Should companies be allowed to disassociate themselves from other companies like Parler?

https://aws.amazon.com/

I will assume, I know bad to assume, that when one signs a contract to use AWS, there is rules to follow?
Did Parler break any of those rules?

https://data-flair.training/blogs/cloud-service-providers-companies/
AWS is not the only service out there.

So, hardly a monopoly.

 

In fact I do. Now, explain how what you're advocating isn't also discrimination. You seem to not like the 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10th amendments. And Google, Twitter, FB, et al are discriminating against folks. Simple as that. Now, let's just be safe, and add equal protection, and the 14th, and the tech oligarchs are certainly being discriminatory.

 

Well, gosh... lets see. What rules of AWS hosting do you accuse Parler of violating?

 

LOL, I remember a thread you made a bunch of baseless claims. Just a couple days ago.

 

You might actually be right about Apple, with regard to having a monopoly, because of how locked down their devices are. In fact, they are currently being sued by Epic Games on this very issue. But with Google, Android isn't locked down that way, so any claim of monopoly on their platform is pretty weak. And AWS is one of the largest cloud hosting providers, but hardly the only one, so there are definitely no monopoly issues there.

 

Sure, how is their reason for halting service discrimination? Discrimination of what, illegal activity?

• Amazon is no longer providing cloud services to Parler, a social media app popular with Trump supporters.
• Amazon said Parler hosted “violent content” that violates its terms of service.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/09/amazon-drops-parler-from-its-web-hosting-service.html

 

I don't.
I don't work for AWS.
I didn't accuse them of banning from anything.
I did offer an opinion and my opinion was clearly stated. And it turns out, I was correct.

But here is AWS statement 1 more time for you.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/09/amazon-drops-parler-from-its-web-hosting-service.html

• Amazon is no longer providing cloud services to Parler, a social media app popular with Trump supporters.
• Amazon said Parler hosted “violent content” that violates its terms of service.

So why not address the post instead of trying to make the thread about me?

 

I escalated nothing. Did you not even read the post I was responding to before commenting on it?

I must say though, that it's amusing how Trumpers demand political correctness when Trump is the subject.

 

This conversation is not about Trump. Maybe you responded to the wrong thread. However, calling everyone Nazi's is a bit over the top, even for you.

 

Vis a vis, android, where else besides google play are those apps offered for your android devices? On hosting providers, given the relationship between google play and google cloud, it would seem that they would not be an option, MSFT is likely out as well for a number of technical reasons, but hey.. Here's the real issue. If another entitiy hosted Parler, and services that allowed that hosting entity also traversed AWS, or Azure, then what? These ecosystems aren't isolated, and interaction between or across them is certainly possible. So, essentially, a cross service running on AWS would also still have to be shut down given their current position. That seems pretty possible.

Say, for example, that AWS, Google et al had taken the position that anyone in support of BLM or ANTIFA et al were to suffer the same plight. What do you believe would have been the first casualty? I mean, taking the DNC, every democratic presidential candidate, Governors, etc off their platforms, demonetizing things like CNN, etc, taking down their bankers... One just has to flag the switch on who was being "subversive", and the other half of America would have been outraged. No?

And tell us again, why is the CCP, the holy leaders of Iran, Venezuela, et al are still up and running? Hypocrisy much?

 

What illegal activity are you referring to? You've now asserted it several times. So, when, for example, Kamala Harris used Twitter to promote BLM and ANTIFA, and their illegal acts, perhaps you can see why this is discriminatory.

 

I'm not going to address the hyperbole and other nonsense in your post. But specifically for Android, you can just install an APK file on your Android device. When Parler gets hosting again, they can just have an APK of their app downloadable from the site. On an iOS device, you have to jailbreak it before you can install an app from anywhere other than the App Store. And "traverse AWS?" You mean traffic going from Parler's new host, through something on AWS, and then to an end-user? That's not how the internet works. Maybe you're thinking of something from Parler being embedded on a site that is hosted by AWS? That could be a problem for the site on AWS depending on how Amazon decides to treat the content, but that just means they'd need to not embed Parler content. Nothing about that would be different from how AWS handles anything else.

 

I'm pretty sure violently overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States might not be in compliance with their TOS.

Your argument is misguided. They aren't blocking Parler because they are "conflicted". They're blocking them because they are allowing people to use it as a platform to promote armed insurrection.

Kinda gives new meaning to the term TOS

 

To answer the OP question succinctly? No. Antitrust laws ostensibly prevent such anti competitive collusion. That antitrust has been bought off among large, monied interests of the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex and its crony donor class for decades, thus not enforced at all, doesn't change that.

Anyone who thinks that it's OK for large, powerful companies to band together and attempt to crush competition deserves a top hat, monocle and big cigar, because they are effectively Robber Baron throwbacks to the Gilded Age.

What's it like to boot-lick monopolistic corporate behemoths? I wouldn't know personally.

 

The Supreme Court ruled on that, the Baker was given the power to refuse to host a gay sentiment on his product. You cheered that decision. The hosting
companies are just saying they don't want to associate with Parler because they disagree with what Parler is trying to write on their cake.

 

Next time you might want to at least make a bit of a mental effort to understand what the conversation is about before jumping in. It would spare us having to see you make FALSE accusations like this one about me calling "everyone Nazi's" [sic].

 

Don't try to find consistency in ToS violations. The bottom line is you won't find any. Most companies will list a very vague ToS protecting themselves from legal exposure and then have a catch-all phrase that allows them to terminate service at their discretion for any reason. If you read Parlers ToS agreement they have the same thing. Reading the agreement you would think you could pretty much post anything that is legal but then they have the condition when the can remove any content and terminate your access to services at anytime. They are references to guidelines but they are never clear. People on reddit have had competitions on how quickly they can be banned from Parler trying to determine what is allowed and not.

Gaming companies have been doing this to there users forever. Google the collective banning outrage when games purge users for violations of ToS and everyone on the forums and reddit are trying to figure out what rule they broke. They get a generic in game message or email saying simply they have violated the ToS with little details to why.

 

For anyone interested, here is the wiki page on Antitrust in the U.S. I have not reviewed it for accuracy or typical wiki bias, so caveat emptor, but should suffice for a basic overview. Have also included the wiki page on Tortious Interference:

United States antitrust law - Wikipedia

Tortious interference - Wikipedia

Tortious Interference is included because if large tech giants purposefully pressure or stifle other companies into breaking contracts with a target, tortious interference is not a favored cause, but is not toothless either.

 

Incidentally, typical click the box TOS are not worth the bits comprising them IMO and IME. IME other B2B TOSs in the telecomm industry are not much better, cut and pasted, hopelessly vague, conflicting with enough state law to get them tossed out by judges who are open to equity. It may be finally time after decades for litigation to visit large social media that was previously impenetrable.

Problem is that proving damages or forming classes is troublesome. It takes lots of time and money to successfully win mass tort litigation, and damages associated abusive TOS's simply don't merit the lawyer expense required to press them. That's why you see lots of injury, motorcycle and truck accidents in TV lawyer ads and little contract law or antitrust. These things may change rapidly in light of the vogue "deplatform" culture. Internet communication, moderated or not, has value. Companies who take that value under the pretense of providing open fora for information exchange, then deliver illusory or abusive results, are subject to prospective, but disfavored equitable forms of relief if contract law fails the consumer and small business. I suspect it won't be too long before creative attorneys and receptive judges allow novel theories of abuse by large companies with deep pockets.

 

does that mean parlor wants to work with the fbi and give them access to all their data?

 

I have thought the same about abusive NDA's, you would think every American had the right to tell what they know about a President, but just not the case

Trump silences many people

 

How exactly, and I'm not asking for documentary evidence or links, just your opinions or other claims, has Trump silenced anyone?

 

if Trump had not undid network neutrality, they might have been able to use that to fight back

 

just look at what he did to Stormy as an example, I have no idea how many more NDA's he has, but we did hear he even wanted government employees to sign his personal NDA's that would apply for life

there should be a law that all NDA's become null and void when one runs for President

 

No, they are plainly colluding to crush Parler entirely out of business. They know full well that a new company leveraged and capital starved as young companies tend to be cannot simply "switch to other providers" en masse. That requires immense expense that they cannot afford. They have to retrain, retool, reequip in many cases, pay people like me to negotiate new contracts, all the while the banks and other finance sources stamp "too risky" even calling in preexisting lines on real or shoddy financing contract grounds. You can of course suck up whatever they try to feed you that complies with your preexisting politics like a good little LW Authoritarian, that's exactly what their ad campaigns are for.

This is the veiled truth behind lots of large corporate Wokeism, it's big money for the behemoths. They can crush upstart competition with it, they can keep disgruntled employees in line with it, they can use it as hollow feel-good virtue signaling ad campaigns while doing it. Same applies to COVID1984 Hysteria. So pucker up and kiss the ass of those big companies you support, they laugh at you behind their hands.

These are not benevolent altruists, they are in it for the $$, and to find the true intent behind their facade, just follow the $$ and consequences they are overtly seeking.