This is Grade A top tr0ll1ng of the Parler fuckwits. Kudos to the originator.
And before Gab there was all the legal challenges to the chans. I highly doubt their board has never heard of any of these sites before, it’s almost like it was intended to be a temporary source of investor capital that strip-mined the users for what their worth.
Amazon claimed in their response that they had multiple notices of breach and were given deadlines to change but they didn’t.
Unless Amazon are lying I don’t really see a problem.
The point wasn’t whether it was a contract or not. The point was it’s not the sort of equally negotiated agreement where you have reliability and access guarantees from AWS.
Which means, if their data is gone, it’s gone and Jeff Bezos’ GDIAF will win the day in court.
That is of course true. However Parler claims (and I haven’t seen any denial from Amazon) that the TOS (which are legally binding) required Amazon to give Parler 30 days notice to fix any breach of terms before Amazon can terminate.
Parler claims they fixed all breaches notified to them, Amazon says they didn’t.
Looking at the filings, the difference in view seems to be that Parler says “Anytime Amazon told us about posts they objected to, we removed them.” While Amazon seems to take the view that Parler should have set up a system to ensure that such posts get removed without Amazon pointing them out.
To which Parler says “well, the most frequent post on Twitter at the moment is ‘Hang Mike Pence’ and Amazon isn’t shutting down Twitter. That’s an arbitrary abuse of Amazon’s dominant position.”
I can just about see their point in terms of a legal argument.
I am an old and don’t know what that means…
(I had to look it up too.)
Amazon’s reply, should it not be posted.
And Amazon did not delete Parler’s data.
Parler has not identified irreparable harm. AWS has promised to preserve Parler’s data and help Parler migrate its services elsewhere. Dkt. 1-1. Parler’s CEO has acknowledged that the service never has relied on AWS exclusively. Doran Decl. Ex. J. He also told Parler users that the service may be operational within twelve hours of AWS’s suspension of Parler’s account. Id. Ex. K. A temporary service interruption is not irreparable harm, and any alleged harm would be compensable by damages.
Parler’s Complaint is replete with insinuations that AWS had equal grounds to suspend
Twitter’s account and thus discriminated against Parler. For example, Parler cites the hashtag
“#hangmikepence,” which briefly trended on Twitter. Mot. ¶ 4. But AWS does not host
Twitter’s feed, so of course it could not have suspended access to Twitter’s content.
Oops. That does rather appear to scupper that argument.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.