Parler CEO Says Parler May Be Offline Longer Than Expected -- Why Didn't We Let The Free Market Decide???

[colfax_m]

One day Amazon bitched about their policies, next day, they were kicked off the servers. That's my evidence.

What makes you think that you would have been made aware of Amazon complaining to Parler about their moderation policies in November?

 

[martybegan]

One day Amazon bitched about their policies, next day, they were kicked off the servers. That's my evidence.

What makes you think that you would have been made aware of Amazon complaining to Parler about their moderation policies in November?

Then lets see Amazon's justification for months of asking. All I see is "MODERATE", Parler saying "NO" and Amazon shutting them down.

 

[colfax_m]

Then lets see Amazon's justification for months of asking. All I see is "MODERATE", Parler saying "NO" and Amazon shutting them down.

Dodged the question. You based your allegation on a really, really, really crappy assumption.

Correspondence between companies isn’t public.

AWS contacted Parler in November and told them they need to get their shit together because the content they were hosting violated their contract. Parler didn’t take any real efforts to deal with the problem so 7 weeks after telling them to get their act together, they terminated their agreement.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf

 

[martybegan]

Then lets see Amazon's justification for months of asking. All I see is "MODERATE", Parler saying "NO" and Amazon shutting them down.

Dodged the question. You based your allegation on a really, really, really crappy assumption.

Correspondence between companies isn’t public.

AWS contacted Parler in November and told them they need to get their shit together because the content they were hosting violated their contract. Parler didn’t take any real efforts to deal with the problem so 7 weeks after telling them to get their act together, they terminated their agreement.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf

Wow, November. So it wasn't a few days, my mistake. Still makes them assholes and you their cum bucket.

And that is just Amazon's position, weasels that they are.

Parler's lawsuit for balance, something you know nothing about.

Complaint – #1 in Parler LLC v. Amazon Web Services Inc (W.D. Wash., 2:21-cv-00031) – CourtListener.com

 

[colfax_m]

Then lets see Amazon's justification for months of asking. All I see is "MODERATE", Parler saying "NO" and Amazon shutting them down.

Dodged the question. You based your allegation on a really, really, really crappy assumption.

Correspondence between companies isn’t public.

AWS contacted Parler in November and told them they need to get their shit together because the content they were hosting violated their contract. Parler didn’t take any real efforts to deal with the problem so 7 weeks after telling them to get their act together, they terminated their agreement.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf

Wow, November. So it wasn't a few days, my mistake. Still makes them assholes and you their cum bucket.

And that is just Amazon's position, weasels that they are.

Seven weeks. Makes you an asshole for making shit up and pretending it’s true.

Of course, nothing is going to convince you because Parler is your tribe and they can do no wrong even if they host people constantly calling for the violent deaths of people you despise (I’m sure that’s a coincidence).

 

[martybegan]

Then lets see Amazon's justification for months of asking. All I see is "MODERATE", Parler saying "NO" and Amazon shutting them down.

Dodged the question. You based your allegation on a really, really, really crappy assumption.

Correspondence between companies isn’t public.

AWS contacted Parler in November and told them they need to get their shit together because the content they were hosting violated their contract. Parler didn’t take any real efforts to deal with the problem so 7 weeks after telling them to get their act together, they terminated their agreement.

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf

Wow, November. So it wasn't a few days, my mistake. Still makes them assholes and you their cum bucket.

And that is just Amazon's position, weasels that they are.

Seven weeks. Makes you an asshole for making shit up and pretending it’s true.

Of course, nothing is going to convince you because Parler is your tribe and they can do no wrong even if they host people constantly calling for the violent deaths of people you despise (I’m sure that’s a coincidence).

The ones they suspended them over were recent, and they did not give them the 30 days required by the contract, despite Amazon's lawyers claiming otherwise.

My "tribe" is free expression, unlike your "tribe" which is "only our voices count you plebian lowlifes"

How bougie of you.

 

[colfax_m]

The ones they suspended them over were recent, and they did not give them the 30 days required by the contract, despite Amazon's lawyers claiming otherwise.

My "tribe" is free expression, unlike your "tribe" which is "only our voices count you plebian lowlifes"

How bougie of you.

Your tribe is violent people fantasizing about murdering those they disagree with and you call me a lowlife?

Your tribe demands that Amazon serve them against their will.

Amazon’s contract says they can cease service immediately if the content poses a security threat. Guess what happened?

 

[martybegan]

The ones they suspended them over were recent, and they did not give them the 30 days required by the contract, despite Amazon's lawyers claiming otherwise.

My "tribe" is free expression, unlike your "tribe" which is "only our voices count you plebian lowlifes"

How bougie of you.

Your tribe is violent people fantasizing about murdering those they disagree with and you call me a lowlife?

Your tribe demands that Amazon serve them against their will.

Amazon’s contract says they can cease service immediately if the content poses a security threat. Guess what happened?

Your tribe has the same thing.

Your tribe demands silence from political enemies.

Fuck you.

Security threat to amazon.

 

[colfax_m]

Security threat to amazon.

Security threat to third parties (which is the material language of the contract).

Guess what happened?

Your tribe has no problems with publishing violent lunatics and spreading their message. Just don’t expect people to help you.

Again, you admit that Parler could make their own servers but it’s not easy.

 

[colfax_m]

Security threat to amazon.

Security threat to third parties (which is the material language of the contract).

Guess what happened?

Your tribe has no problems with publishing violent lunatics and spreading their message. Just don’t expect people to help you.

Again, you admit that Parler could make their own servers but it’s not easy. Sorry, life isn’t always easy. Especially when you’re asking for help to publish your deplorable friend’s violent speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Parler CEO says app will be offline 'longer than expected' because of Amazon, Apple and Google

Parler, a social media app popular with conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump, has gone offline.

www.cnbc.com

"Parler has gone offline after Amazon withdrew its support in the wake of the deadly U.S. Capitol riot last week. The app was reliant on cloud computing power provided by Amazon Web Services. John Matze, the founder and CEO, said in a statement on Monday that the Parler app will be down “longer than expected” because other cloud hosting companies do not want to work with Parler in light of the press statements issued by Amazon, Google and Apple."

What these big tech companies are doing is outrageous -- it is flat out socialism communism fascism Orwellian government censorship.....Why didn't the radical leftist Democrats who control big Tech just allow the free markets to decide -- instead of having people like Biden and Pelosi decide who Twitter or Facebook can or can't have on their platform - why didn't they just allow the free market to decide?? -- That is the problem when you have big government get involved with what private businesses can or can't do -- you get communism....

This shouldn't be a left or right issue (except that the right should be able to dictate what the left does or can't do) --- this should be a bipartisan issue -- we should allow free markets to have control over social media, not big government -- and the best way to do that is to nationalize Facebook and Twitter and declare them public commodities and let Trump and others he appoints decide who and who can't have access -- we should also break up Google and Amazon because these corporations have been too successful at gaining a near monopoly -- and breaking up monopolies is totally a function of a free market....In fact, we wouldn't have all of these large media, pharma and agricultural corporate conglomerates if we just allowed free markets to decide...Just think how much better something like healthcare would be if we just nationalized it and declared it a public commodity like the free market demands...

Translation:
“We told you so, we degenerate beggars have been telling you for years; let Father Government take the reigns and decide for us.”

You understand that each of those companies made their own decisions, don't you?

So you are ok with every single hosting company denying them the ability to have a website?

Sounds kinda like not wanting to bake a cake to me. How is this different?

Because if all the bakers in an area decided to not provide the cakes, then it would be an issue, and I would have an issue with it, just as I would have an issue if they denied over the counter point of sale products.

In this case you have a far more limited service, controlled by a few companies. If most of them deny these people access, they are denying them the ability to enter what has become a form of the commons where political ideas are broadcast and debated.

Got it. You only believe in the principal of a business making it's own decisions when it favors religious nuts. We already knew that. Nothing is stopping some crazy right wing hosting site from scooping up that business. Perhaps Stormfront.

No, I believe in free exercise absent a compelling government interest. If the bakers all ganged up and denied a wedding cake to a gay couple, the government has an interest. If the baker denied a non specific, point of sale item to a gay person, to me the government has an interest. In the one specific case of a contracted service like a wedding cake, that celebrates an event the baker in question finds sinful, free exercise wins out over the government's interest in commerce.

In the case of Parler, if they can't find a host due to all the hosts deciding not to work with them, then the government has a compelling interest in stopping it due to the limiting of their right to expression.

marty, it's called a monoploy, and isn't allowed in the US. see they don't like our country.

If all the providers deny them hosting, then it could also be a conspiracy or a racket.

Baseless rightwing nonsense.

There is no 'conspiracy' against conservative social media.

 

[martybegan]

Security threat to amazon.

Security threat to third parties (which is the material language of the contract).

Guess what happened?

Your tribe has no problems with publishing violent lunatics and spreading their message. Just don’t expect people to help you.

Again, you admit that Parler could make their own servers but it’s not easy.

Security threat as in digital security, not what you are thinking.

They can setup their own servers in 2 days?

 

[martybegan]

Parler CEO says app will be offline 'longer than expected' because of Amazon, Apple and Google

Parler, a social media app popular with conservatives and supporters of President Donald Trump, has gone offline.

www.cnbc.com

"Parler has gone offline after Amazon withdrew its support in the wake of the deadly U.S. Capitol riot last week. The app was reliant on cloud computing power provided by Amazon Web Services. John Matze, the founder and CEO, said in a statement on Monday that the Parler app will be down “longer than expected” because other cloud hosting companies do not want to work with Parler in light of the press statements issued by Amazon, Google and Apple."

What these big tech companies are doing is outrageous -- it is flat out socialism communism fascism Orwellian government censorship.....Why didn't the radical leftist Democrats who control big Tech just allow the free markets to decide -- instead of having people like Biden and Pelosi decide who Twitter or Facebook can or can't have on their platform - why didn't they just allow the free market to decide?? -- That is the problem when you have big government get involved with what private businesses can or can't do -- you get communism....

This shouldn't be a left or right issue (except that the right should be able to dictate what the left does or can't do) --- this should be a bipartisan issue -- we should allow free markets to have control over social media, not big government -- and the best way to do that is to nationalize Facebook and Twitter and declare them public commodities and let Trump and others he appoints decide who and who can't have access -- we should also break up Google and Amazon because these corporations have been too successful at gaining a near monopoly -- and breaking up monopolies is totally a function of a free market....In fact, we wouldn't have all of these large media, pharma and agricultural corporate conglomerates if we just allowed free markets to decide...Just think how much better something like healthcare would be if we just nationalized it and declared it a public commodity like the free market demands...

Translation:
“We told you so, we degenerate beggars have been telling you for years; let Father Government take the reigns and decide for us.”

You understand that each of those companies made their own decisions, don't you?

So you are ok with every single hosting company denying them the ability to have a website?

Sounds kinda like not wanting to bake a cake to me. How is this different?

Because if all the bakers in an area decided to not provide the cakes, then it would be an issue, and I would have an issue with it, just as I would have an issue if they denied over the counter point of sale products.

In this case you have a far more limited service, controlled by a few companies. If most of them deny these people access, they are denying them the ability to enter what has become a form of the commons where political ideas are broadcast and debated.

Got it. You only believe in the principal of a business making it's own decisions when it favors religious nuts. We already knew that. Nothing is stopping some crazy right wing hosting site from scooping up that business. Perhaps Stormfront.

No, I believe in free exercise absent a compelling government interest. If the bakers all ganged up and denied a wedding cake to a gay couple, the government has an interest. If the baker denied a non specific, point of sale item to a gay person, to me the government has an interest. In the one specific case of a contracted service like a wedding cake, that celebrates an event the baker in question finds sinful, free exercise wins out over the government's interest in commerce.

In the case of Parler, if they can't find a host due to all the hosts deciding not to work with them, then the government has a compelling interest in stopping it due to the limiting of their right to expression.

marty, it's called a monoploy, and isn't allowed in the US. see they don't like our country.

If all the providers deny them hosting, then it could also be a conspiracy or a racket.

Baseless rightwing nonsense.

There is no 'conspiracy' against conservative social media.

Deny deny deny, the mantra of the left wing censors.

 

[colfax_m]

Security threat as in digital security, not what you are thinking.

They can setup their own servers in 2 days?

Show me in the contract where they defined a security threat as a digital security threat?

You can’t. You are, yet again, making baseless assumptions to suit your purposes.

I don’t honestly care how long it takes Parler to set up a server. It’s irrelevant. If they want to be host to garbage people, they shouldn’t expect others to help them do so.

Just like demanding a contractor build a giant swastika.

 

[martybegan]

Security threat as in digital security, not what you are thinking.

They can setup their own servers in 2 days?

Show me in the contract where they defined a security threat as a digital security threat?

You can’t. You are, yet again, making baseless assumptions to suit your purposes.

I don’t honestly care how long it takes Parler to set up a server. It’s irrelevant. If they want to be host to garbage people, they shouldn’t expect others to help them do so.

Just like demanding a contractor build a giant swartika.

show me where it means any threat. Wording like that implies threats like hacking, phishing and other threats to the integrity of the servers. One would assume Amazon would be able to shut down the servers if they caused a threat to Amazon, a third party, or even Parler itself. Unlike content under 230, Amazon wouldn't be protected from malicious hacking activity allowed by issues in Parler's code or the code of one of it's third party providers.

 

[colfax_m]

Security threat as in digital security, not what you are thinking.

They can setup their own servers in 2 days?

Show me in the contract where they defined a security threat as a digital security threat?

You can’t. You are, yet again, making baseless assumptions to suit your purposes.

I don’t honestly care how long it takes Parler to set up a server. It’s irrelevant. If they want to be host to garbage people, they shouldn’t expect others to help them do so.

Just like demanding a contractor build a giant swartika.

show me where it means any threat. Wording like that implies threats like hacking, phishing and other threats to the integrity of the servers. One would assume Amazon would be able to shut down the servers if they caused a threat to Amazon, a third party, or even Parler itself. Unlike content under 230, Amazon wouldn't be protected from malicious hacking activity allowed by issues in Parler's code or the code of one of it's third party providers.

I don’t know if you know anything about contracts but you don’t get very far claiming something is implied by the language. If the language is vague that’s because it’s intended to be interpreted broadly.

 

[martybegan]

Security threat as in digital security, not what you are thinking.

They can setup their own servers in 2 days?

Show me in the contract where they defined a security threat as a digital security threat?

You can’t. You are, yet again, making baseless assumptions to suit your purposes.

I don’t honestly care how long it takes Parler to set up a server. It’s irrelevant. If they want to be host to garbage people, they shouldn’t expect others to help them do so.

Just like demanding a contractor build a giant swartika.

show me where it means any threat. Wording like that implies threats like hacking, phishing and other threats to the integrity of the servers. One would assume Amazon would be able to shut down the servers if they caused a threat to Amazon, a third party, or even Parler itself. Unlike content under 230, Amazon wouldn't be protected from malicious hacking activity allowed by issues in Parler's code or the code of one of it's third party providers.

I don’t know if you know anything about contracts but you don’t get very far claiming something is implied by the language. If the language is vague that’s because it’s intended to be interpreted broadly.

No, what it means in this case is you are trying to take a technical "security threat" codex in a contract and extrapolate it to the content of the posts/sites/boards.

 

[ColonelAngus]

You don't understand private property rights. Start your own platform and accept your liability .

I agree 100%.

You don't understand private property rights. Start your own platform and accept your liability .

 

[Weatherman2020]

You don't understand private property rights. Start your own platform and accept your liability .

Oh, that is one EPIC post.