Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It's not really my area (antitrust), but as someone else just pointed out above if Parler violated the terms of service it's going to be a pretty uphill battle for them. There's certainly no consitutional right to be able to use a private business's services.
This is the core issue for sure. I was talking to my tech nerd friends and they seem to tell me that there are any number of services around that Parler can go to.
Could be. I think maybe @bigbottom or maybe @Maurile Tremblay would know better. I have never focused on that area of law.
I disagree with Merkel on this.
This I agree with. If you don’t like Twitter’s moderation leave.
If Bezos used the Washington Post to flex his muscles toward Trump, that would violate mere norms (since he is the sole owner, AFAIK).
I think mot people are ignoring that Merkel called for government censorship, and just focused on her criticism that Twitter did it.
If AWS violated its contract with Parler, Parler can sue.
Parler is apparently going forward with a suit - not on breech of contract, but on anti-trust grounds
I've seen people say this. Is web-hosting a natural monopoly? I don't know why it would be, but I haven't googled yet for the answer.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/29095511/1/parler-llc-v-amazon-web-services-inc/
I got A's in several antitrust courses about 25 years ago, which definitely makes me an expert.
My cursory read of the complaint is - its not a winning argument, but not quite as desperate as a Hail Mary.
The very existence of both a very healthy ecosystem of smaller web and application hosting services, as well as huge multinational companies like GCP, Azure, IBM Cloud, Oracle Cloud, and a host of others seems to make any attempt of turning this into a successful antitrust suit highly unlikely.
This is going to be the interesting part. But I highly suspect given how visible a platform like Parler is, and all the issues surrounding it prior to the riots on the Capitol, that AWS's legal team didn't cross i's and dot t's before yanking Parler.
How they are going to prove AWS's protecting Twitter's interest is beyond me.
Agree a lot with Mile High. Guess I'm too old and harkening back to a time that can never return (the mid-to-late 2000s) ... but IMHO nothing serious in the news cycle should ever be disseminated first on social media before getting run on old-line pre-Internet news sources. Looks like if Facebook/Twitter, things go to heck just about every darn time.
Parler had to have been a big money grab. Any reasonable platform should not be single threaded on its cloud services. Especially not one who is trying to compete with Twitter/Facebook. This is not rocket science, dang its not even hard. From a tech standpoint, Parler looks like a joke.
Its hard to not be the villain when your site is being used to incite violence. I mean they have screenshots of it. I'm not sure why people are surprised.
Nor do they even have to use cloud services. Go to a colo data center. I mean the options are endless.
A lot. But Parler doesnt even have to choose cloud services. There are hundreds of companies that could host their platform.
Yeah, whats that quote? “If you owe the bank $100 dollars that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million dollars that’s the bank’s problem.”
Honest question
I was thinking more of the internet in general, not its applications, though the two are almost synonymous for a lot of end users. The ease and expectation in which they're accessed by many makes them akin to it. Zuckerberg and Dorsey's ability to follow you across the internet makes it quasi-public, if you ask me. Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that.
That makes sense, I'm also approaching the point where I think internet access is a public utility. A particular messaging exchange platform doesn't approach public utility status IMO, there are tons of options, and more fundamentally none of them, even taken in total, are necessary to a significant degree.
It's not remotely comparable IMO.
Thank you for the response
I'm not arguing google is a monopoly. Sure, you can use a different source. But because it's 87% of the market, Google has a ton of power.
Thanks for the reply.
) local business in a town put a sign out for candidate A. You would still be OK with that? Would that change your perspective? What if 3 of the 4 news papers put out endorsements for candidate A. Is that OK?
I think that Google and Twitter are unique and can't be compared to other local businesses. This is for 2 reasons.Thanks for the reply.
I will disagree with you on Google, but we can leave it at that.
I would ask though on the influence front it seems like you are valuing the size of the individual business influence too high. For example, what if every (87% of
My point is that I don't think the size of the influence matters. I think that we need to allow all businesses to conduct business as they see fit. The bigger ones have to be careful as they need to play both sides. But can we really fault them?
Thanks for the conversation.
I hear your responses, we can agree to disagree.I think that Google and Twitter are unique and can't be compared to other local businesses. This is for 2 reasons.9 minutes ago, JAA said:
Thanks for the reply.
I will disagree with you on Google, but we can leave it at that.
I would ask though on the influence front it seems like you are valuing the size of the individual business influence too high. For example, what if every (87% of
My point is that I don't think the size of the influence matters. I think that we need to allow all businesses to conduct business as they see fit. The bigger ones have to be careful as they need to play both sides. But can we really fault them?
Thanks for the conversation.
Expand
1. They're international. Google's reach is hundreds of millions of users. My local business reach is in the thousands.
2. My local business deals in Coffee, or farm equipment or dog food, etc. Google and and Twitter deal in information. They are not the same as any other company.
You post you're not comparing them but you keep trying to compare them. I think the size of the influence matters when it's world wide. I think the fact that they can choose what information is seen/isn't seen is important.
I'm not lobbying to go after Google or punish google. I don't think Google is necessarily doing anything wrong. I'm just saying they're in an interesting spot with the power they've obtained.
