Re:Apple Approves Parler to Return to App Store
by octopoc on Monday April 19, 2021 @02:06PM
(#26866071)
> > I do feel however, that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to drop customers without a 3 month notice unless said customers have done something actually illegal, and by that I mean 'illegal as designated by an actual Judge'.
> That's not how liability works
The post you're replying to is describing a better process (note the use of the word "shouldn't"), and your reply seems to be saying, "no, because that's not the current process."
The fact that the system we have now exists does not mean it's the best system possible. I could have misunderstood your comment though.
Re:Apple Approves Parler to Return to App Store
by jariel on Tuesday April 20, 2021 @07:04AM
(#26873039)
It has nothing to do with liability.
Amazon hosts all sorts of content that could make them otherwise liable, and they are selling billions in knock-off products every month.
They are able to insulate themselves from it quite well - much like 'Avis Car Rental' is not 'liable' for agency or person that does something bad while renting their car.
Amazon's response was at least about PR, and probably a little bit politics.
It's about liability, and big corp's allergy to it.
> I do feel however, that Amazon shouldn't be allowed to drop customers without a 3 month notice unless said customers have done something actually illegal, and by that I mean 'illegal as designated by an actual Judge'.
That's not how liability works