Amazon is a competitor. They should not have any voice whether or not Parler becomes fully operational.
Lots of wrinkles yet to be ironed out of this relatively ‘new’ Social Media industry.
That’s like begging and pleading McDonalds Inc, to ‘allow’ Burger King to sell hamburgers, fries and sodas in the same states as McDonalds. What do you think McDees would say to that? “Ahh...That’s a No. We like it this way, with our boot on your corporate neck. Have a nice day!”
But Burger King isn’t trying to compel McDonalds to sell BK products. Parler is trying to compel Amazon to host their site and content.
Actually, Amazon is not a competitor to Paler. Amazon is basically the utility company to Paler and they cut off their electricity.
Amazon was parler’s web hosting company. There was a signed contract for Amazon to do the web hosting for parler. They may NOW be competitors, but when the contract was signed, Amazon (AWS) was providing a service to parler. It would be interesting to see what other websites produce that are serviced by AWS.
you wrote:
“...Amazon is a competitor. They should not have any voice whether or not Parler becomes fully operational...”
No. Amazon is not a competitor. They are a hosting platform in which Parler had a contract.
The important word here is ‘contract’; the violation of which this judge choose to totally ignore.
You see, AWS hosts so much content on their virtual servers, it’s almost impossible for them to look at what some may call offensive and what’s not. It would literally need to be a criminal act, followed by a warrant to find such offensive information.
I won’t go into detail about the kinds of sites and systems hosted on a global platform such as AWS. Use your imagination, and you’re probably right.
No, this was a political hit job, nothing else. Since when did Amazon actually start listening to their employees unless it suited their own interests?
But the damage done goes beyond Parler. The social media platform was direct competition with Facebook - not Amazon. What’s next? Two companies fighting for market share, until one comes up with the idea of simply buying influence with AWS (or any other platform) to just wipe out the competitor - and simply make up a reason for doing it, such as ‘offensive content’, ‘hate speech’. etc.
Or we just don’t like this guy’s politics. Or maybe it just gets personal. The fact that contracts now mean nothing, it’s actually that ‘social contract’ that makes the internet what it is. If half of the software engineers of the world became ‘black-hatters’, you would not have an internet. Too many of us have just enough knowledge to wreak havoc across multiple networks.
But we don’t - because of that un-spoken social contract.
But one of the biggest on the planet has decided to chuck that ‘contract’ for the sake of political expedience. This puts everyone that uses that service in potential peril - even governments themselves.
Oh, are you thinking the U.S. Government? They are a client - probably their biggest.
The BEST thing Real American can and should do is find alternatives. I assure you other smaller providers AROUND THE WORLD are prepping their marketers to do just that. And let’s not become dependent on one platform or even one website. The Parler issue is a teachable moment for all of us. a) Don’t put your eggs in one basket and b) always have a plan B.
guess that’s a little more than a couple pennies...
- jimjohn - OUT
No the are not a competitor they are a service provider.
yep!