Parler Sues Amazon Again, After Dropping Original Lawsuit (reuters.com) 169
Social media app Parler has dropped its federal case against Amazon.com for cutting off its web-hosting services and filed a separate lawsuit against the company and its web services unit in a Washington state court, according to court documents from late Tuesday. From a report: The new lawsuit filed by Parler accused Amazon of defamation and breach of contract. Parler, an app popular among American right-wing users, came back online last month after going dark in January as many service providers pulled back support, accusing it of failing to monitor violent content related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the nation's legislative seat, by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. Parler sued Amazon, accusing it of making an illegal, politically motivated decision to shut it down to benefit Twitter but a U.S. judge rejected its demand that Amazon restore services for the platform later in January. A month later, Parler re-launched its services online and said the new platform was built on "sustainable, independent technology."
No legal case (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't force someone to do business with you under US laws.
Now you could claim breach of contract if you had a contract that didn't allow Amazon AWS to terminate your hosting but I doubt any such contract exists. And even if you did the only thing you could ask for is monetary damages.
It would be the end of free speech and free association in this country if AWS was forced to do business with someone they didn't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't force someone to do business with you under US laws.
Yes, you very much can.
A child's assessment at best. If you only read the link, you would have read that it only "outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later sexual orientation and gender identity."
A protected class is required to be a trait of the individual and not of their character (as expressed through actions). Religion could be considered the exception but we even then we realize that allowing discrimination based on religion is a bad idea (since it's kinda why this country got
Re: (Score:2)
sure, but still, it means you CAN force someone to do business with you under US laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... everything is just a constitutional amendment away.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the current constitution you can do it. You can force a racist white supremacist business owner to sell to non-white people even if the racist wouldn't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't need to read it. I'm familiar with the law already.
Apparently you do need to read it because you lack all but the most basic grasp on the law.
Read it and cry or vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, as time has gone on, the USA has recognized that if you are a business that is open to the "public" that if you want to deny someone service, you're going to have to find a reason to deny them that doesn't have to do with a growing list of protected categories (i.e. race, religion, etc).
Parent didn't even read the summary (Score:2)
> You can't force someone to do business with you under US laws.
Sure you can, at least in some contexts, just not for webhosting in general. But how does that apply to a suit for breach of contract and defamation?
Defamation lawsuits aren't exactly about "forc[ing] someone to do business with you" so this reads like the comment of someone who didn't make it to the third sentence in the summary which clearly points out the grounds they're suing on have nothing to do with what you said.
Mind you, I think th
Re:No legal case (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama fixed that.
The ACA was not an Executive Order. It was legislation passed by congress.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't referred to as "Obamacare" just because he happened to be the President at the time. The ACA was a core part of the his legislative agenda and he was the principal force behind getting it drafted and passed. Just because its law and not executive order doesn't change the fact that is was his signature policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
You can't say Obamacare wasn't Obama's because it was passed by congress. Full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not need to have car insurance. You can post a bond to avoid insurance
Depends on the state. Not all of them allow a bond in lieu of insurance.
You could not do the same under Obamacare as you would continue to pay penalties in lieu of insurance, even if you did not need insurance.
The penalty has the same effect as paying that bond - it's tax income that the government can use to pay for your care when you actually did need insurance and show up at the hospital.
Re:No legal case (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL. It's referred to as Obamacare because Republicans pummeled the legislation into the ground knowing full well the result (nothing at all what was originally proposed by the Obama administration, which would have dramatically reduced the power and influence of insurance companies) would fail spectacularly.
It's a classic move: use your power to water down and screw the legislation the democratically elected government is trying to push through. Barter and trade it away for other things until it's a shell of its former self, and then *label* it as if it were all the other side's idea.
The only people who called it Obamacare were republicans, and they only started doing that after they fucked the legislation up. Why do you suppose that is?
ACA is very much "Republicare". If you had "Obamacare" the USA would look very much like Australia in the healthcare department, because *that* was the legislation originally proposed. Mind you the USA is not mature enough as a country to make such drastic changes so that was never going to happen, just like even if Bernie Sanders were president the USA wouldn't become a socialist paradise.
Be honest with what's going on, and stop falling for lies, damn lies and politics.
Re:No legal case (Score:4, Informative)
He's Right, after all the bargaining and concessions they demanded in committees to get their votes they dragged it out so they could beat it up in the press with lies like the "death panels", and then they all voted against it. Don't forget the lies about their better replacement plan that never existed that was part of the scam too.
Re: (Score:3)
That whole thing you wrote is just 100% complete nonsense. It's just blatant historical revisionism. Not a single republican in either chamber of congress voted [wikipedia.org]in favour of ACA. Not one.
Indeed. And I never claimed they did. So no revision happening there. If on the other hand you claim that there was no republican influence on the legislation then boy are you thick. This bill had so much underhanded dealing going on underneath that republicans had written a complete alternate version before the house even finished debating the first one.
But hey you're talking about voting, a process that takes place long after text is debated, agreed, amended, long after deals are done to trade off one pie
Re: (Score:2)
How many Republicans voted for the bill? How many Republican amendments/changes were accepted?
If you're talking about voting then you're coming in several months after all relevant damage has already been done. You realise republican senators had started writing a completely alternate bill before the house had even finished theirs right? Of course you don't. That kind of news doesn't get through your republican bubble.
Re: (Score:3)
It was referred to as 'Obamacare' because no one like its original name of 'Romneycare'. Or have you conveniently forgotten that this insurance company wet dream was originally a Republican proposal?
Re: (Score:2)
I remember. But do you remember that most democrats voted for it, but not a single republican did. That the republicans tried to get the supreme court to overturn it. That the republicans repeatedly [wikipedia.org] tried to repeal it and even went so far as to shutdown the government [wikipedia.org] in an attempt to de-fund it. That Joe Biden's campaign touted it as one of the Obama administrations big accomplishments.
Obamacare is 100% a democrat project. You need only look at the voting record to confirm that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bipartisan sleaze, Repubs voted against it because they knew there were enough Democratic votes to pass it. If there hadn't been there would have been a few defectors in safe states to carry the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
So the republican party supports it, but they've just never said so publicly? Please, that's a cop-out. Obamacare was bitterly fought over for years until it passed. Then it was fought in the courts. Then it's funding it caused a government shutdown. Then repealing and replacing it became and election issue. ACA is 100% a Democrat project. And now that it's failed to live up to its promises Democrats are trying to shift the blame with some historical revisionism.
Re: (Score:3)
ACA is 100% a Democrat project.
That would mean that the ACA passed as originally written. It didn't.
And now that it's failed to live up to its promises Democrats are trying to shift the blame with some historical revisionism.
Historical revisionism is denying that the republicans through different actions changed what ACA contained before it passed.
Re: (Score:2)
It was called "Obamacare" because people forgot that the version was about the same as that being pushed by Romney.
I've never been a fan of it, because it's essentially a big payout to the health insurance companies. And the very concept of "health insurance" is a bad idea. Some forms of health care are public health measures. Other parts are "this sure isn't a competitive bidding situation, you'll take what we offer right now, or either die or suffer permanent injury. Some parts are optional. The rema
Re: (Score:2)
The huge, massive improvement that the ACA brought was to require coverage of pre-existing conditions.
And, no state-level high-risk pools did not solve this because a family will end up with half the family in one plan and half in the other plan and each plan has its own deductible and out-of-pocket maximum.
Re:No legal case (Score:4)
Along those lines car liability insurance has been mandatory for car owners for many years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither requires you to get the insurance from a specific company, so the comparison is wholly inapplicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus you can opt-out by putting up a bond in pretty much every state.
Re: (Score:2)
No it hasn't, at least in the US. You can always "self insure" if you choose (and have the cash).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not all states have this loophole.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not the insurance that's mandatory. It's the financial responsibility for liability. If you'd rather not give money to an insurance company, you can just deposit the cash equivalent to the minimum liability requirement ($35K, IIRC) with the DMV, and you're legal to drive.
Re:No legal case (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all states have this loophole. Some will require you to have insurance no matter what.
So how about pandemic insurance? (Score:2)
Along those lines car liability insurance has been mandatory for car owners for many years now.
Unclear if you are for or against, but on the theory that you are for, I want to ask what is wrong with this idea:
Why don't "we" [fuzzy shortcut] have pandemic insurance? Well, obviously because no one saw it coming. Now if we had seen it coming, then it might have made sense to consider mandatory pandemic insurance. If we had such insurance, then when the pandemic came the companies would just file claims for their damages and the government would be free to focus on the medical aspects.
But without such in
Re: (Score:2)
There must be something wrong with the idea, but I'm just too dumb to see it.
It makes a certain amount of sense, but a global pandemic, particularly a serious one makes the insurance worthless. Even supposing there were sufficient money to actually pay out the claims, what good would it do if production of good has essentially halted. How far does your $30,000 go when the store shelves are empty?
Any serious plan to deal with a pandemic involves figuring out how to keep the economy running while mitigating the effects of the disease. That means having the ability to work from home
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like I'm not being clear. TIDI is NOT like normal insurance, but specifically for the case where the disaster could not fit into normal insurance. The TIDI policy has to be written AFTER the disaster has begun and the amount of insurance coverage under TIDI will ultimately depend on the actual damages caused by the unexpected crisis.
Maybe it will help to back up and consider the two normal categories of insurance?
(1) Unlikely events like fires or accidents. The basic idea of this kind of insurance is
Re: (Score:2)
Or providing services in the public sphere you must not discriminate against people based on immutable characteristics typically defined in civil rights law. Being a right-wing insurrectionist is not generally covered under such a framework. The platform's TOS would then apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a member of a protected class.
Suffice to say there are plenty of laws in the US that legally require businesses in the US to do business with people or entities they don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a baker
Re: (Score:2)
Or you sell wedding cakes or do wedding photography or run a business that is open to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? There are plenty of alternative services. I'm sure Ten Cent, Ali Baba or Baidu would love to provide cloud hosting to a web site intent on destroying the American government. If you want to stay domestic Oracle has never shown any hesitation to work with anyone no matter how slimy as long as they're getting paid and they have a cloud service. Parler's lawyer wouldn't have to be "good" they'd have to be a fucking miracle worker to prove there's no alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, maybe I did go a bit overboard, but Ellison's got to pay for fuel for his MIG somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're hoping for a different judge.
Defamation? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fine complaint is here (Score:2)
The fine contract is here: https://aws.amazon.com/agreeme... [amazon.com]
Having only skimmed it, the complaint seems to boil down to:
There is little doubt that Amazon could have reasonably believed that Parler's users
Re: (Score:2)
https://beta.documentcloud.org... [documentcloud.org]
The fine contract is here: https://aws.amazon.com/agreeme... [amazon.com]
Having only skimmed it, the complaint seems to boil down to:
There is little doubt that Amazon could have reasonably believed that Parler's users posed "a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party"—thereby allowing Amazon to terminate regardless of Parler's culpability. The complaint does not address the "security risk" language from the AWS agreement (based on my word search). It's a 66 page complaint, why not grasp the nettle?
I haven't read a ton of legal complaints, but this one strikes me as being a lot more whiny than usual. I suspect it's written more for social media than a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of security risk do you see them posing?
Re: (Score:3)
I think that by January 9th, the National Guard was sleeping in the Capitol to keep the seditionists out. Parler was used by some of them to organize, and when Amazon stopped providing service, they could very reasonably claim that they felt the threat was ongoing and that Parler might be used in furtherance. I think that reasonable belief disposes of whatever claim was being addressed around paragraph 122 of the complaint.
From the complaint, I have the sense that Parler thinks it was treated worse than Fac
Re: (Score:3)
Physical. The AWS SOC was put on high alert and they had armed guards patrolling their sites because of very viable threats by the rightwingnuts.
Facebook Had Much Bigger Part than Parler in Riot (Score:5, Interesting)
The Department of Justice has now charged 223 people for their participation in the events of Jan. 6. A comprehensive analysis of those charging documents performed by Forbes [forbes.com] demonstrate that Parler’s role was minimal, compared to that of Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram.
Of the 223 charging documents, 73 reference posts on Facebook as evidence, 24 reference posts YouTube, 20 single out Instagram posts (owned by Facebook), and only eight highlight posts on Parler.
In the immediate aftermath, Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, claimed “These events were largely organized on platforms that don’t have our abilities to stop hate and don’t have our standards and don’t have our transparency.”
Re: (Score:2)
Now prove that Amazon believed that at the time they suspended Parler.
It may well be true, but I can't imagine successfully proving it without a recorded exchange of emails between Amazon executives that has a verifiable chain of custody. And even if it *is* true, that doesn't mean that Amazon couldn't argue that they could more easily halt Parler, and it was better to do something than nothing. (And that they aren't required to treat their customers equally, when some were more profitable than others.)
So
Re:Facebook Had Much Bigger Part than Parler in Ri (Score:5, Insightful)
Now prove that Amazon believed that at the time they suspended Parler.
Why? None of those Facebook, YouTube or Instagram posts were in AWS. Facebook and Google do their own hosting.
Pointing to these other sites is irrelevant whataboutism.
Re: (Score:2)
First, AWS has been warning Parler that they were in violation since September. The seditious insurrection wasn't the first violation, it was the final straw.
Second, Facebook, et al, banned or otherwise punished those people when they were found. Parler was in trouble because they were not moderating calls for violence even when AWS gave them specific examples and said "You have to stop this kind of thing or you're going to be thrown out". Parler didn't even bother moderating the specific examples AWS ga
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why Parler never read the TOS in the first place, or had their lawyer review them. Knowing full well they were building a "free speech platform" meant that they should have known from the get-go that AWS was not the correct hosting platform to use and they should have used one like the platform that hosts 8chan.
Ditto with their apps - They should have known that Apple's TOS means their app wouldn't have stood up, and it should have just been a mobile-optimized site, instead of an app.
Bottom line is Parler failed to do their homework here.
Re:regardless of politics (Score:4, Insightful)
They assumed, like most of the GOP these days, that they could be complete assholes in anonymity and then hide behind the first amendment after yelling fire in a crowded theater, then whine "victimhood" and "cancel culture" when called out on their bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When that group of people attack things they don't like with actual WEAPONS instead of words, then you're absofuckingloutely right, I'm posting anonymously.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
bearspray
fireextinghuiser
flagpole w/wo 'murcanflag
barriers
doors
bodies
Re: (Score:2)
> They assumed, like most of the GOP these days, that they could be complete assholes in anonymity and then hide behind the first amendment after yelling fire in a crowded theater, then whine "victimhood" and "cancel culture" when called out on their bullshit.
I like how you bravely posted that as AC :)
Re: (Score:2)
You're really opinionated about this but have you actually considered why? Parler wouldn't even allow accounts without email and phone verification, while most platforms only require one of these.
I assumed then (and am still relatively convinced) that this made them a honeypot. It's hard to imagine why they were able to push this nonsense about being free speech extremists while blocking everyone except the least opsec conscious.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler was banned because they violated AWS's Terms-of-Service.
What I don't understand is why Parler never read the TOS in the first place, or had their lawyer review them. Knowing full well they were building a "free speech platform" meant that they should have known from the get-go that AWS was not the correct hosting platform to use and they should have used one like the platform that hosts 8chan.
Ditto with their apps - They should have known that Apple's TOS means their app wouldn't have stood up, and it should have just been a mobile-optimized site, instead of an app.
Bottom line is Parler failed to do their homework here.
I'm guessing it's one of two things:
1) They never really considered it. The fact it took them a month to get up on another service suggests they don't do a ton of planning.
2) It's possible they did realize they might get booted, and even planned on it, but severely underestimated how hard it would be to get up on another platform. The US right is basically one big grievance fest, Parler itself was founded on the idea that big tech is bullying conservatives. I wouldn't put it past Parler to have deliberately
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5)
I'm not clear. Are you saying web hosting platforms can't have terms of use, or that they shouldn't be able to enforce them? Are you saying that private property isn't a thing anymore?
Just how much of traditional freedoms are you prepared to seen blown away so a pack of insurrectionists, seditionists and N@zis don't get treated like the contemptible filth they are?
Re: (Score:2)
People must not know much about the internet if they think a hosting provider cannot have Terms of Use.
Internet transit providers are providing an information service - they are not common carriers or telecoms.. that is within the nature of the IP protocol and the internet - The network belongs to the companies who network together, Not to the end users who subscribe to their services. EVERY major network provider has Terms of Use - they can have rules limiting what type of content you are able to s
Re: (Score:2)
This is why they have these restrictions. If you blow up my kid with bomb instructions you found hosted on AWS I don't care about "freedom of speech" - I'm gonna sue AWS into oblivion for hosting that content.
That's why AWS has these TOS - To protect them from liability.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why they have these restrictions. If you blow up my kid with bomb instructions you found hosted on AWS I don't care about "freedom of speech" - I'm gonna sue AWS into oblivion for hosting that content.
No.. There would be no grounds for any kind of suit against AWS from a 3rd party based on content a user posted to AWS. At best the person attempting to sue winds up with a cased kicked out of the courts with a legal bill for your own attorney's plus Amazon's attorney costs. Section 230 makes
Re: regardless of politics (Score:2)
Re: regardless of politics (Score:4)
THey did, if you go back and read Amazon's response to the first lawsuit they pointed all this out. I don't know why Parler is wasting it's money with another lawsuit that's going to fail.
Re: (Score:3)
AWS informed Parler repeatedly for several months that they were violating the TOS and risked being de-platformed. Parler ignored the warnings.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but that would mean AWS is in the legal right, and Parler is in the wrong, and that fucks with the narrative where the big bad web platform is picking on the brave freedom fighters. Truth has a habit of doing that.
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
But, AWS in actuality gave them something less than two days notice.
Well you bought into Parler's lies quite easily didn't you. Unfortunately in the first lawsuit Amazon filed evidence that they have been warning Parler that they will terminate their account for *months*. Parler can argue all they want, Amazon provided actual evidence of formal communication with examples of violations of the terms of service to Parler's Chief Policy Officer.
If you don't pay your electricity bill and the energy company sends you warnings telling you they'll cut you off, you can't sit around with your thumb in your arse expecting the power to magically stay on because you pretended you didn't read your mail.
Amazon presented evidence that they held up their side of the contract, the judge agreed and offered Parler the option to amend their complaint which they were likely to lose on standing as none of their primary complaints have shown to been relevant ... and Parler bailed (jeesh I wonder why).
Notice now the new complaint is focused not on the termination terms, but rather on Twitter, collusion between companies, and anti-competitive grounds? Notice how they filed in a completely different jurisdiction? And most notably, notice how their lawyers are not even claiming the very thing you're defending them on?
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure you would. Instead you'll have to take the judge's word for it, the very judge who offered Parler the option to amend their claim when evidence was presented that claim one (that they didn't get the required notice) would be thrown out summarily.
Re: regardless of politics (Score:4)
just like all the democrats did for the last 5years
[Citation Required]
This is absolutely not a "both sides" thing, and you should stop lying about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler violated AWS terms of service, which are obviously constructed to restrict and censor non-woke speech.
Jesus. Stop looking for a goddamn conspiracy under every rock.
They are "obviously constructed" to limit AWS's liability for content they are hosting.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, if you blow up my kid with bomb instructions you found hosted on AWS I won't care about "freedom of speech" - I'm gonna sue AWS into oblivion for hosting that content.
That's why AWS has these TOS - To prote
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
What you want is for Parler's right to free speech to be interpreted as trumping Amazon's rights to free speech and free association, thereby converting it into a right to force others to amplify their speech.
This would ironically mean the end of right to free speech. Or was that what you were going for?
Free speech vs Free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd mod you up if I ever had a mod point to give. But in the lack of the giveable mod point, I'll go ahead and dig a bit deeper.
I see this is a kind of jujitsu. I think that free speech is basically a good thing. For a more neutral example, in a scientific context, everyone should be free to throw new theories into the discussion and the research and the data should prove which theories are true. In the scientific context it isn't supposed to matter even if someone is "emotionally attached" to a false idea, because the truth will eventually win out.
That was theory, but in practice, things work differently. Maybe "eventually" is the key word. Many liars don't care what the truth is. They are just trying to get the money and run away (or even die) before the truth catches up with them.
But as it applies to political free speech, it doesn't get more hypocritical than cancelling critics while complaining that the "other side" is trying to cancel you. This is where free speech becomes weaponized against free speech. (I'm reminded of old O'Reilly cutting the mic to "win" (before he got cancelled and lost). Was he also the innovator of the ambush interviews?)
Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is also relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "We should tolerate everything except for intolerance." In particular, if you tolerate speech against tolerance, then at some point the intolerance is gonna win out.
Re:Free speech vs Free speech (Score:5, Informative)
Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is also relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "We should tolerate everything except for intolerance." In particular, if you tolerate speech against tolerance, then at some point the intolerance is gonna win out.
Popper's paradox of tolerance is a It is a thought experiment, not designed to be applied/measured in the real world (although everyone will pick their favorite anecdotes where it works or doesn't work). Popper took it from Plato who used it to justify why it's necessary to have benevolent despots. The fact that we use it at 50% power now to explain why we want a tolerant liberal democracy, rather than at 90% power to explain why we want benevolent despots, is an indication of how arbitrary it is as a (non-empirical) thought experiment -- our conclusions depend on how much we chose to apply the paradox; in other words it's being used only as a posto-facto justification for our existing prejudices.
Just picking nits with this. I agreed with the rest of what you said.
Re: (Score:2)
My main reaction is TANSTA-BSD: There Ain't No Such Thing As Benevolent Stable Dictatorship. Every dictatorship always goes pear-shaped sooner or later. (Yeah, I used BSD just because it's catchy for computer geeks. But I also buy into TANSTAFL.)
Re: (Score:2)
Was he also the innovator of the ambush interviews?
I think it was Jeremy Paxman of the BBC, but he was doing the "repeatedly ask question to get simplistic yes/no answer" to fill time, in the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:regardless of politics (Score:4)
They didn't do that by any standard that met the court's view of dealing with AWS's requests. Quite the opposite, it turned out that they had done damned little. They got kicked for breach of contract, and now they are trying an entirely different tactic. They knew what they claimed about taking down offensive materials was bullshit, so I'm curious as to why you repeat a lie that was demonstrated to be false.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems to be going around a lot lately in certain circles ...
Re: (Score:2)
In response to well-known Trumptard troll nonBORG, MightyMartian replied:
They got kicked for breach of contract, and now they are trying an entirely different tactic. They knew what they claimed about taking down offensive materials was bullshit, so I'm curious as to why you repeat a lie that was demonstrated to be false.
The answer to your question is in the asshole's .sig:
Proof positive
https://lindelltv.com/
He's promoting crackpot crackhead Mike Lindell's bullshit "documentary" purporting to prove that Trump won the election, and a conspiracy between the media and the Democrats covered it up.
Sorry, but you're arguing with a person who refuses to accept reality, because it refuses to support his whackadoodle consipracy theories. You're just wasting your time, because, in his deluded mind
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5, Informative)
https://casetext.com/case/parl... [casetext.com]
In particular:
"Parler has not denied that at the time AWS invoked its termination or suspension rights under Sections 4, 6 and 7, Parler was in violation of the Agreement and the AUP. It has therefore failed, at this stage in the proceedings, to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its breach of contract claim."
Re:regardless of politics (Score:4, Informative)
From Amazon's legal filing in response to the first lawsuit.
On November 17, 2020, seeking to better understand Parler’s approach to content moderation, AWS provided Parler two representative examples, asked whether “this type of content ... violate[s] [Parler’s] policies,” and asked for “more detailed information on [Parler’s] policies and processes for handling and mitigating” such content. Id. & Ex. D. Two days later, Parler responded that it had referred one of the examples to its “regular contact for investigation.” Id. Ex. D. Over the next seven weeks, AWS reported more than 100 additional representative pieces of content advocating violence to Parler’s Chief Policy Officer, including:
Fry’em up. The whole fkn crew. #pelosi #aoc #thesquad #soros #gates #chuckschumer #hrc #obama #adamschiff #blm #antifa we are coming for you and you will know it.” “#JackDorsey ... you will die a bloody death alongside Mark Suckerturd [Zuckerberg].... It has been decided and plans are being put in place. Remember the photographs inside your home while you slept? Yes, that close. You will die a sudden death!” “We are going to fight in a civil War on Jan.20th, Form MILITIAS now and acquire targets.” “On January 20th we need to start systematicly [sic] assassinating [sic] #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of the #nba #nfl #mlb #nhl #mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents and #antifa. I already have a news worthy event planned.” “Shoot the police that protect these shitbag senators right in the head then make the senator grovel a bit before capping they ass.”
On January 9, 2021, Apple and Google terminated Parler’s accounts. Doran Decl. Ex. N. The same day, AWS notified Parler it would suspend its account effective 11:59 p.m. January 10. Executive 2 Decl. 7 & Dkt. 1-1.2 AWS explained it “remain[s] troubled by the repeated violations of our terms of service,” noting it had “reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence.” Id. Dkt. 1-1. AWS also reported the “steady increase in this violent content,” making “clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”
They were notified in November and failed to moderate for more than 30 days with the situation only getting worse.
Re:regardless of politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice so your evidence is based on claims made by AWS. So you claim that AWS is right in the lawsuit because they say so.
Put some effort into trying to understand the link. His evidence is that AWS provided evidence to a judge and the judge agreed and that is why the claim is right.
Now if you want to attack the judge's legal standing go for it. But in this case the judge gave Parler themselves the ability to question it, and do you know what happened? Parler dropped the case.
You're not only defending the indefensible, you're defending something that even Parler themselves are not defending against. When you're more committed than the company's own legal team, maybe it's time to start questioning your own bias.
Re:regardless of politics (Score:4, Insightful)
They will lose, in fact it likely won't get to a trial. Parler surely knows this, they're just trying to get their name in the news to try to get users back now that they have Russian hosting and to get the donations flowing.
Also, they clearly violated Amazon's ToS, no private entity is or should be forced to do business with you if you violate the contract that you signed when initiating service.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the network on which it seems to reside:
NetRange: 216.246.208.0 - 216.246.209.255
CIDR: 216.246.208.0/23
NetName: SKYSI
NetHandle: NET-216-246-208-0-2 NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS:
Organization: Skysilk (SKYSI)
RegDate: 2021-02-16
Updated: 2021-02-16
Ref: https://rdap.arin.net/registry... [arin.net]
OrgName: Skysilk
OrgId: SKYSI
Addres
Re: (Score:2)
They will lose, in fact it likely won't get to a trial. Parler surely knows this, they're just trying to get their name in the news to try to get users back now that they have Russian hosting and to get the donations flowing.
It's about The Benjamins and trying to (re)establish their market value. From the TFA (Reuters):
The app said it was worth $1 billion and about to seek funding when Seattle-based Amazon pulled the plug, costing it tens of millions of users and hundreds of millions of dollars of annual ad revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
If Paler did this as a publicity stunt then this is more evidence that they are idiots. It's very easy to start a law suit, it can be a lot harder to get out of one (look what happened when SCO sued IBM).
Re: (Score:2)
it can be a lot harder to get out of one (look what happened when SCO sued IBM).
Not if you drop it during the early stages. (look what happened when Parler sued Amazon, I mean a week ago, when they got out of their first lawsuit before filing another one).
Re: (Score:2)
we cant have the gatekeepers controlling who gets to speak.
There are gatekeepers? Then why are Parler and Gab still up?
Re: (Score:2)
In the earlier era, when Communists were still an opposition, rather than mainstream
Could you provide some examples of "mainstream" Communist principles that are in practice in the USA?
I don't need a long list, maybe just some real-world American examples of -
A classless society.
The elimination of religion.
The abolition of private ownership of land and/or property.
A socialist economy where the state owns the means of production
etc?
Thanks. Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
None of these are examples of mainstream communism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to review the "Army McCarthy hearings" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]