[AMV] #939 25th to life

quote:

Op maandag 11 januari 2021 23:24 schreef Felixa het volgende:

[..]

En nog 10-15 naar wie onderzoek wordt gedaan.
Het zullen je collega's zijn... wie kun je nog vertrouwen.

quote:

Op maandag 11 januari 2021 20:30 schreef wdn het volgende:

[..]

Dat gaan ze winnen denk ik.

quote:

Legs? That seems unlikely at best.

For starters, Amazon's terms of service, across all its AWS services, are pretty explicit that it can boot customers who allow for certain kinds of content on their sites:

If we reasonably believe any of Your Content violates the law, infringes or misappropriates the rights of any third party, or otherwise violates a material term of the Agreement (including the documentation, the Service Terms, or the Acceptable Use Policy) ("Prohibited Content"), we will notify you of the Prohibited Content and may request that such content be removed from the Services or access to it be disabled. If you do not remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content within 2 business days of our notice, we may remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content or suspend the Services to the extent we are not able to remove or disable access to the Prohibited Content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we may remove or disable access to any Prohibited Content without prior notice in connection with illegal content, where the content may disrupt or threaten the Services or in accordance with applicable law or any judicial, regulatory or other governmental order or request. In the event that we remove Your Content without prior notice, we will provide prompt notice to you unless prohibited by law. We terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

Parler alleges that Twitter and Amazon colluded in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That's the big trustbuster statute, which reads, in part, "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."

However, the effort to deplatform Parler does not appear to have been a concerted act of collusion on the part of other social media platforms or, in fact, any platforms. Far more likely is that every company involved with Parler took a look at the way the winds are blowing in the wake of an actual, literal, violent attack on the US Capitol that left five people dead and decided it would just as soon avoid further ties.

"There is no merit to these claims," an Amazon spokesperson said about the suit. "It is clear that there is significant content on Parler that encourages and incites violence against others and that Parler is unable or unwilling to promptly identify and remove this content."

https://arstechnica.com/t(...)diate-reinstatement/

quote:

Op dinsdag 12 januari 2021 09:54 schreef wdn het volgende:

[..]

Kan best zijn maar rechters hoeven zich niet te houden aan de regels van Amazon.
Er is best een rechtzaak te beginnen met als doel deze regels onderuit te krijgen.

Een rechter kan best wel een beslissen dat de straf te hard is maar dat is afhankelijk van wat voor overleg tussen de 2 is geweest.