Comment by agar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by agar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Are you familiar enough with AWS contracts in general, and possibly the Parler contract specifically, to know they breached the contract? (Honest question, as you may be an employee of Parler, for example. HN is an interesting place).

I ask because contracts typically, despite their duration, contain a variety of exit clauses. In this case, Amazon could argue they were exercising a "compliance with laws" clause (if it was in the agreement) such as,

"<Licensee> will not use, or allow its products to be used, in violation of any laws or regulations."

It becomes a legal argument as to whether Parler's members that advocated violence against the government caused Parler to violate the clause, and whether that amounts to a material breach that triggers contract termination.

That is very different than a blanket statement that Amazon "breached that contract and bowed to the mob." In fact, Amazon can sue Parler for breaching the agreement and exposing Amazon to significant liability for (at the most extreme) aiding and abetting terrorism.

Note that I'm not arguing either way, simply stating what lawyers are likely discussing behind the scenes.

>"compliance with laws"

that is something that has to be proven in court, before playing any such cards

If that is the case and you defend it, then this is a very unique situation, where law is not enforced by state institution, but by Google, Apple and Amazon. The question is what law? As clearly it is not US law.

If there is breach to the law, then there should be article Nr of breached law, otherwise all of these arguments are nonsensical. Nowhere in the world - even in Saudi Arabia it is possible to be judged and sentenced by unwritten law - by nongovernmental entities. Otherwise it is unlawful lynching by mob and there are countries that allow those, but US kinda positioned themselves as a country that guarantees The Law. Now that guarantee does not work.

I don't have much to add to the sibling comment. It is purely up to the parties of the contract to determine if the other breached it. The remedies of that breach are specifically covered in the contract itself.

Nothing needs to be "proven in court, before playing any such cards." It needs to be asserted. Once asserted, there may be a cure period (the licensee might have 30 days to remedy the problem, otherwise the contract terminates).

The party may disagree, and could negotiate different remedies or timelines - again, no court is required here. However, if they can't come to terms, then they can pursue this in contract court.

Be aware that I'm not defending, or justifying, or taking a position on any of this. It's just how it is. If you don't like it, then work on reforming tort and contract law as opposed to stating on Hacker News that the basis of most worldwide commerce is "nonsensical."

It is not something that has to be shown in court beforehand. Amazon accused Parler of breach of their contract. That means the contract no longer exists. If a court finds that Amazon is the party in breach, they'll be liable for damages.

None of this is criminal law. It's contract law and it will be dealt with per the laws, procedures, precedents, customs, and traditions of civil jurisprudence.

Parler did remove illegal content.

Meanwhile Facebook Messenger remains the #1 way Child porn is distributed online

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Unless you know that the Parler/Amazon contract included a cure period, the specificity of that period, that Amazon hadn't notified Parler of contract violations previously (i.e., so they extended past the cure period), and also included no other relevant termination clauses (including termination for convenience), then we simply can't say that Amazon breached the agreement despite Parler removing content. There are a myriad of ways they could have fulfilled the agreement, and/or Parler breached the agreement with Amazon.

Please, separate legal arguments from emotional arguments. I'm strictly speaking legally.

Regarding Facebook, the choice to enforce, or not to enforce, a contract term is exclusively the right of the parties to the contract. Amazon may have unfairly chosen to enforce contract terms against Parler and not enforce those same terms against Facebook (for example; though I don't believe Messenger is hosted on AWS).

That's completely irrelevant; so far as I know, no law says all parties to all contracts must be treated equitably.

You will have a compelling argument when and if law enforcement chooses to crack down on child porn on Parler but not on Messenger. In this case though, you're comparing apples to baseballs: their similarities are vastly outweighed by their differences.

Did you actually read the statement from Amazon?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com