I don't know which social media platforms use AWS to any critical extent, but I can't imagine them ejecting a big name like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc over "finding dozens of posts on the service which it said encouraged violence".
"Parler will not knowingly allow itself to be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or other unlawful acts. We will remove reported member content that a reasonable and objective observer would believe constitutes or evidences such activity. We may also remove the accounts of members who use our platform in this way."
https://legal.parler.com/documents/guidelines.pdf (obviously inaccessible now).
conservatives have watched themselves banned piecemeal from these platforms, they know exactly what’s coming.
the ones you’re worried about have already got private comms.
Also while ensuring those tools can never be used for "evil" is unreasonable, we should expect dominant players to do what they can or at least not do a lot worse than everyone else. Are you arguing Parler tried to moderate as much as others?
Meanwhile there are lots of private conservative/Republican groups on Facebook no one wants to talk about.
If that merely means that Parler allows posts that make people angry with a fair amount of violent rhetoric, well, that's all social media. In that case, the distinction is partisan, not principled.
Where can one find a definition of "sufficient" in this context?
If you're going to build something aimed entirely at "taking down/riling up the establishment" you need to make sure you're not entirely dependent on the establishment to keep your something online.
> Over the past several weeks, we’ve reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence. [...] It also seems that Parler is still trying to determine its position on content moderation. You remove some violent content when contacted by us or others, but not always with urgency. [...] This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
(quoting from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p..., it's a ways down the page).
The email is lacking in specifics, though.
Assuming this is true, it's why I shed no tears for Parler and their circumstances.
However, things like "sufficient" and "urgency" need to be established in law, after which the rules are clear and all of these platforms can be held to account for the content they host and spread.
If it turns out that gives the current tech giants too much individual power, that’s a separate issue to deal with.
It's obvious there should have been more moderation. However, Parler is a 30 employee start up. Their efforts would fall sort of the ideal either way...
So based on this, Amazon made a business decision to deny service to Parler, due to the adverse publicity (and perhaps, potential legal liability) generated for them by hosting this content.
"parler is just not worth the aggravation" - they are likely to be a minuscule revenue source that requires constant monitoring to make sure we not facing any liability, as well as potentially pissing off our existing clients. Therefore, its in our best interests just not to bother with them.
Anyone that thinks corporations care one way or another about anything except their bottom lines, has a much higher view of corporations then I do.
I mean when MC & Visa decided pornhub was a potential liability, they cut them off. When companies decide Trump or Parler are a liability - they do the same - they cut them off. That's just capitalism. No master except the almighty dollar.
but if they were at least honest about it, maybe we could stop re-hashing this everyday...
Twitter doesn't seem to have any issue with this content
Do you think that is not as bad as what Trump has said?
And it can be argued that if the Israeli nation wasn’t a socialist theocracy, things would be much better there, just as we can say the same for Iran.
Now you and I both know the Ayatollah believes in a Jewish genocide, but this particular tweet isn’t proof or evidence of it.
If you can twist that into supporting the rioters and calling for violence at the inauguration, I don't see how you can't see calling for the destruction of Israel could cause people to be anti-Semitic.
If Trump tweeted that Mexico was cancerous tumor on America that has to be removed and eradicated, it is possible, and it will happen, do you think Twitter be cool with that? What if he had previously endorsed the genocide of all Mexican people? What if Americans had commonly been committing terrorist attacks against Mexicans?
My point was that OP didn’t have to mistate the literal tweet.
We judge threats not only on their intent, but on their success in executing that intent. On that measure, Parler is much more dangerous than Maduro, Putin, or the Ayatollah.
then call a brief description of an event that obviously happened a "conspiracy theory".
So far, Parler and its associates have come a lot closer to dismantling American democracy than Iran ever has. That's why they get taken more seriously.
As Twitter said, it's not just the content, but the context as well. When Iranian soldiers invade the US Capitol, I'm sure they'll face a Twitter ban as well.
The leadership in Iran, in contrast, has not gotten any closer to its goal of destroying Israel since the Revolution.
And also, what is the threshold for deciding which platform is on one side or another?
We live in a capitalist free-market system. Amazon (or any entity) is free to choose with whom they do business (oh the irony!). They are dropping Parler because the the current political climate has manifest in such a way that they think it will cost them more financial and/or political capital than the alternative (recall there is a lot of antitrust sentiment out there right now).
Too bad so sad. Sorry not sorry. This is exactly the kind of "freedom" for which many of the above platform's users would advocate. Parler's PR team is missing the opportunity to applaud AWS for exercising their freedoms.
Unless, of course, they actually stand by what they've said. In which case we come right back to my original post.
Amazon doesn't really come off as the "good guy" by admitting they have weighed the current political climate against their profits. Especially given whose about to be in charge. They made a business decision and wrapped up in some good 'ol PR spin/legalese. It happens all the time. About everything. It's still their right to refuse service.