>that Parler refuses to sufficiently moderate

Where can one find a definition of "sufficient" in this context?

The Amazon email to Parler says:

> 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.

>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.

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.

Should those things be established by law though? First amendment says the government shouldn’t be able to prosecute your for speech for a reason, letting the entity with a monopoly on violence say what speech is acceptable/how to deal with it is a massive issue. I’d much rather speech be deal with as it has here, with individual corporations and people refusing to work with bad actors as they see fit. This sort of suppression of speech is the free market of ideas in action, in my mind.

If it turns out that gives the current tech giants too much individual power, that’s a separate issue to deal with.

Probably the ToS has language about when AWS can decide to stop hosting. I would assume the langue is extremely broad, legally speaking, in how much control it gives AWS to their own platform.

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.

If that means that Parler refuses to moderate the actual planning or threatening of crimes, the legal system would shut them down. Section 230 doesn't protect social media companies from criminal liability.

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.

Because that would be very expensive for them...

Not moderating their uh, “content”, is very expensive for the rest of us. It’s potentially, an extreme expense for Amazon. No one has an obligation to let their business suffer for you.

Who is the "rest of us"? Facebook, Twitter...?

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...