Figured there was big money behind it, didn't know it was Mercer, but not surprising. Even so, I'm still a little surprised it was actually built up with a normal corporate structure. I would have expected an anonymous PAC funneling money to the small group I was imagining...

Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 3, 2021, 22:32:
They have a board? Parler actually has a normal corporate structure? I admit, I am surprised. I just assumed it was a small group of people doing it all on their own. Figured John Matze had just agreed or had been select by that small group to be the spokesperson with the title of "CEO" for the sake of sounding impressive. That's actually semi-interesting.

Yes. It's run by billionaire Rebekah Mercer, who likely starts many of the George Soros rumors to normalize how involved she is in republican propaganda

They have a board? Parler actually has a normal corporate structure? I admit, I am surprised. I just assumed it was a small group of people doing it all on their own. Figured John Matze had just agreed or had been select by that small group to be the spokesperson with the title of "CEO" for the sake of sounding impressive. That's actually semi-interesting.

holy moly
"Parler CEO John Matze says he’s been terminated by board"
Hate-Crazy speech central is going to be getting some moderation finally.

Amazon was within their rights when they culled that cancer from their ecosystem. An unbiased federal judge verified it. it's all good.

Grast said "Amazon provide no proof that Parler was breaking any laws or break any terms of service."

I again refer you to the examples of Parler posts that Amazon submitted in that Gizmodo article I linked. Quite specific threats of harm and mayhem to specific people. Definitely TOS violations, and likely criminal.

I did read closely. Your statement has no merit because the contract stated that Amazon was contractually required to provide written notice of termination and only after 30 days could Amazon terminate the contract. I am not arguing that Amazon is not in their rights to terminate a relationship with a customer. I am arguing that Amazon is in breach of contract and needs to follow the directives in the service agreement. An important note is Amazon is the one which wrote the contract. As such in contract law, any ambiguity in the contract would be favorable to Parler case and not Amazon. It is also note the terms of service violation is not grounds for breach of contact. Go read them..it says breach of terms of service could lead to termination of subscription and the termination agreement is the notice and 30 days.

In our world of laws contracts matter. Amazon is abusing their market place and monopolistic power.

Did you not bother to read the original complaint, the amazon response, and the response by Parlor? Obviously not because Amazon no where in their response provided any evidence of breach of contract by Parler. It was only a statement by Amazon that in their opinion Parler breached the contract. That is an opinion and the judge should had required Amazon to provide proof for that statement. In the damn contract is states that any breach Amazon would still be required to provide notice and only be able to terminate in 30 days. This is plain and simple contract law. I am not stating that Amazon is not in their rights to terminate their relationship with Parler. The issue at hand is that Amazon breached their own contract by not providing notice and not providing the required 30 days. Amazon provide no proof that Parler was breaking any laws or break any terms of service. More importantly terms of service cant invalidate a service contract. if it could why would their be language in the contract which specifies the method for Amazon to terminal the agreement? Humnnnnn

If you read the response by the judge it is plainly she already had an opinion and wrote her decision to that point.

It is also important to state this judgement was on only for injunctive relief to restore services. The actual lawsuit for breach of contract is going to cost Amazon billion dollars in the end. It also shows any small independent developer/company to not base any other their software on AWS API's . As Amazon's actions sets a dangerous standing. If you use AWS and the Twitter mob comes after you, they can unilaterally regardless of the contract terminal your subscription at any moment.

For myself this is actually a boon. The tech world has been moving the cloud to save on costs. This just shows nothing is free and as a betting person I see this example swaying people away from any cloud service and just build their our local infrastructure.

Gizmodo posted some examples of posts submitted by Amazon for the lawsuit here (not posting them verbatim as it would likely violate the TOS on Blues):

https://gizmodo.com/amazon-court-filing-includes-chilling-death-threats-pub-1846048394

There are specific death threats in there. So I have a hard time believing anyone would think that they would be allowed on Twitter or any other service with a normal TOS.

As for the claim I've heard a lot of people make lately, that 'never before in history has a small group of companies controlled public discourse'. Let me remind them that before the Internet, for over 200 years, the only forums for public discourse was the letter to the editor page of newspapers. They too had rules for content, and it was completely at the discretion of the editorial board. Their server (or newspaper) their rules.

Don't feel bad for Parler. They already have a new host, it's just going to take time for them to recode the back end. Likely they never wrote it themselves and just outsourced the work, and since it was probably customized for the AWS API, might take a while.

Considering Gab went through exactly the same thing in 2018, it was pretty stupid that Parler didn't have a plan B on standby for just this occasion. The writing was on the wall.

I'm constantly amazed at the behavior some people feel is acceptable

All these drug store Nazi's that have been so immersed in their own Trumpoloon/Q fantasy world that they just keep getting their ass kicked in court where facts, the law, evidence and other real world things don't align with their fantasy world.

Word to the wise, don't quote posts that obviously break forum rules or ignore common decency.

Grast wrote on Jan 21, 2021, 21:45:
Exactly a ruling I would expect from a cunt judge appointed by Jimmy the loser Carter. I have read the damn lawsuit and Amazon provided ZERO evidence of any comment on Parler that was greater in severity than any idiot can find on Twitter. This is a clear case of breach of contract. This is the exact reason to never use any native API or
underlying engine from any other cloud providers. It just blows my mind that mental retardation from the judicial system.

Clearly you haven't read anything. It's a wonder you can write.

Grast wrote on Jan 21, 2021, 21:45:
Exactly a ruling I would expect from a cunt judge appointed by Jimmy the loser Carter. I have read the damn lawsuit and Amazon provided ZERO evidence of any comment on Parler that was greater in severity than any idiot can find on Twitter. This is a clear case of breach of contract. This is the exact reason to never use any native API or underlying engine from any other cloud providers. It just blows my mind that mental retardation from the judicial system.

Twitter moderates and removes content all the time for breaching rules, which apparently Parler had no system for, or didn't care for (if it sided with a certain ideology).

As to breach of contract, I think you have it the wrong way 'round: "In defending against the suit, Amazon considered the matter a simple case of breach of contract. The company flagged dozens of posts advocating violence, which is against its policies, and Parler failed to remove the posts,"

Apparently you didn't read closely, "...Parler has not disputed that at least some of the abusive and violent posts that gave rise to the issues in this case violate AWS's Acceptable Use Policy."

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on Jan 21, 2021, 23:35. Reason: Intolerance (rule 2)

I hope the Russians get stuck with the court costs for this ridiculous lawsuit.