiating your suspicion then why do you keep raising it as though you have?

I'm certain I've never once claimed that there was already a case, nor suggested so.

Rather this is the reality I know about:

I've noticed ... law interpretation changes over time for laws that are stated in very general ways (such as section 230).

In other words, tomorrow won't be like yesterday on this one.

 

[tall73]

I'm certain I've never once claimed that there was already a case, nor suggested so.

Rather this is the reality I know about:

I cannot argue with what could happen in the future. And I don't think most of the companies are banking on the complete opposite of what is currently happening. Because they leave up illegal content all the time.

 

[tall73]

In other words, tomorrow won't be like yesterday on this one.

I don't think the interpretation of the clause will completely reverse. However, the part I do agree with regarding the future, and mentioned previously, is that law makers may change the law itself so that they can change what must be moderated.

 

[Halbhh]

I cannot argue with what could happen in the future. And I don't think most of the companies are banking on the complete opposite of what is currently happening. Because they leave up illegal content all the time.

heh heh. I do wonder what is currently happening, in the sense of 'current' as meaning this very day, and this very last week and such. Time will tell. I think we've both articulated our views pretty well, especially you!

 

[tall73]

heh heh. I do wonder what is currently happening, in the sense of 'current' as meaning this very day, and this very last week and such. Time will tell. I think we've both articulated our views pretty well, especially you!

Well it was a fun discussion, to dig into the details. But without a legal background, I think I have gone about as far as I can on it.

 

[Halbhh]

So, I don't think I addressed the OP, and I do understand the title question as not being merely technical like about just liability alone, but instead more of a moral question, or that's how I think of

"Should AWS remove Twitter?"

My answer to the moral side of the question is: it seems so to me the right answer looking back at the past is "yes." (i.e. -- AWS should have in the past stopped servicing Twitter, in my personal view of the moral side of it)

For the future on the other hand, let me put it conditionally instead --

Unless Twitter can achieve pretty darn good moderation, say as good as at CF for example, my viewpoint on the moral question of whether to do business with them is one should not in that situation (where they can't moderate really well).

So, if Twitter can achieve really good moderation, then it would be fine to continue to do business with them, in my viewpoint, on the moral level.

Amazon recently terminated service for Parler on the basis of their inability to remove incitement, calls to violence, etc. which have been leading to problems in American political life.

Should they do the same for Twitter? Twitter continues to display incitement, calls for violence, etc. And Twitter likewise uses AWS.

Twitter Selects AWS as Strategic Provider to Serve Timelines | Amazon.com, Inc. - Press Room

Or should they not have removed Parler? What is your stance?

I have come across a few examples of such postings. See what you can find.

I did not see a way to report these, but that may be because I don't have an account at Twitter. If someone does, please feel free to report them.

In context "He" appears to be Jack Dorsey.

 

[NotreDame]

I have already indicated Amazon has the right to host who they want. They have a right to remove Parler. The courts can sort out whether they did it properly.

However, from Parler's most recent filing we see that Amazon was always aware of the nature of their moderation. They had already removed most of the statements when they service was suspended.

And Amazon confirmed none of those arrested so far have a Parler account.



https://www.scribd.com/document/490642497/Parler-s-reply-to-Amazon-s-response

View attachment 293521


View attachment 293523
View attachment 293524

View attachment 293525


View attachment 293520

They did not act promptly in either case. It was around 24 hours before they stopped the hashtag referring to hanging pence, and content with that phrase was still there.

As I have argued, it is the totality of the circumstances which distinguish Parler from Twitter. This example above doesn’t impact my argument.

Second, the hashtag was removed within a day or two, maybe less than two. But again, this hardly makes Twitter parallel to Parler.

Finally, AWS being cognizant of Parler’s moderation approach may be true. But this doesn’t impact the possibility the circumstances in which AWS was willing to tolerate Parler’s approach to moderating changed.

 

[tall73]

As I have argued, it is the totality of the circumstances which distinguish Parler from Twitter. This example above doesn’t impact my argument.

Second, the hashtag was removed within a day or two, maybe less than two. But again, this hardly makes Twitter parallel to Parler.

Finally, AWS being cognizant of Parler’s moderation approach may be true. But this doesn’t impact the possibility the circumstances in which AWS was willing to tolerate Parler’s approach to moderating changed.

You don't think it impacts the situation that none of the people arrested in the DC riots had accounts on Parler?

It certainly impacts the characterizations made about them in the aftermath.

 

[NotreDame]

Articles were already posted regarding planning of the riots on Facebook, Twitter, etc. And I posted another article that noted at least 70 stop the steal groups on Facebook. Do you think there are no Trump supporters there?

This is edifying information but my argument does hinge on the existence of Trump supporters at a platform. In addition, my argument has been carefully focused primarily after 1/6. My reliance upon postings before 1/6 was done to highlight how 1/6 rightfully changed the toleration for such postings, especially before the inauguration.

My argument was the threats before 1/6 were rightfully less tolerable after 1/6, especially platforms like Parler, whose active users were not just Trump supporters but ostensibly, exclusively right wingers who showed a willingness to resort to violence. Hence, post 1/6, time is of the essence, and having a willingness to aggressively remove threats post 1/6 and a means to do so, is vital. Matze comment shows he didn’t want the extent of moderation demanded and didn’t have the infrastructure in place to remove incendiary posts of violence in a timely manner.

Parler has an exclusively unique group. They are nearly all right wingers or all right wingers. This separates them from Twitter. This may not have been a cause for concern until the events of 1/6 occurred. January 6 showed A.) Trump has a very loyal following who B.) adhere to his proclamations C) willing to resort to violence D) Trump can summon them and they will respond and E) Trump can provoke them to violence.

This group believes in the widespread voter fraud baselessly peddled by Trump, the conspiracy theories of Q and Trump, the bull crap the communists are coming, the evil, godless, heathen, nonwhite hordes of illegals coming for their jobs, blacks coming into white suburbia to terrorize white, married women as he courted suburbia’s, white women with the racist nonsense, Democrats will destroy the U.S.,and spent 4 years disseminating this message. It found a very receptive, exclusive audience on Parler.

But again, as I’ve said time and time again, if the events of 1/6 do not occur, then Parler, it’s moderation, and the threats of violence on Parler aren’t an issue after 1/6.

 

[tall73]

My argument was the threats before 1/6 were rightfully less tolerable after 1/6, especially platforms like Parler, whose active users were not just Trump supporters but ostensibly, exclusively right wingers who showed a willingness to resort to violence. Hence, post 1/6, time is of the essence, and having a willingness to aggressively remove threats post 1/6 and a means to do so, is vital. Matze comment shows he didn’t want the extent of moderation demanded and didn’t have the infrastructure in place to remove incendiary posts of violence in a timely manner.

They were slammed with an influx of new users and inappropriate content, and removed 25 of 26 thousand in two days. They were almost done removing them. And the legal filing showed they were starting to use AI, and even in talks to use Amazon's AI. Amazon did it because of pressure. Even though they admitted that none of those arrested in DC had Parler accounts.

Parler has an exclusively unique group. They are nearly all right wingers or all right wingers. This separates them from Twitter. This may not have been a cause for concern until the events of 1/6 occurred. January 6 showed A.) Trump has a very loyal following who B.) adhere to his proclamations C) willing to resort to violence D) Trump can summon them and they will respond and E) Trump can provoke them to violence.

Yeah well Facebook and Twitter did have some of the planning on their platform. So whether Parler has more right wingers doesn't change where the planning happened.

You may as well say right wingers are not allowed to have a platform.

This group believes in the widespread voter fraud baselessly peddled by Trump, the conspiracy theories of Q and Trump, the bull crap the communists are coming, the evil, godless, heathen, nonwhite hordes of illegals coming for their jobs, blacks coming into white suburbia to terrorize white, married women as he courted suburbia’s, white women with the racist nonsense, Democrats will destroy the U.S.,and spent 4 years disseminating this message. It found a very receptive, exclusive audience on Parler.

But again, as I’ve said time and time again, if the events of 1/6 do not occur, then Parler, it’s moderation, and the threats of violence on Parler aren’t an issue after 1/6.

I already posted showing many stop the steal groups on Facebook, and there were many hashtags related to it on Twitter as well.

And now that Parler is back up the house oversight committee is calling for an investigation of them.

 

[Pommer]

This seems to have been resolved in AWS’ favor.

 

[tall73]

This seems to have been resolved in AWS’ favor.

Yes, the preliminary injunction was denied, and it sounds like they would need to provide a lot more proof for the three claims in the overall suit. I think most who weighed in though it unlikely that Amazon would act without covering their bases.

The issue in this thread is not the suit but whether Amazon should have taken similar measures with Twitter, for similar reasons.

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

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 2 Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction. Parler has failed to meet the standard set by Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court precedent for issuance of a preliminary injunction. To be clear, the Court is not dismissing Parler's substantive underlying claims at this time. Parler has fallen far short, however, of demonstrating, as it must, that it has raised serious questions going to the merits of its claims, or that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. It has also failed to demonstrate that it is likely to prevail on the merits of any of its three claims; that the balance of equities tips in its favor, let alone strongly so; or that the public interests lie in granting the injunction. For these and the remaining reasons articulated in this order, Parler's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (PM) (Entered: 01/21/2021)