Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence during that summer. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted.
The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie.
Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Literally only issue here is that you dont care about left wing radicals being censored, which is fine, but then you pretend it does not happen which is not fine.
Amazon did not required perfection from Parler. Amazon is taking down Parler, because Parler did not even pretended to care about the issue. They have not done even token effort. Amazon is not taking down Parler for few bad message Parler did missed or were ambiguous.
Instead, Parler refused to take down messages Amazon pointed at few weeks ago. If Amazon sends twitter similar messages and twitter will ignore the Amazon for weeks or will respond with "we cant take them down, impossible", then it would be the same. That did not happened.
Why Parler? There are lots of other social media platforms out there using AWS with the same kind of rhetoric so that's not a good explanation or reason.
Now
Why did someone decide for that specific case and not the numerous others by ex. Twitter that are still there.
Picking on the little guy just because they are little seems to be a pretty questionable move.
1.) Twitter was not there and is not there yet. They will be there tho.
2.) Twitter was literally closing accounts and deleting tweets that called for violence. There was quite a lot of complaining where twitter done it in ambiguous situations. Twitter was not perfect. But twitter was definitely at least trying. Twitter would not had issue to delete clear calls for violence that Amazon would point to them for weeks - the way Parler acted.
The fact is, it is simply not true that twitter would be acting as parler regarding censorship of calls for violence. In fact, it is a lie.
Parler did not done even token pretend you are trying to effort. Twitter does much more then that.
3.) Parler is not little guy, they have Mercer money.
Am I getting your argument right?
Parler was the most gratuitous because:
1. They had a combination of very tight censorship of dissenting voices, and complete laissez-faire for violent and racist rhetoric as long as it was right wing.
2. It was used to organize a violent and very public revolution against the United States of America, which resulted in five deaths.
You almost certainly knew all these things already. The likely reason you are supporting Parler in this comment is because you agree with their political stance.
I don't care about Parler or crazy righ-wingers. I just care about the inconsistency with which these big platforms seems to be acting and so far I haven't seen anything provide a proper explanation for why Parler and not some of the other social networks out there.
You don't care about fairness, you are just trying to convince people that there was inconsistency - by ignoring massive differences between how the two platforms operated. Parler was acting differently then Twitter.
This is one of the cases where technically correct is actually the best kind of correct, because it goes directly to Parler’s claim that Twitter is a similar situated entity hosted on AWS being treated differently.
> They just negotiated a fat contract to host twitter, and that’s set to go live in the next few months. Can that really not be considered an endorsement of twitter’s content with respect to AWS’ ToS?
Um, no?
(1) Because if Twitter is under the standard TOS, they’ll be subject to the same reactive enforcement and quick cancellation as anyone else. Bringing someone on on those terms simply means you have the same trust as you’d extend to a random member of the public that they won’t break your TOS.
(2) Since they just “negotiated a fat contract”, they may or may not even be under the same TOS as are offered to people who just want to pick up hosting without negotiation. Which would be even farther from an endorsement of their content adhering to the general TOS.
> I do think that parler can make an interesting case about AWS picking a winner and damaging a loser.
Its possible that they could do so in the abstract, but they have made an argument along those lines, and its pretty clear that that concrete argument, as opposed to any hypothetical one they could have made, was, in the context of the particular evidence they’ve profferred to support it, unconvincing to the judge.