|
|
|
|
|
|
by cwhiz
1980 days ago
|
|
|
Maybe you should actually read your own links. They don't say what you think they say. Not to mention the source is Amazon. Of course Amazon thinks Amazon is in the right. In a span of seven weeks, on a platform with 8 million users, Amazon found 100 examples of objectionable content. How many examples of objectionable content do you think I can find on Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook right now? It's not a question of whether Parler had offensive content on its site. It's a question of Amazon holding Parler to terms that they don't hold anyone else to, including Parler rivals. Parler had moderation tools, were moderating content, and had a clear Terms of Service that outlined the type of content that was not allowed. Let us travel back in time to 2009. It's three years after Twitter was founded. How robust and effective do you think the Twitter moderation was back at that time? Even today, in 2021, Twitter is absolutely FULL of illegal content and hate speech. When do you think Amazon will eject Twitter from AWS? Should be any minute now. Any minute. |
|
|
This is why I suggested reading the filings: Parler is not unique for having user-hosted content but, unlike Twitter and Facebook, refusing to accept responsibility for managing it – those services are far from perfect but they don’t try to pretend volunteer moderation is enough, either.
If you read the filing note that the 100 examples were a representative sample and additional examples were provided.
The key point to look at is this:
“On January 8 and 9, AWS also spoke with Parler executives about its content moderation policies, processes, and tools, and emphasized that Parler’s current approach failed to address Parler’s duty to promptly identify and remove content that threatened or encouraged violence. Id. In response, Parler outlined additional, reactive steps that would rely almost exclusively on ‘volunteers.’”
That’s after having months to develop a serious plan, and after an insurrection involving many users of their service. Beyond the obvious violations of their contract, at that point AWS would reasonably worry that not enforcing their ToS could invite legal claims that their continued non-enforcement constituted support. The direct costs of that and indirect risk to other contracts – imagine, for example, Congress prohibiting federal IT procurements from any company connected to the coup attempt — are much greater than Parler’s rounding-error portion of AWS’ customer base.