• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Apple, Amazon, Google ban social media platform Parler in wake of US Capitol riots

Social Media bans? pfft. I'm more interested in the impact from financial institutions (if any) refusing to handle anything Trump related or any other kind of organization placing bans on the Trump brand. A more effective way to stop these people is to hurt their funding.
 
One sad thing about this is that all those who use Parler as a dating site are going to have to go back to finding dates at family reunions.
 
One sad thing about this is that all those who use Parler as a dating site are going to have to go back to finding dates at family reunions.

How the fuck did they use Parler without fully functioning opposable thumbs?
 
Conservatives are advancing calls of censorship because their previous attempt to change the discussion from armed insurrection and murder to subvert democracy, i.e. "Antifa did it," failed.
 
Didn't Amazon begin by selling books? I am wondering how soon they will start burning them too?

A far more apt analogy would be a publisher refusing to publish child porn.

This is much more apt.
Sorry [MENTION=563]RVonse[/MENTION]; but planning an overthrow of the government isn't protected speech.

Tom
 
Didn't Amazon begin by selling books? I am wondering how soon they will start burning them too?

A far more apt analogy would be a publisher refusing to publish child porn.

This is much more apt.
Sorry [MENTION=563]RVonse[/MENTION]; but planning an overthrow of the government isn't protected speech.

Tom

Come on, dude. It's not like they're trying to overthrow a right wing government or something treasonous like that. It's very clear that the REAL villains are everyone except for them and we should be focusing on those other people.
 
So Parler sues Amazon - https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N3_J2fVHxGUYeuc-xL0cRWWVPQylnoM/view. Antitrust, breach of contract, and tortuous interference with business expectancy. The breach of contract is pretty clear. The antitrust claim raises facts many may not have known; that Twitter recently contracted with Amazon for server access. Hence, Parler is a competitor to Amazon. The discovery produced for those allegations would be interesting. Methinks that the Woke at Amazon didn't consult the lawyers before trying to kill Parler.
 
So Parler sues Amazon - https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N3_J2fVHxGUYeuc-xL0cRWWVPQylnoM/view. Antitrust, breach of contract, and tortuous interference with business expectancy. The breach of contract is pretty clear.

Unless there are details in the contract or just general contract law related to Parler's site being used to promote criminal activity.

Under the contract, either party could terminate the agreement within 30 days notice of alleged material breach. Amazon obviously didn't follow that. Parler gets money damages on that alone.
 
So Parler sues Amazon - https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N3_J2fVHxGUYeuc-xL0cRWWVPQylnoM/view. Antitrust, breach of contract, and tortuous interference with business expectancy. The breach of contract is pretty clear.

Unless there are details in the contract or just general contract law related to Parler's site being used to promote criminal activity.

Under the contract, either party could terminate the agreement within 30 days notice of alleged material breach. Amazon obviously didn't follow that. Parler gets money damages on that alone.

1.4. In connection with your use of the Services, you are responsible for maintaining licenses and adhering to the license terms of any software you run. If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) (“Prohibited Content”), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may remove or disable access to any Prohibited Content without prior notice in connection with illegal content, where the content may disrupt or threaten the Services or in accordance with applicable law or any judicial, regulatory or other governmental order or request. In the event that we remove Your Content without prior notice, we will provide prompt notice to you unless prohibited by law. We terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/
 
Under the contract, either party could terminate the agreement within 30 days notice of alleged material breach. Amazon obviously didn't follow that. Parler gets money damages on that alone.

1.4. In connection with your use of the Services, you are responsible for maintaining licenses and adhering to the license terms of any software you run. If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) (“Prohibited Content”), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may remove or disable access to any Prohibited Content without prior notice in connection with illegal content, where the content may disrupt or threaten the Services or in accordance with applicable law or any judicial, regulatory or other governmental order or request. In the event that we remove Your Content without prior notice, we will provide prompt notice to you unless prohibited by law. We terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

https://aws.amazon.com/service-terms/

Hey chief, they didn't remove content. They cutoff the server.
 
So Parler sues Amazon - https://drive.google.com/file/d/10N3_J2fVHxGUYeuc-xL0cRWWVPQylnoM/view. Antitrust, breach of contract, and tortuous interference with business expectancy. The breach of contract is pretty clear.

Unless there are details in the contract or just general contract law related to Parler's site being used to promote criminal activity.

Under the contract, either party could terminate the agreement within 30 days notice of alleged material breach. Amazon obviously didn't follow that. Parler gets money damages on that alone.

Actually it isn't obvious. Amazon is stating that the account is suspended and they are backing up all Parler data for a potential future migration to a different server. Parler would like to argue that this constitutes 'termination' but a suspended account isn't termination and Parler would have difficulty demonstrating that it is. Monetary damages are also completely glossed over in the complaint - tying revenue to advertising sales and not user numbers and content. Seems like Parlor would have had to agree to the Amazon TOU which includes suspending accounts (prior to termination) when they run afoul of the rules.

aa
 
Under the contract, either party could terminate the agreement within 30 days notice of alleged material breach. Amazon obviously didn't follow that. Parler gets money damages on that alone.

Actually it isn't obvious. Amazon is stating that the account is suspended and they are backing up all Parler data for a potential future migration to a different server. Parler would like to argue that this constitutes 'termination' but a suspended account isn't termination and Parler would have difficulty demonstrating that it is. Monetary damages are also completely glossed over in the complaint - tying revenue to advertising sales and not user numbers and content. Seems like Parlor would have had to agree to the Amazon TOU which includes suspending accounts (prior to termination) when they run afoul of the rules.

aa

Heh, the quoted contract language for breach in the Complaint is:

“for cause if the other party is in material breach of this
Agreement and the material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from
receipt of notice by the other party.”

This language is not in the link posted by Zippy. The Parler/Amazon contact was attached to the complaint, but not included in the link I had.
 

The story is that customers requested it. https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provider-blocks-facebook-and-twitter/293-867cc22b-fb90-4142-a296-8d800d2a03fb?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

Initially, the company said too many customers had requested the sites be blocked, so it would block them for all customers except for those who called the company and requested access. However, the company backtracked on Monday and said those who didn't request the sites be blocked would still have access.

I don't support ISPs, or any tech entity, deciding what I can and cannot see. But this shows that the tech giants really fucked up. There's just pure hatred for them now.
 
Back
Top Bottom