Parler Sues Amazon For Site Takedown, Alleges Antitrust Violations 339
Social networking service Parler sued Amazon on Monday, accusing its web hosting service of breaking anti-trust laws in taking off the platform that is popular with many right-leaning social media users. You can read the court document here.
Marketing stunt (Score:5, Informative)
That is not how antitrust laws work.
This is 100% a marketing stunt.
PS: Yes, I AM a lawyer with a masters in constitutional law. No, this is not legal advice, since you didn't pay me.
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Funny)
No, this is not a marketing stunt. Much like all of their service providers, Parler's lawyers have abandoned them too ( https://www.theverge.com/2021/... [theverge.com] ). This lawsuit is what happens when you have to resort to hiring Lionel Hutz for legal counsel.
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how facilitating sedition and insurrection quickly turns you into a pariah.
Re: (Score:3)
Quick question about difference (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny how facilitating sedition and insurrection quickly turns you into a pariah.
Quick question: Are BLM leaders responsible for deaths that occur during their protests?
I'm confused about any difference - perhaps you can explain?
Re:Quick question about difference (Score:5, Funny)
I dunno. Did any BLMers try to overthrow the government of the United States?
Re:Quick question about difference (Score:5, Insightful)
The most obvious difference is that BLM never overran the capitol building in an attempt to thwart a democratic process from proceeding as it was supposed to (which legally qualifies as terrorism, BTW) and then presumably seize power in a coup. Who knows what those zip cuffs and fully functional gallows were for anyway?
Re:Quick question about difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone who stormed the Capitol committed, at the minimum, the crime of unlawful entry (which can also now be linked to the death of the Capitol police officer). The leaders of the 'Storm the Capitol' event actively planned and encouraged such crimes to be committed (and were prepared to commit additional crimes).
Re: Quick question about difference (Score:3)
Quick question: Are BLM leaders responsible for deaths that occur during their protests?
To the same degree "MAGA leaders" are.
There was a peaceful protest at the national mall, then part of it marched to the Capitol Building, and part of that got violent. Why would anyone involved in planning or inciting that violence be treated differently than other events?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
"The attorney general and I recently discussed with you the need to consider the use of a variety of federal charges when they may be appropriate, including seditious conspiracy," Mr. Rosen wrote.
There's
Re: (Score:3)
I will concede that stupidity and incompetence are likely explanations also. Maybe even more likely.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest explanation I think is that Parler was hastily cobbled together to provide a home for people pissed at Twitter. It then exploded in popularity faster than they expected and they quickly ran into problems. Including quickly abandoning the free-speech stance as soon as trolls (unexpectedly?) showed up.
This sort of reminds me of how incompetent some groups are at time. Ie, liberal will starve after the apocalypse waiting for their Uber Eats to arrive, whereas conservatives will wander around in
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory: You better call Saul!
I would moderate you "Insightful" if I could. :D
Re: (Score:2)
At least it's better than Hyper-Chicken! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, we didn't pay you. But I would be interested in some analysis to back up "this is not how antitrust laws work."
(IANAL, but the antitrust argument does seem to be weak, as it would require evidence of a "cabal" between AWS and Twitter.)
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Informative)
It is only possible to have an issue if you can show monopoly practices. Thus, you could, very weakly, make an antitrust case between facebook and twitter for cancelled accounts.
On the other hand, AWS service is a completely different issue. It is like alleging anti competitive practices between a gas station and a bakery.
Because that is the hearth of the antitrust laws: to stop anticompetitive practices that lead to monopolies.
No yeah, nothing to do with AWS.
Also, since they were booted for repeated and clear violations of terms of service that are both legally sound and are not restrictive of otherwise permissive actions, the motivation for the boot is clearly demonstrated. For they to have an antitrust case regarding facebook and twitter they would have to show that those terms had the direct intent or indirect result of reducing competition. Which they clearly are not.
I'm sorry if I'm being vague. I'm trying my best to avoid lawyer-speak.
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:4, Funny)
'm sorry if I'm being vague. I'm trying my best to avoid lawyer-speak.
Well, this being Slashdot . . . it might help if you tried to use a car analogy.
Then again . . . it might not help, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, nobody knows if BMW turn signals work, because nobody has ever tried to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is only possible to have an issue if you can show monopoly practices.
No. Restraint of trade stands on its own, separate from monopolization.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm kind of doubting that Mr Morcego is indeed a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm kind of doubting that Mr Morcego is indeed a lawyer.
The law is a big profession with many specialties. A patent lawyer may know surprisingly little about, say, real estate law. Sorta like expecting a brain surgeon to be an expert on toenail fungus.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no 'restraint of trade' by refusing to do business with Parler, there are literally dozens of other cloud services they could use, including Ali Baba's. AWS is just the largest.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, since they were booted for repeated and clear violations of terms of service that are both legally sound and are not restrictive of otherwise permissive actions, the motivation for the boot is clearly demonstrated
fwiw Parler is also claiming that AWS violated the contract even if Parler was in violation of the terms of service, because apparently the contract says they have 30 days to remedy any violations upon being notified of them. (I'm not going to read AWS terms to see if that's true).
Re: (Score:2)
fwiw Parler is also claiming that AWS violated the contract
Quite possible. And they might get something in damages (likely not much). But what does antitrust have to do with this?
Seems anticompetitive to me (Score:2)
On the other hand, AWS service is a completely different issue.
Twitter is a competitor to Parler who hosts many threatening and hateful posts (google for many examples, including Hamas and the Iranian government).
Amazon dropped Parler but not twitter, Parler has not been convicted of violating any crime.
It *seems* like a breach of contract, and it also seems like dropping them without a 30-day notice is also a breach of contract. All of this is spelled out in the Sherman act.
This all seems anticompetitive on its face.
Re: (Score:3)
From AWS Customer Agreement:
6.1 Generally. We may suspend your or any End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we determine:
(a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, (ii) could adversely impact our systems, the Service Offerings or the systems or Content of any other AWS customer, (iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to liability, or (iv) could be fraudulent;
(b) you are, or any End User is, in breach of this Agreement;
(c) you are in breach of your payment obligations under Section 5; or
(d) you have ceased to operate in the ordinary course, made an assignment for the benefit of creditors or similar disposition of your assets, or become the subject of any bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation, dissolution or similar proceeding.
...
7. Term; Termination.
7.1 Term. The term of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will remain in effect until terminated under this Section 7. Any notice of termination of this Agreement by either party to the other must include a Termination Date that complies with the notice periods in Section 7.2.
7.2 Termination.
(a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.
(b) Termination for Cause.
(i) By Either Party. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause if the other party is in material breach of this Agreement and the material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice by the other party. No later than the Termination Date, you will close your account.
(ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6, (B) if our relationship with a third-party partner who provides software or other technology we use to provide the Service Offerings expires, terminates or requires us to change the way we provide the software or other technology as part of the Services, or (C) in order to comply with the law or requests of governmental entities.
I bolded the relevant sections. This could be interpreted as: We can suspend your account because you and/or your end users "poses a (physical) security risk to ... any third party". And then... "we may also terminate your account immediately because we were able to suspend your account and we wanted to".
Additionally, folks agree to the Acceptable Use Policy which states
You may not use, or encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to use, the Services or AWS Site for any illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive use, or to transmit, store, display, distribute or otherwise make available content that is illegal, harmful, fraudulent, infringing or offensive.
A lawyer could probably argue that by Parler having their completely hands off moderation policies, there
Re: (Score:2)
...Treating customers differently isn't a good move.
But it's not illegal (unless it violates some other provisions of law...)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine how any company that willingly signs a contract for hosting and then through willful action or at least complete inaction, violates that contract, can then declare that the hosting company is abusing antitrust law. It's not like Amazon is the only hosting platform out there; either in the US, or elsewhere. It sure seems like a stunt, but you would think a company serious about staying afloat would, at this point, dedicate its resources to getting itself online. It's almost as if Parler'
Re: (Score:2)
so they could launch just such a suit
They're probably hoping AWS will pay them to go away. Not bloody likely to work, which is why they had to go to a quack to file the suit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is not how antitrust laws work.
This is 100% a marketing stunt.
PS: Yes, I AM a lawyer with a masters in constitutional law. No, this is not legal advice, since you didn't pay me.
Did you read the complaint?
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Informative)
That is not how antitrust laws work.
This is 100% a marketing stunt.
PS: Yes, I AM a lawyer with a masters in constitutional law. No, this is not legal advice, since you didn't pay me.
Did you read the complaint?
The first 4 pages, including "NATURE OF THE ACTION", which are enough to show minimum legal grounds.
I know we are on slashdot, but I wouldn't have commented without reading at least that much.
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Marketing stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
9. Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason to the extent Parler reasonably believes (a) you have violated these Terms or Parler’s Community Guidelines, (b) you create risk or possible legal exposure for Parler, or (c) you are otherwise engaging in unlawful conduct—although Parler endeavors to allow all free speech that is lawful and does not infringe the legal rights of others. Any invitation made by Parler to you to use the Services or submit content to the Services, or the fact that Parler may receive a benefit from your use of the Services or provision of content to the Services, will not obligate Parler to maintain any content or maintain your access to the Services. Parler will have no liability to you for removing any content, for terminating your access to the Services, or for modifying or terminating the Services.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how antitrust laws work.
This is the best explanation you could give as a Constitutional law expert?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously IANAL as well as 99.99% of the posters here, but it was news to me that AWS has a contract to host Twitter. To treat Parler's competitor so differently, certainly seems fairly serious:
There's a claimed breach of contra
Re: (Score:2)
Restraint of trade (originally common law) is codified in the Sherman Act. That's separate from monopolization. But also a felony. Not a good position for Amazon to be in if they expect to bid for a government contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Restraint of trade would only come into effect if they somehow managed to convince the other hundreds of cloud hosting companies out there to also refuse to do business with Parler. (IINAL, but that's my understanding of the phrase.) I'm sure Tencent would love to host them.
Re: (Score:3)
This 'Parler' is being removed by companies for moral and ethical reasons, not because they have some competing service or product they want to promote instead.
As typical for Trump sycophants they're attempting to distort the truth and attempting to distort reality because truth and reality don't suit/serve them.
Their behavior amounts to bald-faced anarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
30 seconds of reading the definition of what 'anti-trust' means in this context is enough to tell you that.
This 'Parler' is being removed by companies for moral and ethical reasons, not because they have some competing service or product they want to promote instead.
As typical for Trump sycophants they're attempting to distort the truth and attempting to distort reality because truth and reality don't suit/serve them.
Their behavior amounts to bald-faced anarchy.
30 seconds of reading the suit tells you they claim AWS is applying their "moral and ethical" standards inconsistently, and they violated their contract terms regarding the termination notice.
Re: (Score:3)
Parler is not going to pay anyone after Amazon presents them with their bill for all the data usage. All those database downloads will have massively increased their data-out charges.
Parler is likely going to be bankrupt and abandoned by its sponsors very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware the US had a free trade agreement with China. Please elaborate.
Re: (Score:2)
"I wasn't aware the US had a free trade agreement with China. Please elaborate."
Check his alias.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure about #1, but 2 and 3, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, physical security engineer here.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally everyone here is an IT guy or programmer so just stop lying.
Nope! I find your assumption about my occupation based solely on my reading of a certain website to be grossly presumptuous and hurts my feelings.
Ok ok, I'm a network engineer. Darn it.
Re: Marketing stunt (Score:5, Interesting)
Parler's argument on anti-trust is that AWS struck an illegal deal with Twitter. Parler is a growing competitor and threat to Twitter. (And it will be again, when it gets back online...)
"Last month, Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) and the popular social media platform Twitter signed a multi-year deal so that AWS could support the daily delivery of millions of tweets. AWS currently provides that same service to Parler, a conservative microblogging alternative and competitor to Twitter," the filing reads.
"When Twitter announced two evenings ago that it was permanently banning President Trump from its platform, conservative users began to flee Twitter en masse for Parler. The exodus was so large that the next day, yesterday, Parler became the number one free app downloaded from Apple’s App Store.""
https://www.foxbusiness.com/te... [foxbusiness.com]
Re: Marketing stunt (Score:4, Interesting)
Parler was never an attempt at competing with Amazon.
Parler's anti-trust lawsuit didn't name AWS as competitor. It actually named AWS as the provider for Parler and its direct competitor: Twitter. While millions of tweets on Twitter are of exact nature as those messages on Parler, Twitter did not get banned and Parler did.
It's the same as when you're a building landlord, you evict a Hair/Nail Salon so that another similar business in the same building can profit better because its owner is your friend. Does that make sense?
Analysis? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was expecting a lot of contract interference suits and reflated litigation. This will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Its worth noting the ultimate politics of this are not settled. Decidedly non-Trump-y voices like Angela Merkel have not been friendly to big tech's response to all this. Has what Angela Merkel thinks anything to do with US law - of course not, but the left wing talking heads in this county (any you can make similar criticism of the right's punditry) have a strong tendency to eng
Re:Analysis? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hot air. GCloud and Azure are both perfectly acceptable alternatives. And unlike Apple, customers can simply move their content to another host.
Their best shot at winning a lawsuit IMO (not a lawyer) is the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. Since Apple customers can't install an alternative app store, Apple has an obligation to provide a way to sideload.
Re: (Score:3)
Except Epic v Apple doesn't apply to terrorist content.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Parler's owners know perfectly well that neither Alphabet or Microsoft are going to let them on their hosting platforms. It's doubtful any of the second tier hosting companies (many of which are just resellers of AWS and Azure anyways) are going to let Parler on board. Sure, there's probably some basement-dwelling CHUD MAGA type out there with a cluster of Raspberry PIs who will happily host them, but Parler needs a lot more infrastructure than that. Assuming this lawsuit fails (and it's likely too,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any good analysis out there already on the merits of the suit? I doubt many readers (myself included) have the qualifications to read the filing and come to an informed conclusion.
I'm not a lawyer, but nothing there smells like a valid anti-trust case. The document makes it sounds as if AZN and Twitter are in collusion somewhat. The first example they give is that AWS hasn't banned Twitter for some tweets that say 'Hang Mike Pence', but it doesn't provide a differentiation of the context in which these tweets were made.
OTH, we know for a fact that people used Parler to incite a riot and even murder. We know for a fact that Twitter has banned similar content in the past (the very re
Re: (Score:2)
"Hang Mike Pence" isn't incitement? That's doesn't sound quite right.
Re: (Score:2)
Parler is alleging that there was collusion between AWS and Twitter. Here is what they present as evidence of collusion [courtlistener.com]:
Less than a month ago, AWS and Parler’s competitor, Twitter,
entered into a multi-year deal. Late Friday evening, Twitter banned President
Trump from using its platform, thereby driving enormous numbers of its users to
Parler. Twenty-four hours later, AWS announced it would indefinitely suspend
Parler’s account.
AWS’s reasons for doing so are not consistent with its treatment of
Twitter, indicating a desire to harm Parler.
As evidence of inconsistent treatment, they point out that "Hang Mike Pence" was trending on Twitter, and AWS did nothing to stop it.
As to whether they will win or not, of course Parler makes their case look as good as possible, based on existing law and the evidence they presented. If that's all there were, they would absolutely win. Fortunately in the courts, each side gets to present t
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed a lot of MAGAs taking Parler and Twitter out of context, and then claiming it was disparate treatment. On Parler, you have a lawyer closely aligned with the President calling for Mike Pence to be executed for treason. On Twitter, you have people going "OMG, President's lawyer wants Pence hung!" In both cases the hashtag could be the same, but obvious the content of the message is very different.
This slight of hand argumentation will work fine for creating flamewars on social media, but I don't
Antitrust? (Score:2)
You can't throw a rock without hitting a hosting provider, so not a monopoly. In terms of collusion sometimes you really don't need it and there's nothing illegal about various entities deciding independently to stop platforming some specific group.
But desperate grifters gonna do grifting thing. They'd have a gofundme up to fleece people if they could, but it would probably be taken down and I doubt many credit card processors will help them fleece the suckers either.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is true that there are lots of hosting providers, they will still have a lot of trouble finding one. Hosting provides don't want the "notorious". They don't host spammers not because they don't want their money, but because they don't want the blow-back (and DOS attacks) that come from hosting spammers.
This would be even worse. Host them, and a vendor risks getting cut-off from their transit vendors. Off-shore is about the only choice that is left.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some Russian provider will happily provide Parler with some hosting, providing it has nice back door access to user accounts, so it can gain the details of the most dedicated would-be insurrectionists. A sort of hand delivered Fifth Column. Heck, most of them have so thoroughly bought into Russia's newest version of the Protocols of Elders of Zion, this seems like a match made in heaven (or more accurately, in hell).
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. To host something like Parler you need enormous capacity and things like DDOS protection you can actually only get for a handful of operators at least if you want to stay domestic.
Re: (Score:2)
Those (Score:2)
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
Left-wing tech war against conservatives (Score:2, Insightful)
The latest victim is Ron Paul [twitter.com]
Read the complaint! (Score:5, Informative)
As usual people are throwing out opinions without having read the complaint first. They may have a case
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action for injunctive relief, including a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, and damages. Last Month,
Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) and the popular social media
platform Twitter signed a multi-year deal so that AWS could support the daily
delivery of millions of tweets. AWS currently provides that same service to Parler,
a conservative microblogging alternative and competitor to Twitter.
2. When Twitter announced two evenings ago that it was permanently
banning President Trump from its platform, conservative users began to flee
Twitter en masse for Parler. The exodus was so large that the next day, yesterday,
Parler became the number one free app downloaded from Apple’s App Store.
3. Yet last evening, AWS announced that it would suspend Parler’s
account effective Sunday, January 10th, at 11:59 PM PST. And it stated the reason
for the suspension was that AWS was not confident Parler could properly police its
platform regarding content that encourages or incites violence against others.
However, Friday night one of the top trending tweets on Twitter was “Hang Mike
Pence.” But AWS has no plans nor has it made any threats to suspend Twitter’s
account.
4. AWS’s decision to effectively terminate Parler’s account is apparently
motivated by political animus. It is also apparently designed to reduce competition
in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter.
5. Thus, AWS is violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in
combination with Defendant Twitter. AWS is also breaching it contract with
Parler, which requires AWS to provide Parler with a thirty-day notice before
terminating service, rather than the less than thirty-hour notice AWS actually
provided. Finally, AWS is committing intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage given the millions of users expected to sign up in the near
future.
6. This emergency suit seeks a Temporary Restraining Order against
Defendant Amazon Web Services to prevent it from shutting down Parler’s account
at the end of today. Doing so is the equivalent of pulling the plug on a hospital
patient on life support. It will kill Parler’s business—at the very time it is set to
skyrocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I guess that Parler got themselves some new lawyers. I thought that their existing legal council quit along with the rest of their vendors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Read the complaint! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Read the complaint! (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is antitrust is using your dominance in one market and pushing another .Amazon has near monooply on online purchasing and is using that power in the web hosting market.
Perhaps, but Parler's complaint doesn't make that claim, and it's hard to see how they could make it, at least in any way that's relevant to Parler. They're claiming that Amazon is favoring another customer over them. Unfortunately for them, that's not illegal. AWS could even sign an exclusive deal with Twitter if they wanted, committing to provide servers for no social media site other than Twitter. Also, it doesn't matter whether AWS is favoring Twitter for financial or political reasons, or because Jack Dorsey sent a bunch of hookers & a mountain of blow to Jeff Bezos. Well, it wouldn't matter for anti-trust reasons, anyway. Amazon shareholders might have cause for complaint if the deal lost them money, and the DEA and the local vice squad might take issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Pat-a-cake, pat-a-cake, baker's man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding in this case is that the ruling was narrower than that. A baker can refuse to decorate a cake with a pro-gay message or symbolism, but he doesn't have some unilateral right to refuse to serve a gay person. But that doesn't help Parler's defenders. Sure, Amazon won't likely refuse to sell hosting space to a N@zi, but if that N@zi tries to host jewsinovens.com or uses his site to promote or plan an insurrection, Amazon, like the cake baker, can say "Nope, not on my property."
Re: (Score:2)
Some on Slashdot (another article) made a good observation that a bakery won in the Supreme Court that they can refuse service to anyone they see fit based on their personal ideologies. So it seems like some very stupid short-term thinking caused this to boomerang back with some unintended consequences.
The Masterpiece Bakery case hinged on freedom of religion. The baker felt that his religious beliefs were incompatible with creating a custom work for a gay wedding. He was fine with selling anything else they wanted, and of course there was n issue with them seeking the services of another baker. There certainly was no financial loss or injury to the client.
How are you comparing that case to one where Parler has a paid services contract to host their business on AWS, one of the largest hosting services
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed when amazon the corporation can successful prove what church the corporation has joined they can they attempt an argument based on freedom of religion.
Re: (Score:3)
Some on Slashdot (another article) made a good observation that a bakery won in the Supreme Court that they can refuse service to anyone they see fit based on their personal ideologies.
Yeah, but is it a gay insurrection cake?
Get ready for booming business (Score:2)
Right wing technology (Score:2)
If only the right wing populists had inventors and makers of technology. Right now the biggest inventor they have is the MyPillow guy.
Re: (Score:2)
If only the right wing populists had inventors and makers of technology. Right now the biggest inventor they have is the MyPillow guy.
You mean like the guys who invented Parler? It's hard to grow a business under these circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it's just some stock PHP software. I don't think editing a config file qualifies as "building" in the context of developing some new technology.
Corporate Mob (Score:3)
Unless AWS conspired with Twitter (either privately or publicly), there is likely no legal remedy for parler.
But the direction in general is very dangerous.
Mobs, right wing or left wing are dangerous.
But the most dangerous, is a corporate mob.
Here, corporations collectively make decisions of what is allowed. What speech, discussions, what protests. Not by any law. Not even by internal rules. But instead by selective enforcement of any such rules.
Once the corporate collective has decided, it may "cancel" an individual or a company.
The corporate peer pressure comes from other companies and prevailing thought. It does not come from any elected official, and representative, and is not governed by any judge or jury.
There is no recourse for the cancelled party because there is no major company left to turn to.
Of course you still have "free speech", you are free to build your own social networking, cloud infrastructure and mobile operating system.
If the corporate mob is on your side, you may be happy.
But it will likely not always be on your side.
Re:Trump's poll numbers up (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it is true (and Rasmussen is pretty notorious for polling relatively high for Republican races), what difference does it make? The Electors have decided, Congress has certified the Electors' votes, and Joe Biden will be POTUS in nine days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes no difference for election purposes.
Might make a lot of difference when you have angry mobs storming the Bastille. Apparently those angry mobs have quite a bit of public support.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they? Does support for Trump translate into support for insurrection?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because Trump still says the election was stolen from him.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently those angry mobs have quite a bit of public support.
That and a charge of insurrection will land them a pretty nice prison sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it is true (and Rasmussen is pretty notorious for polling relatively high for Republican races), what difference does it make?
It would be better if his poll numbers dropped, so we don't have another candidate who tries that kind of thing again.
Re:Trump's poll numbers up (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, this claim of a new poll hasn't actually been verified, and may just be pure bullshit. The fact is that even before the pandemic, Trump has had probably the most sustained period of unpopularity of any president since polling of US Administrations became a regular thing. Even if there's some one or two point bump, it still means he's just circling the mean he has been for most of his term, and hardly represents some wellspring of new support. Yes, Trump received a helluva lot of votes, and yes, it appears some fair proportion of the Republican base are currently dedicated to Trump, and that is a problem. What the solution is is hard to say, but with rumors swirling that some of the big funders of right wing talk radio and other media want the shock jocks to back off on the rhetoric, and even Fox News beginning to look positively schizophrenic, I'm going to wager that the big moneyed Conservative interests are preparing to dump Trump themselves. I don't think they're doing it because they're patriots, they're doing it because they need to help the Republican Party hang together, and to do that is going to mean turning down the temperature for now.
Trump is done. Everyone that matters has accepted that. In time, so will most Republicans. Yes you'll have the dedicated cultists, the types that will pull a stunt like storming the Capitol Building with some intent to disrupt or outright seize lawmakers. But there's a whole group of Trump supporters who are not nearly that volatile or deranged, and that's where attention will turn.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of Americans voted for Joe Biden. Under no circumstances do big mouthed blowhards like you represent "the People".
citation, please! (Score:2)
I'd not be too worried about Trump's echo chamber says...it's as meaningless as Parler claiming anti trust from a vendor with about 20 notable competitors, including Oracle, famously lead by a famous conser
Re: (Score:2)
Things promise to get interesting.
Rasmussen: Trump's Approval Rating Rises After DC Protests [newsmax.com]
Rasmussen seems to be an outlier. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newsmax also says Antifa infiltrators caused all the damage at the capitol, so... https://www.thedailybeast.com/... [thedailybeast.com]
Re:Trump's poll numbers up (Score:5, Informative)
Things promise to get interesting.
Rasmussen: Trump's Approval Rating Rises After DC Protests [newsmax.com]
Your link is to a Newsmax article which says "The Rasmussen poll finds President Trump’s approval is actually rising after Wednesday‘s protests. A source close to the polling firm tells Newsmax that the rolling survey saw Trump’s approval soar to 51% on Thursday night."
You don't have to take Newsmax's hearsay at face value. Why not look at the actual truth of what Rasmussen reported? https://www.rasmussenreports.c... [rasmussenreports.com]
* Jan 5: 43% strongly disapprove, 36% strongly approve, difference -7%
* Jan 6: the same
* Jan 7: 42% strongly disapprove, 37% strongly approve, difference -5%
* Jan 8: 42% strongly disapprove, 35% strongly approve, difference -7%
* Jan 11: 43% strongly disapprove, 35% strongly approve, difference -8%
So no, Trump's approval rating didn't improve after the DC events according to Rasmussen.
The Newsmax quote "the rolling survey saw Trump's approval soars to 51%" is flat out wrong. It shows Trump did reach 51% total approval in mid-December (combining strong approval and moderate approval) but it's been lower than that ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
Paragraph #3 pretty much sums it up.
It says more than you think, because Twitter isn't even hosted on AWS. They own and operate their own data centers.
Re: (Score:2)
So Parler's lawyers are the same kinds of legal eagles Trump had trying to prove election fraud; people who launch suits that can't even get basic statements of fact right.
Re: Gab.com (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that AWS management has the ability to plan further down the road than just January 19.
Conservatives aren't going to dump Amazon stock, they've gotten burned too many times trying to short the company already. Even the dumbest of them have learned that lesson already. AMZN has gone from $145 to $3500 in only ten years, and shows no sign of stopping. AWS is building data centers literally as fast as they can pour concrete and can barely keep up with demand, conservatives may hate Bezos but they love the ROI.