Should Amazon Web services remove Twitter?

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Removal of competition.
I just can't figure out what you are pointing at, what instance where. You'd have to give us more detail from a real life situation. And also what situation you are asking about here.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have two platforms of the same business representing opposing views. Rather than allowing the competition one is forcibly removed from the equitation by the other. Is that not anti-competitive?

When you say "forcibly" removed, do you mean by physical attack? Who is removing who and precisely how?

For instance for AWS to cease selling Parler services after Parler broke the contract terms of service and would not remedy it, then there is zero force in that.

But, if I was the competitor to AWS I myself would not sell Parler services if they came to me next, for the reasons I gave above. No force in that either.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,613
9,331
the Great Basin
✟325,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree Amazon should not be forced to do so. This was my response in post 32, but I don't think too many got that far into the thread:

As to my view I don't think either Parler or Twitter should be removed. Both are trying to remove calls for violence, and both have obvious gaps in their system.

All such moderation takes time, and in many cases it is never reported. Software detection can help, but is not failsafe either.

Amazon does not have to host anyone they do not want to. But I would like to see consistency.

Under section 230 both have the ability to moderate for content. And both have indicated they want to moderate calls for violence.

I wish people would self-regulate more and stop posting such messages in the meantime. We all have to decide not to feed violence, or partake in violence.




To Amazon it is not a lot of money. But it also is not a small amount. It works out to around 300k a month.

Amazon Is Suspending Parler From AWS

On Amazon Web Services, Parler had gone from a negligible spend to paying more than $300,000 a month for hosting, according to multiple sources.



Both Twitter and Parlor made an effort. It was acknowledged that Parler had a plan to make a task force to supplement their volunteer moderators, but this plan was rejected.

Amazon Is Suspending Parler From AWS

In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.

Twitter also makes tremendous efforts, but ultimately insufficient, because it is nearly impossible to find all of the instances.


However, that was the reason for section 230 in the first place. It shields platform providers for liability for statements made by third party users. They are not the speaker, they only host the speech.

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


This has been interpreted very broadly.

In Force vs. Facebook it was ruled that Facebook was not liable for Hamas elements coordinating terrorist activities on Facebook.

In Delfino vs. Agilent Technologies Inc. it was found that Agilent, as a provider of email service, was not responsible for threats of harm from one employee to another employee.

Not only is the protection very broad, but it also makes for rather straight-forward handling in many cases.

This article describes why section 230 is important to maintain the modern internet with various content providers It discusses benefits of section 230 when examining case history.

How Section 230 Enhances the First Amendment by Eric Goldman :: SSRN

A few highlights:

Section 230(c)(1)’s immunity does not vary with the Internet service’s scienter. If a plaintiff alleges that the defendant “knew” about tortious or criminal content, the defendant can still qualify for Section 230’s immunity.

While the First Amendment sometimes mandates procedural as well as substantive rules, Section 230 offers more procedural protections, and greater legal certainty, for defendants. These procedural benefits create speech-enhancing outcomes even in situations where the substantive scope of Section 230 and the First Amendment would be identical.

A prima facie Section 230(c)(1) defense typically has three elements: (1) the defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service, (2) the claim relates to information provided by another information content provider, and (3) the claim treats the defendant as the publisher or speaker of the information. Often, judges can resolve all three elements based solely on the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, courts can, and frequently do, grant motions to dismiss based on a Section 230(c)(1) defense. In jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP laws (which provide a litigation “fast lane” to dismiss lawsuits seeking to suppress socially beneficial speech), courts can grant anti-SLAPP motions to strike based on Section 230 without allowing discovery in the case.

In other words, platform providers can be rather certain that cases regarding liability for content users provide will be dismissed. And the cases usually don't get very far for this reason, meaning lower costs. That was why the provision was made, so that companies would not have to review every bit of speech on the platform and take it down at the first hint of complaint for liability reasons. This promotes more speech.


Legislation passed in 2018 did alter one aspect of that liability in the case of knowingly promoting sex trafficking ads, material, etc.

Seems fair enough -- as you seem to agree, Amazon has the right to host who they want to. As for Parler, and how they compare to Twitter, Parler's lawsuit against Amazon will be heard and, if Amazon is not consistent in their policies, then Parler should prevail. My guess, though, is that Amazon ensured their lawyers signed off on removing Parler from their servers, and their lawyers saw no issue with the way the Terms of Servers were enforced; and therefore Parler will not be successful.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tall73
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.


No, again, I cited the case where even notification did not make them liable.

You are reading the good faith from one provision to the other.

This provision has been interpreted broadly:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


As the article I cited earlier noted it does not depend on Scienter, or "knowledge of wrongdoing".

The good faith language comes into play with the second provision:

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).


This provision does NOT say that they must make a good faith effort or they are liable.

Rather, it says that if they make a good faith effort to remove illegal content they won't be penalized for that, and use that as a workaround to say they were publishers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why is this not being addressed simply as a case of anti-competition?

I think the primary reason is that it is not a direct action by Twitter, the competitor. Amazon denied consulting Twitter on the Parler decision.

A larger concern would be Google's actions, because they have already been targeted for ant-competitive behavior, and they could be seen as discriminating in market access on the basis of competition.

They also run a major social network, Youtube, though of a different type.

Google plus is gone or that would be a bigger concern.

Amazon is the major player in the cloud computing market, but there are other options.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
When you say "forcibly" removed
Was the platform removed due to a failed business or even by mutual agreement? Or did one platform suddenly find itself out in the cold at the hands of the opposition?
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I think the primary reason is that it is not a direct action by Twitter, the competitor.
The competitor is not one specific company but a conglomerate operating under one principle, in this case political. In their minds it seems unity comes through eliminating the competition. In this case they didn't follow their usual agenda and buy them out.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The competitor is not one specific company but a conglomerate operating under one principle, in this case political. In their minds it seems unity comes through eliminating the competition. In this case they didn't follow their usual agenda and buy them out.

I don't know enough about collusion to know if that is violating law. Certainly numerous platforms seem to come to very similar decisions in quick succession.

That may also be because they all face regulation from politicians and seek to avoid it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timothyu
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, again, I cited the case where even notification did not make them liable.

You are reading the good faith from one provision to the other.

This provision has been interpreted broadly:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.


As the article I cited earlier noted it does not depend on Scienter, or "knowledge of wrongdoing".

The good faith language comes into play with the second provision:

(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).


This provision does NOT say that they must make a good faith effort or they are liable.

Rather, it says that if they make a good faith effort to remove illegal content they won't be penalized for that, and use that as a workaround to say they were publishers.
Until it's clear that "good faith" isn't required, and also that it wouldn't even matter if AWS becomes definitely aware of assassination attempt plans, for example, then AWS cannot correctly continue to provide services to Parler.

But in addition to my understanding of losing 230 protection without acting in good faith, which might be incorrect, there is another more compelling reason.

It is morally wrong to provide services to Parler, so long as they are not really doing much to prevent the planning of crimes, murders, etc. on their forum. (just one possible example: failing to use standard tools to prevent illegal posts)

Basically Parler's business model isn't functional in the U.S. as far as I can tell. I cannot provide a forum for people to plan murders and then 'try' to moderate it, but fail to do so up to the normal prevailing standards.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Seems fair enough -- as you seem to agree, Amazon has the right to host who they want to. As for Parler, and how they compare to Twitter, Parler's lawsuit against Amazon will be heard and, if Amazon is not consistent in their policies, then Parler should prevail. My guess, though, is that Amazon ensured their lawyers signed off on removing Parler from their servers, and their lawyers saw no issue with the way the Terms of Servers were enforced; and therefore Parler will not be successful.
AWS had to cease providing services to Parler after Parler broke the terms of service because of how intense the problem is --

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
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Until it's clear that "good faith" isn't required, and also that it wouldn't even matter if AWS becomes definitely aware of assassination attempt plans, for example, then AWS cannot correctly continue to provide services to Parler.

But in addition to my understanding of losing 230 protection without acting in good faith, which might be incorrect, there is another more compelling reason.

It is morally wrong to provide services to Parler, so long as they are not really doing much to prevent the planning of crimes, murders, etc. on their forum. (just one possible example: failing to use standard tools to prevent illegal posts)

Basically Parler's business model isn't functional in the U.S. as far as I can tell. I cannot provide a forum for people to plan murders and then 'try' to moderate it, but fail to do so up to the normal prevailing standards.


Parler's business model is that they allow all legal speech. Some people may not like legal speech, but that is not in itself a model to allow murder plans.

And they proposed to remove such content.

And if Twitter and Facebook were the prevailing standard, then there is a real problem, because they had lots of that content lately.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Parler's business model is that they allow all legal speech. Some people may not like legal speech, but that is not in itself a model to allow murder plans.

And they proposed to remove such content.

And if Twitter and Facebook were the prevailing standard, then there is a real problem, because they had lots of that content lately.

Show us anyone here, anyone that doesn't like "legal free speech".

:)

Heh.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But in addition to my understanding of losing 230 protection without acting in good faith, which might be incorrect

Just read the sentence carefully:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken...

It is stating what will not make a company liable, since they already stated they would not be.


It is avoiding what many plaintiffs have tried to do, find ways to get around the liability shield.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,613
9,331
the Great Basin
✟325,989.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
AWS had to cease providing services to Parler after Parler broke the terms of service because of how intense the problem is --

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

I agree, Parler broke the AWS Terms of Service (ToS). It is also claimed that Amazon has broken the AWS Terms of Service -- and I don't have the information to judge that, nor do I really care to look. All I'm saying, Parler is suing AWS because they feel they were "singled out," that they aren't being treated fairly compared to Twitter. I'm merely saying it is possible, and I don't know; that I'm willing to wait and see what the court determines -- particularly since right now we are only seeing what each side wants us to see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This doesn't happen often, but for once I may be more 'conservative' than everyone else in the immediate discussion, even though my positions tend to be mostly 'libertarian'.

I don't think it's ok, nor should it be legal, to have a forum where everyone can see planning for violent attacks ongoing.

And I don't think Parler will really change.

I'd not host them if I could and they'd pay $1 million a month.

No way.

I'm too old and conservative maybe. :)
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I cannot provide a forum for people to plan murders and then 'try' to moderate it, but fail to do so up to the normal prevailing standards.
For over 20 years and before social media, key words online or in emails triggered the attention of security forces online, and it was then determined whether the user of the words represented threat. So why all of a sudden is this being presented as a new issue?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,844
Visit site
✟868,616.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I cannot provide a forum for people to plan murders and then 'try' to moderate it, but fail to do so up to the normal prevailing standards.


Here are the prevailing standards:

Sheryl Sandberg Slammed For Saying Capitol Riot Was Not 'Largely' Planned On Facebook


Media Matters “identified at least 70 active Facebook groups that were either named for or affiliated with ‘Stop the Steal’ that Facebook could have taken action against long before today.” Of the 70 groups the watchdog found, 46 of them were private.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Just read the sentence carefully:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken...

It is stating what will not make a company liable, since they already stated they would not be.


It is avoiding what many plaintiffs have tried to do, find ways to get around the liability shield.
I think we often both agree on what individual sentences mean, usually. That's not at issue for me, that sentence.

As before, my hypothesis is that to have 230 protection that would stand up in an actual court trial, AWS has to act in "good faith", and do what a 'reasonable person would do' and so on, in any situation where they have a definite clear knowledge of actual factual things.

(Though my more serious and possibly interesting objecting is actually the other one, that Parler should not be allowed to exist as it was, nor anything close -- on moral grounds.)

They'd have to use the standard tools that are the norm, to get 230 protection themselves, I'm thinking on that liability side. Unless I see something to cancel the "good faith" requirement in the instance of clear definite knowledge, I can't set it aside.
 
Upvote 0