Here's the denial of the TRO:<p><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKgWZyCq/view" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg...</a><p>Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose.<p>I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believe that Amazon's lawyers are so stupid that they set out a TOS for the world's largest hosting provider that didn't give AWS the right to boot customers, which is something AWS --- really, every hosting provider --- has to do all the time. You almost have to not know anything about the hosting business to think there could be a case here.<p>But if you need to read a judge laughing Parler's claims off, well, now you can. Real "based" energy in excerpting the AWS AUP in their complaint and clipping it right before the clause that gives AWS the right to terminate service without notice to customers who violate their AUP. The judge, uh, noticed.<p>(As the judge points out, among the many problems with Parler's restraint of trade argument, there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed.)
As much as I don't like Parler's digital death sentence from Silicon Valley, they should've known this was coming and prepared. It doesn't take a genius to know that such a controversial website is going to get dropped, even if it's just because it makes the webhost look bad.<p>Yes it's unfair that Twitter gets away with hosting way worse content, but life is unfair, that doesn't mean you stick your head in the sand and pretend the risk of de-platforming never existed.
I've been trying to come to grips with the societal impact of echo chambers, "hate" speech, and the obligations vs. rights of sites and hosting providers.<p>So far, my take is that websites have less obligation than hosting. It concerns me that AWS booted a site off their platform for speech issues - I am leaning more and more to the idea that colos, IaaS and ISPs should be considered common carriers, and that only a court order should get a site booted off the web entirely.
Parlers goal of being the alternate free speech platform is horrendously thought out.<p>The same companies and that they are trying to remove influence from (Silicon Valley - amazon, twitter, facebook, etc.) are the same companies that they're doing business with.<p>Gab is ridiculous and I get a very religious "holier than thou" (lol) vibe from them. Their founder(s) are very puritanical and will likely not survive the next few years.<p>The true future of free speech is through federated platforms/services similar to how email servers were back 20-25 years ago. People have traded freedom for convenience over the past couple of decades and it shows.
Amazon has a right to associate (or not associate) with whomever they want. This is a fundamental principle of freedom - something Parler should know, understand, and espouse. Why are they fighting? They should be applauding.
Not really a surprise given the weakness of their arguments.<p>If you’d like to hear a lawyer read and comment on their complaint, I recommend <a href="https://youtu.be/FL7r-Nt5j50" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/FL7r-Nt5j50</a>
Reminder that Parler's claim to be in support of free speech was bogus, as their CEO would personally work alongside a team of volunteers to ban anyone that joined the platform and posted left wing views.<p><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-founder-explains-why-he-built-trumps-new-favorite-social-media-app/?sh=26f7eac75016" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f...</a>
Maybe AWS was right, maybe they were wrong. Ditto Parler. All I know is that there is now a mental shift in our orgs where our cloud and infrastructure providers are now considered potential significant hostiles.
Honestly Parler just needs to park their front end someplace, don’t think anyone would be the wiser if they used AWS on the backend for their database/storage.<p>But on the other hand Parler’s tech people seem mediocre so who knows if they could manage to not leak AWS ips or headers that would tip off they are using AWS and allow Amazon to figure out which account. Would only take one slip.<p>If they pay their bills and it wasn’t dead obvious AWS was involved then Amazon might not try hard to find them.
I don't understand what's keeping the Parler team from just standing up their own servers in a garage somewhere. Its still an early stage platform, and its not like they were experiencing explosive growth as far as I understand.<p>This seems like a perfect use case for a small home server. If they find a revenue stream then they can scale to renting some rack space somewhere. I know its not as easy as clicking a button in AWS but its not totally debilitating.
I've been seeing posts from some of my more conservative friends pop up in my FB feed advertising their imminent departure for MeWe. My surface level Google research tells me MeWe bills their service as "lightly moderated". I'm wondering how long before the spotlight gets turned on them and they're forced to either up their standards or face the same fate?
This is a great thread summarizing Parler's case and Amazon's response – <a href="https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1349162165698252802" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/134916216569825280...</a>.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/HoegLaw/videos" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/c/HoegLaw/videos</a> has an entire video series on this (and other) cases where he goes through the filings by both sides.<p>Recommended watching.
> "It sort of made me laugh a little bit," she said. "Has Amazon read the rest of the Internet? Ninety-eight pieces of content or whatever is not that many. I mean, has Amazon read Amazon?"<p>Has Facebook read Facebook? Has Twitter read Twitter?
I wonder if we will get to a point where services will run background checks on the companies that come on their platforms to make sure they adhere to their ideological viewpoints. Or blacklists will be created barring certain companies from doing business with a group of companies all at once. Like a reverse boycott kind of thing - I’m sure there is a good term for it.<p>The capitalistic profit incentive has largely prevented this kind of behavior up until now but with left leaning oligopolies it starts to edge towards a market failure.
A YouTube lawyer does a pretty good break down of the case.<p>Parlers suit:
<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HFp5E7akgy8" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HFp5E7akgy8</a><p>Amazon response:
<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GB06JtDbtvU" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GB06JtDbtvU</a>
A lot of free market advocates sure seem bent out of shape when the free market works against them for once. Amazon shouldn't be required to host violent hate speech and I don't understand how someone can believe in "the free market" and argue otherwise.
Parler, or at least their data, is ironically back on AWS:<p><a href="https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Parler" rel="nofollow">https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Parler</a>
There is way, way too much room for political manoeuvring here - we should all be scared.<p>Facebook is used to coordinate literal genocide. [1]<p>And so AWS everyone is cool with that?<p>I get that Parler was being used to do something 'violent and bad in the US' and that there was arguably not enough oversight - so they are a 'problem case'.<p>But the system is a little bit hypocritical, I don't feel it's backed by science or some kind of reasonable application of policy and frankly, I have little trust in the judicial systems ability to sort this out.<p>While many people are happy 'That Guy' is gone from politics (for now) - we need to wake up to the crude realization that 'regular politics' was never fair or reasonable to begin with and that this issue is going to weaponized by those who think they can do that, and they will use 'Parler and 'President Voldemort' example as cover for whatever it is they want to do.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...</a>
Makes sense.<p>Just like no one should be forced to bake a wedding cake, rent out a car to a <25yo, not refuse a hire based on sex or race, it is also not right for any man to force an equal child of creation to host a website.<p>Luckily there are federated protocols for social media which can be used by free speech absolutists.
All politics aside, I was more sympathetic to the "build your own alternative" argument regarding the general deplatforming trend of the last few years.<p>Now I'm not nearly as sympathetic to that argument. Having POTUS45 removed from twitter was basically the chance in a lifetime for Parler, and in that critical 48 hours their hosting provider pulled the rug out from them and their app was removed from BOTH app stores (I have a hard time believing there wasn't some form of coordination here). It seems especially sinister to me, but maybe that's because I'm viewing it outside of a political lens.
1. Democratic party threatens tech industry with heavy regulation because they don't censor to the degree that the Democrats want.<p>2. Democratic party takes over control of the government.<p>3. Major companies in the tech industry work together to boot a competitor, and political opponent of the Democratic party off the internet.<p>At what point is this a legit first amendment issue? The government can't just pressure private companies to do things the government can't do and then hide behind the fact that they are private entities, right?