Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by mumblemumble on Thursday January 21, 2021 @10:37PM
(#25868021)
> These two facts...
No, the second of those is not a fact. Twitter does use AWS for some things, but the actual service is not hosted on AWS.
And that's pretty much the end of it. As the judge rightly points out in today's filing, all of Parler's talk about Twitter is just a bunch of hot air.
That could change if this lawsuit proceeds, and discovery reveals evidence of conspiracy. But that is all highly speculative at this point, and I would not be surprised if a company as lawyered up as Amazon has taken steps to make it all but impossible for such a thing to occur.
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by jcranmer on Thursday January 21, 2021 @10:47PM
(#25868096)
For clarification: I'm detailing what Parler alleged as a fact (see ¶15 of the original Complaint for where Parler alleges this). My point is that if Parler's alleged facts are all true (which is not the same as saying they're all true!), that does not sustain its antitrust claims.
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by mumblemumble on Thursday January 21, 2021 @10:51PM
(#25868114)
All fair, but I think it still bears calling out. Repeating a claim that's well-known to be bunk, and using the unqualified word "fact" to describe it, will sow a lot of confusion. Especially when discussing a case that already rests at the center of a great big gyre of misinformation and misconception.
Re:Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
by cm2187 on Friday January 22, 2021 @01:05AM
(#25868862)
Banks were just as well lawyered up and that didn't prevent damning communications in 2008.
This case may not succeed but I can see it being re-used as part of a larger antitrust lawsuit. Though I doubt a democrat DOJ will actively drive such a lawsuit against big tech.
Well, tried to. They didn't do a good job of it at all. What they actually alleged (relevant towards this theory) was:
* There was set to a mass exodus of Twitter users to Parler
* AWS also hosts Twitter
... They didn't even allege that AWS conspire with Twitter. Sure, they don't have any evidence of that conspiracy without discovery, but they didn't even allege a fact that could be proven with discovery.
These two facts are supposed to sustain the theory that AWS had no other reason to kick off Parler other than a conspiracy to keep Twitter the dominant platform. Despite the complaint itself opening up by alleging that AWS kicked off Parler because Parler espouses conservative views and later conceding that Parler knew that its content violated AWS's terms, albeit Parler was attempting to rectify it.
There's another issue with Parler's claims that I haven't seen anyone else bring up: if Parler was expecting the influx of Twitter users as a result of Twitter banning Trump, how would kicking off Parler keep these users on Twitter or otherwise buttress Twitter's dominance?