Ok. Ok. Tack a “to the best of my knowledge”.
(I mean… They may have supplied workstations & servers to oil companies that were used in…uh…operations in…uh…less than friendly fossil fuel extraction zones. Or something similar, and that would count against my assertion, IMO.)
NOTE: euphemisms in this post are for sarcastic effect.
Link to ruling: [PDF]
[…]
Parler also claimed Amazon had committed breach of contract by shutting it down within hours of complaints being made, rather than giving it 30 days to tackle the posts Amazon had a problem with. Judge Rothstein noted that AWS’s terms and conditions allow for termination “immediately upon notice,” which obviates Parler’s claim.
[…]
The whole thing is interesting not just because AWS had a set of not-unreasonable rules about content that Parler couldn’t adhere to, but Parler’s whole claim, their whole reason for being was that they weren’t going to apply the kind of moderation required by their underpinning web services - their existence was based on a promise they could never make good on.
AWS’s TOS had some language about forbidding the incitement of violence that Parler had pretty clearly - and publicly, thanks to the assault on the Capitol - violated. AWS argument, which they laid out quite neatly in a few pages, was that Parler violated their TOS, AWS previously (before the Capitol assault) brought up the issue with them and gave them time to remedy the situation and Parler not only did not do so, but made no effort and had no plan to enact any sort of remedy. It didn’t really leave a lot of room for argument.
@Melizmatic
I feel like we’re getting an extended replay of the whole “deplorables” thing again. I.e.:
Hillary: “Boy those white supremacists and neo-Nazis sure are a bunch of deplorables!”
Trumpers: “How dare you call us deplorable!”
The Rest of Us: “Wait, so you’re calling yourselves Nazis?”
That was sort of the point of the judge’s remark. It’s to highlight that contrary to Parler’s public witterings about people’s free speech being impinged, Parler didn’t raise any 1st Amendment issues in their motion - because of course they and their lawyers know perfectly well that it is not relevant.
Parler was not immediately available for comment.
Are they all explained in the three ring binder; sorry, the TRB? 
Sometimes “pro bono” is just straight up “pro no-no”
“First Antifa came for “Christmas”, and you did nothing…”
Poor undercelebrated Christmas. Won’t anyone think of the Christmas!
“war on white supremacists”
Let’s say you’re for example white but poor
Just like normal white people, but poor? How weird is that!
Using “white but poor” rather than “white and poor” is a small window into the thinking of Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson. How many of the poors has he ever met in his pampered life?
I will have you know that the orphan he employs to maintain his bow tie warehouse is QUITE poorly compensated!
First they came for the Nazis, and you did nothing.
Then I noticed all my friends were offline.
To be “fair”, their whole promise was a lie. They were apparently happy to moderate or ban critics of white supremacy. They were never about free / uncensored speech.
Right, and it wasn’t just a lie, but one built in on a basic, structural level.
Well, it’s Tucker Carlson… he’s not wrong.
If it floats like a duck, and shits all over the place like a duck…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
