> believing that you should allow users to post any legal content without moderation.

Parler was removed for being under-moderated, sure, but with that aside, it was also a huge censorship platform.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/pa...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...

Isn't AWS's claim that parlar was hosting illegal content?

Regardless, they signed a contract detailing what they could and could not host on aws. They broke it. Its not like they were unaware of the requirements. Moral of the story, if you promise X, dont promise someone else Y if X and Y conflict. You are going to be breaking your word ine way or another.

> Isn't AWS's claim that parlar was hosting illegal content?

No, it wa, IIRC, that Parler wasn't meeting obligations under the ToS for dealing with content prohibited under the ToS when they were notified of that content, and were failing to do so for an extended period of time demonstrating either persistent unwillingness or fundamental incapacity to fulfill their obligations.

Some of the content banned by the ToSay may also have been illegal, but that wasn't the issue, and neither was the simple fact of hosting the problem content.

If strictly hosting illegal content / being slow to remove it means you should be booted from AWS then how on earth is Twitter still using AWS?

> being slow to remove it

They just didn't. There's a difference between being slow and just not doing it at all.

Twitter has just not removed stuff as well so I don't think that is actually a difference between them.

Twitter hosts their own servers rather than agreeing to another company's terms of service.

Twitter uses AWS. You are probably thinking of Facebook

https://www.techradar.com/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-its-...

Twitter will use AWS, is what your article says?

The article was from last year. It does not say when they will move and there is no update saying they have already moved. If they have not already moved they will be shortly. Other articles say they will be using AWS in 2021.

Regardless, from the sound of it Twitter was working with Amazon on this integration. This means Amazon knew Twitter was at least planning on migrating. If Amazon was serious about being consistent they should have told Twitter right there and then that they would not be allowed on AWS since they violate AWS' terms of services in the same way Parler does.

The problem, as I understand it was not the posting of legal content but the fact it wasn't moderated meant there was borderline stuff, calls for specific people to be killed etc, that were the key factor in them losing hosting.

And there aren't such things on Facebook or Twitter, that in fact never get taken down despite multiple complaints?

I think they have an active policy of taking them down, even if it is inefficient. Not that it should let them off the hook for that content being left up. However Parler could solve their hosting problem the same way Facebook do, which is to own their own hardware.