Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.
Regards,
Bill HErrin
While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable content.
When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same principal apply to platforms like AWS and Twitter?
Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?
- Mike Bolitho
Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at all.
Ah, yes... re-enter the experiences of Compuserve. For that, I give
you Telecom '96 and section 230 which, they think, makes them exempt
from such things. Regardless, there are a whole lot of little
triggering pebbles that risk being trodden upon here. From monopolist
behaviour to basic discrimination (just because you're a private
company, you do not have the right to descriminate in who you are
willing to do business with. Wasn't that the whole point of the
wedding thing?), there are many things to be careful of here, even
though it will probably be a hard sell. Still, damned irresponsible to
risk touch that precedent, IMO. It means a whole lot of flak comes
around to the rest of us.
It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn’t even a thing. It’s just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos.
- Mike Bolitho
NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network Operators.
Is it content moderation, or just giving the boot to enabling criminal activity? Would that more providers be given the boot for enabling voice spam scams, for example. Didn't one of the $n-chan's get the boot a while back? I don't seem to recall a lot of push back about that and it was pretty much the same situation, iirc.
Mike
Another interesting angle here is that it as ruled President couldn’t block people, because his Tweets were government communication. So has Twitter now blocked government communication?
Is that illegal though?
Why not? Seems terribly relevant to us.
Mark.
I think the days where engineers felt that they didn't need to understand (to some degree) what happened on the penthouse floor are dead & gone.
If you haven't yet realized this, eish...
Mark.
Yes, significantly.
* sronan@ronan-online.com (sronan@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 CET]:
While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable content.
Didn't that ship sail when they booted WikiLeaks off their platform?
-- Niels.
Yeah, pretty much.
See, the real issue here is AUPs which initially were used to make
sure users knew that their services could not be used to facilitate
illegal things and then used to keep order on the platforms by
restricting abusive behavior. However the definition of "abusive" has
now been extended so greatly and with constantly changing rules that
it's making the statement, effectively, "if we don't like what you
say, or if we don't like you or your business, sucks to be you."
Editorializing without labeling it as edititorializing. At some point,
that breaks down. It has to.
-Wayne
Two observations:
1) you know not one thing about the laws of the United States of America
2) a google search for your email's domain name leads to nothing but a blank web page, and a Facebook page for some sort of Philippine video game page and a Twitter account apparently with 0 tweets, and with 4 followers, 2 of whom seem to be porn and 2 of which seem to be MLM scams
Make of all that what you will.
Speaking only for myself, *plonk*
- John
at the risk of providing more heat than light, trump violated the Presidential Records Act repeatedly by later taking down (aka destroying) his own unwise tweets. this repeated violation of law using twitter itself would have been enough for twitter to either restrict his using any mechanism for revision or deletion or even account termination for aup violations. i pointed this out to them 3.91 years ago.
Funny, you must have found things all which are not me. You are really good at Google. Hahahaha!
They’re a private company. The same statues that give providers the right to refuse spam and block abuse give them the right to fire customers for whatever reason they want.
If their contract with Parler says they can be terminated for violations of TOS / AUP or (more likely) for any reason Amazon decides, then it’s a done deal.
‘Frea Speeks’ as we liked to joking call it when spammers made the claim, is a govt thing. Private businesses aren’t bound by the 1st amendment.