Though by nature the internet is an interconnected network of large tech companies. If the club has decided to ban you, even if you build your own datacenters, you may have trouble peering into anything useful.
That means you as a Infrastructure provider can jugge what normally justice will do, but when you have the money to run your own DC you can jump over that problems? Don't you see that this is the opposite of a free society? It does not matter if it's extreme right or left, Wikileaks, Wikipedia Pirate-bay or Sci-hub.
BTW: Totally not right wing, but in a free an fair society justice should have the decision if a Service is illegal and NOT Market-providers like Amazon Google or Apple.
That means you as a Infrastructure provider can jugge what normally justice will do, but when you have the money to run your own DC you can jump over that problems?
You can't since you still need to have an upstream internet provider. (or in the case of Facebook, access to internet exchange points). If Facebook was promoting illegal content, even if they host their own servers, they'd lose their internet connectivity.
If you want entitlement to a court on the legality of content before getting cutoff from service, negotiate a contract that specifies that you can carry any legal content, and the other party must assume content is legal absent a determination by a court to the contrary.
OTOH, that’s not part of anyone’s boilerplate, and adds a lot of potential cost, so expect to pay an extremely hefty premium to get a business to agree to those terms.
Then it's a good thing it's being decided in a court.
Which is what provides checks and balances, AWS says "You violated our ToS, we're cutting you off", "Parler sues and says 'No we didn't and here's why'".
If Parler wins and can prove that they were unfairly targeted, then they can sue Amazon for damages. Which is what keeps Amazon from unfairly applying its ToS. And if they can demonstrate irreparable harm, then they can get an injunction forcing AWS to restore their services immediately rather than waiting for the court case to be decided.
But I think the best they could do is present monetary damages, which the court could decide AWS is able to pay.
Their business is already shut down - guilty until proven innocent, which is great because it really streamlines the whole justice process.
In fact this new form of justice is so efficient we can even shut down a company before the court proceedings have even started. By we I mean our corporate overlords, but they wouldn’t ever turn on us.
That's not the point, i'm ~sure that illegal stuff is removed from parler too, and if not that's the Justice who should make the rules and NOT Amazon...like you know Facebook just made those moderation's after a justice ruling.
Isn't that exactly the point? Apple removed them because: Parler has not taken adequate measures to address the proliferation of these threats to people’s safety. We have suspended Parler from the App Store until they resolve these issues
And AWS said:
“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”
If they were removing the illegal content, then why did AWS say they don't have an effective process to remove it? If they can show that they already have effective moderation, then they should win their lawsuit against AWS and quickly be back online.
>If they were removing the illegal content, then why did AWS say they don't have an effective process to remove it?
Because you get a Sympathy-Star-Sticker in your book and Amazon is the good guy who try's to safe the United States, it's more Marketing then real fear being extreme right wing.
BTW: Wanna buy a real Postage stamp from Hitler? No Problem:
Those items may be distasteful, but are they illegal? I'm not aware of a prohibition on selling Nazi memorabilia in this country.
On the other hand, inciting violence is illegal:
"by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...."
Another expletive-laced message posted the day before the riot warned: "To all our enemies high and low you want a war? Well you're asking for one...To the American people on the ground in DC today and all over this great nation, be prepared for anything."
>"by all the Patriots descending on Washington DC on #jan6 ....come armed...."
That's not violent per se, maybe the right wing is in fear of polar bears near the Capitol. Please don't get me wrong, but if you let big Marketplaces and not Justice make decisions whats right or wrong...well then that can go really fast the other way too.
Don't be silly. Courts will decide based on the meaning in context. A reasonable person may very well conclude that that quote is a call to arms. I mean I don't know how a court would interpret this specific example, but polar bears won't factor in their deliberation.
The provisions against incitement of violence in the AWS TOS are standard. If Parler sues AWS, a court will actually decide on whether Parler violated the TOS. And I'm pretty sure that the AWS decision will hold. They didn't do this lightly.
Refusing service to trolls is a standard occurrence. The justice system would be clogged immediately if it were forced to decide every TOS violation before the accused party could be banned.
That is the point though. The reasons cited by AWS for their actions were due to violent posts and content moderation. When addressed with the issue Parler said they'd use volunteers to proactively moderate violent posts, but AWS said that "nascent plant to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts".
Youtube has paid staff whose sole duty is to remove videos that violate their TOS. Parler does not. That is the distinction AWS used in there reasonings to terminate service.
That's a private rule and with Amazon as big as it is, we need to have a discussion if a TOS is even legal, if you take a blind eye on that, nothing stands in the way that big company's take over everything, if you want such a world...well then welcome to cyberpunk.
>I don't see how you could argue that a TOS is not legal when both parties signed and agreed to it.
Because it clashes often with existing law, many TOS's you can simply ignore (at least in europe) and yes even when you signed it. A TOS does not stand above existing law.
Just imagine how much that would be in Facebook numbers? I think we can block Facebook too, no?