[bigshell]

I'm not particularly fond of this. It's censorship. Parler wasn't doing anything illegal and Amazon had no legal reason to kick them off. I worry for the future. While I don't think the loss of parler is massive this is getting the censorship ball rolling.

[CobrastanJorji]

Amazon's history of cutting off cloud resources to anyone that the government might frown at goes back almost as far as this history of AWS. For example, way back in 2010, Senator Lieberman had his staff call Bezos and basically say "Hey, you want fat AWS contracts? Cut off Wikileaks." Bezos complied immediately (and later issued a press release that said, effective, "we totally did it because Wikileaks was not complying with our terms of service and it totally wasn't because a Senator called us and told us to."

[0xB31B1B]

Parker was being used to promote and organize 2 more riots on the 19th and 20th in the exact same manner it was used to promote and organize the Jan 6 riot that ended in 5 deaths. Also, sedition, what was being planned and organized on parler, is a federal crime, it’s in the criminal code.

[adamsvystun]

Internet was being used to promote and organize 2 more riots on the 19th and 20th in the exact same manner it was used to promote and organize the Jan 6 riot that ended in 5 deaths. Also, sedition, what was being planned and organized on parler, is a federal crime, it’s in the criminal code.

Not saying that Parler shouldn't have been banned, just that this particular argument is weak.

[temporalparts]

Legal arguments aside.

If you believe strongly that your platform is used to organize something in two weeks that will result in the death of innocent people and you believe strongly that you can just flip a switch to prevent that, would you?

[rvn1045]

In that case I would do a temporary ban for a limited time and not a permanent one.

[erikpukinskis]

Irrelevant, "Internet" is not an AWS customer.