They don't need to change the rules. AWS can already terminate you at any point. In this case, they've very much not explicitly done that, and instead have given Parler warnings and clear requests to take specific actions to prevent their account from being terminated.

Parler has decided not to cooperate, and Amazon is taking the next step, which is terminating that relationship.

Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like, based on their stated terms. This isn't some weird turning point, and in fact, the email provided shows that Amazon isn't making this decision out of nowhere.

>They don't need to change the rules. AWS can already terminate you at any point

That is literally my point, the 'rules' don't matter. The post that I responded to claimed that somehow there was no slippery slope here because they have rules after all.

>Amazon is a business, and can choose to do business with just about anyone they'd like

Well, that's how it currently is, but this doesn't apply to all businesses. An electric provider can't just cut you off because they don't like you, maybe it'd be a good idea to implement something similar for services that provide equally critical digital infrastructure?

Is someone assuming that? It’s perfectly normal to approve of AWS banning Parler while reserving the right to disapprove of AWS banning some other service. I’m very confused by this mode of argument “if we ever let any company perform any action that’s a slippery slope because what if they perform other actions???”

Nothing is stopping them from changing their rules. But if they change their rules from something good to something bad, one simply changes one’s opinion of their rules.

What? This isn't about whether rules are good, they said that the rules prevent a slippery slope, which is obviously bunk.

So, your argument is "AWS told a service that it needed to stop hosting death threats, the service didn't comply with that request, and AWS terminated the service... therefore they're going to shut down everyone they don't like"

You pole vaulted right over the slippery slope there.

No, not 'they're going to', but it's possible that it may happen and the fact that people don't care and just shrug this off (or even say that this is how it should be!) scares me.

Nothing is stopping them nor was anything stopping them before. So this changes nothing except for Parker and the people using it.

So lay out your theory of things should work and be prepared to defend it. It's easy to just ask questions and never make any positive proposals.

Do you expect me to copy paste a full proposal under every single comment?

But I'll indulge you: Regulate these companies like public utility. Make laws that specify which content is not allowed (e.g. no hateful content, or whatever) and let the courts be the arbiter.

Yes, the fact that they’re allowed to make business decisions about their own platforms and freely associate is the bedrock of capitalism. Read the fine print. Plan accordingly.

It's not hard to make an argument that referring to Amazon warehouse employees as slaves is violent speech, for example.

For example Twitter argued [1] that Trumps statement of "75 million American patriots" could refer to the hundreds of Capitol rioters and that his statement of him not attending the inauguration, which Biden supports btw, was a signal that it's a safe target to attack.

[1] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...