If this ever succeeded, then you'll have crazier and crazier apps test the boundaries of platforms and sue for losing their fictitious valuation. Parler lost because it was poorly written, it's hard to keep trust when all your data is uploaded and your users go to jail for sharing that data with your platform.
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.
“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.”
An Amazon spokesperson declined to comment on the suspension.
Maybe just because it's fun to pick on the new kid...
The difference is Facebook & Twitter take their content moderation (and it's overall impact on their business) very seriously.
From any angle you look at this, Parler failed at reasonably moderating their content. More so, at their own peril despite being warned by AWS about the violent content.
And by employing volunteer moderators, it reinforced the echo chamber effect, suppressing any views or opinions diverging from the mostly far-right user base.
The fun thing is...why oh why depend on other castles like aws? Servers are cheap, independent Data-centers are here, and good system administrators (like myself..of course) are still a living species (although on the brink of extinction outside habitats like finance and insurance etc)
OTOH, their volumes did not justify the complex environment they allegedly had and they should be very well within the skill set of the very average devops engineer. No large scale deployment expertise required.
I think Parler's going to have a tough time with litigation like this as a centralized platform. If they really cared about giving their consumers a place to exercise free speech, they would have made Parler a protocol with some sort of polished frontend. I don't really feel much remorse when it's two companies with private interests fighting one another.
Idk about Harris and the FANG guard, but he's right in that way, that we should compare lets say twitter to radio, if a big national radio (who everyone knows of (that's the important part), and has access to it) can change the information flow, they are in charge. Even when there are thousand other radios (lets say a Alaskan Country-radio) who is absolutely honest about what they report they will not be heard...and even when..should you trust that little radio-station or the only source of truth (the big radio)?
as far as I can tell as an outsider, all US media is strictly partisan so even if twitter was a broadcaster and not social media it wouldn't be outside the norm, even more centrist than radio and TV.
>it wouldn't be outside the norm, even more centrist than radio and TV.
That automatically centrist steering is exactly the problem with social networks, your get in to your bubble, and everyone else is your tribes enemy. But sure that happens on traditional media too...i can remember we someone said something against invading Irak (2003?), they got nearly hanged by the crowd. Even Bush said "be with us or against us", but the whole invasion was based on a single lie (that sadam has some C-Wapons) but that was forgotten, retaliation was the main thing.
People who identify as Republican would have voted for Trump regardless because the Democrats and Kamala/Biden are socialists and will bring about the end of the American way of life :).
That said about 50% of those voters accept that Biden has a mandate albeit grudgingly but the other 50% are lunatics who think has Trump won, will serve a second term on March 4, that 1776 constitution is a thing and QAnon is maybe on to something.
