It's beginning! Parler files suit against Amazon!

[wings_unhinged]

“ We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice”

We may terminate you with a 30 day notice =/= we may not terminate you without a 30 day notice

Between this and Amazon's claims that they've spent weeks requesting Parler remove certain types of content, I doubt there's much of a case here.

Same reason why /r/The_Donald was banned. Users took the rhetoric too far.

[TaeBoNinja]

“ We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice”

We may terminate you with a 30 day notice =/= we may not terminate you without a 30 day notice

Why are you paraphrasing what's in the contract, lol? It's clear as day, AWS has to give 30 day advance notice...they didn't.

[TaeBoNinja]

Between this and Amazon's claims that they've spent weeks requesting Parler remove certain types of content, I doubt there's much of a case here.

Same reason why /r/The_Donald was banned. Users took the rhetoric too far.

/r/The_Donald was a sub-reddit. Parler is a private company who signed a contract with Amazon.

[navid93]

Why are you paraphrasing what's in the contract, lol? It's clear as day, AWS has to give 30 day advance notice...they didn't.

No it isn’t. Any good lawyer will tear parlors argument apart

It’s just logical patterns.

When David is at the mall, Andrew is at the mall. Does that mean that when David isn’t at the mall Andrew isn’t? No.

Same logic. Amazon can ban parler with a 30 day notice. That doesn’t mean amazon can’t ban parler without a 30 day notice.

[TaeBoNinja]

If I make a website called how to rape.com and we discuss rape tactics and the best way to do. Not necessarily advocating for it, but just discussing the best ways to do It

Do you honestly think any legitimate company like Apple or Amazon would ever want to be seen doing business with me?

It’s really not a hard concept to understand

What does this have to do with Parler? The capitol stormers used ******** not Parler.

[TaeBoNinja]

No it isn’t. Any good lawyer will tear parlors argument apart

It’s just logical patterns.

When David is at the mall, Andrew is at the mall. Does that mean that when David isn’t at the mall Andrew isn’t? No.

Same logic. Amazon can ban parler with a 30 day notice. That doesn’t mean amazon can’t ban parler without a 30 day notice.

What part of "providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice" don't you get??

Parler can show a clear breach, and damages as a result of it.

[4Mum69]

No, it really doesn’t.

Parler is a private company. So they can post terrible things without interference from the government.

Apple is a private company. So they can take parler off their stores without interference from the government.

The absolute state of retarded chitlibs.

One of the main purposes of government is to enforce contract law, just as it enforces all other laws. Without the basic rule of law you do not have a functioning society.

Apple would not have had a contract, it would have been a terms of service agreement. These are not the same thing you stupid, stupid oxygen thief.

To think that this spastic not only votes, he vocally screams from the rooftop to burn the country to the ground

[navid93]

What does this have to do with Parler? The capitol stormers used ******** not Parler.

This isn’t all about the capitol riots.

******** has 2.7 billion profiles. There’s going to horrible comments and posts on ********, of course. But are these posts what ******** is known for? Does ******** allow it? Does ******** promote it? No. Parler has a large amount of these posts and it’s literally allowed and promoted, it’s what parler is known for.

Nobody is going to stop doing business with ******** because .000001% percent of its post advocate violence. But they will stop doing business with parler if say 3% of its posts advocate violence and is also allowed.

[4Mum69]

navid93 is code for "dimwit"

[TaeBoNinja]

This isn’t all about the capitol riots.

******** has 2.7 billion profiles. There’s going to horrible comments and posts on ********, of course. But are these posts what ******** is known for? Does ******** allow it? Does ******** promote it? No. Parler has a large amount of these posts and it’s literally allowed and promoted, it’s what parler is known for.

Nobody is going to stop doing business with ******** because .000001% percent of its post advocate violence. But they will stop doing business with parler if say 3% of its posts advocate violence and is also allowed.

LOL, so your argument is that it's ok for FB to have these posts because it's bigger? Parler can simply argue clear bias since the capitol stormers used FB, and yet they weren't punished.

I expect Amazon to settle

[navid93]

LOL, so your argument is that it's ok for FB to have these posts because it's bigger? Parler can simply argue clear bias since the capitol stormers used FB, and yet they weren't punished.

I expect Amazon to settle

Jesus dude. Do you know what per capita means?

I’m saying that no **** ******** has violent posts because it has over 2 billion profiles. You’re really going to call ******** a violent promoting site like parler because it has .00000001 percent violate posts?


******** also has more posts about bodybuilding than bodybuilding.com, does that make ******** a bodybuilding site?


Bias? Really? A private company is allowed to be biased against another. There’s no law against. Parler has no case

[chickenbroccoli]

Leftists suddenly love the biggest corporation in the world known for paying no taxes and treating their employees like dirt while their CEO makes billions in a day.

Crazy how things have changed in the last 15 years. Miss the old leftists lol....actually not really.

[piitbFBI]

They have nothing to lose at this point

[ClivesTriceps]

Parler? I hardly know her!

You probably don't know anyone that uses the pronoun "her" with how much time you spend on the misc you 53 year old liberal dumbfck

[navid93]

What part of "providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice" don't you get??

Parler can show a clear breach, and damages as a result of it.

Idk how else to explain this.

Amazon said they can ban parler with a 30 day notice.

That doesn’t mean they can’t ban parler without a 30 day notice.

If your employer tells you he can fire you for being 5 minutes late, that doesn’t mean he can’t fire you for being 4 minutes late. Even if you signed a contract.

If amazons contract said “we cannot ban you without a 30 day notice” then parler would have a case

[wincel]

Idk how else to explain this.

Amazon said they can ban parler with a 30 day notice.

That doesn’t mean they can’t ban parler without a 30 day notice.

If your employer tells you he can fire you for being 5 minutes late, that doesn’t mean he can’t fire you for being 4 minutes late. Even if you signed a contract.

If amazons contract said “we cannot ban you without a 30 day notice” then parler would have a case

Logic is beyond most Trumpers.

[climberbrah]

someone please explain to me why a baker cant deny service in making a gay themed cake, but amazon can choose what customers it wants in this case.

[navid93]

someone please explain to me why a baker cant deny service in making a gay themed cake, but amazon can choose what customers it wants in this case.

Law classifies sexualities as a protected class

[John Promise]

Can you post the contract?

From the article:

AWS is also breaching it[s] 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.

Amazon's TOS for self-publishing ebooks on the site is intentionally vague, and authors have been complaining for years about selective enforcement.

Most of their sales are in the romance/erotica sections, and this is the only guidance they give on what they allow:

As a bookseller, we provide our customers with access to a variety of viewpoints, including books that some customers may find objectionable. That said, we reserve the right not to sell certain content, such as pornography or other inappropriate content.

Authors ask for clarification, and Amazon won't give it, making authors post their books to see if it's allowed, and if not, they'll ban the account and keep any unpaid royalties for themselves.

https://edhgraphics.blogspot.com/201...-are-some.html

All of these are unofficial no-no’s:
--Naked female torso including front view or sometimes side view. Side boob inappropriate.
--Arms or hands across breasts.
--Naked butt. On one occasion, upper thigh close to lower butt cheek was unacceptable.
--No naked people in a clinch even if they aren’t “fondling”.
--Any sexual position that implies penetration (Missionary, doggie-style, etc).
--No naked characters straddling each other.
--No handcuffs on wrists. Handcuffs being held is fine.
--No “O” faces.
--No nudity.
--No women on their knees in front of men (as in implied fellatio).
--No men between women’s thighs (as in implied cunnilingus).
--No men’s faces on breasts.

Examples of covers that earned their author's bans, while one like this is allowed to remain on the site:

https://www.amazon.com/Erotic-Girls-...AJXFSES4AYSREF

And I had one banned two years ago for "content" while "content" like this is allowed to remain

https://www.amazon.com/Sabina-1-Fren...YZHPCGQFBBR2WW

Other sites are explicit in what they'll allow. Patreon for example posts this as their guideline

We don't allow pornographic material or sexual services on Patreon, which we define as "real people engaging in sexual acts such as masturbation or sexual intercourse on camera."

And this wall of text is what Smashwords lays out in their guidelines so there is no ambiguity

• Neither the book cover nor the book interior of erotic content may contain graphic images of nudity (either photographic or illustrated) or persons involved in sex acts
• Erotica authors and publishers must categorize their books under fiction: erotica when uploading to Smashwords and must maintain these categories. If an author or publisher miscategorizes erotic content under non-erotic categories, they risk either removal of the work or account termination, at the discretion of Smashwords.
• Authors who publish erotica and romance categorized under "fiction: romance: erotic" are required to provide supplemental categorization information related to certain taboo themes. Authors and publishers who fail to provide this information, or who deliberately miscategorize their works in an effort to subvert the collection of this information, may face book removal and/or account termination at the sole discretion of Smashwords or its retailers.
• Smashwords recommends that book descriptions and titles for erotic literature should be kept "PG-13." Excessive profanity in book descriptions may lead to further scrutiny and review, or blocked distribution or removal from Smashwords.
• Smashwords has a zero-tolerance policy for underage erotica (characters under age 18), and this policy has been in effect since the beginning of Smashwords in 2008. Underage erotica is strictly forbidden, and the upload of such will lead to immediate account termination. In erotic literature, children or underage minors cannot be engaged in sexual acts or situations, bear witness to such situations, be shown considering sexual acts, or be shown thinking about sexual acts.
• "Barely legal" erotica is strongly discouraged, and is subject to additional review and may be removed without notice at the sole determination of Smashwords, especially if characters are in situations - or have mannerisms - that suggest that the characters are actually underage.
• Rape erotica and sexual slavery erotica, where the predominant theme is rape violence for titillation, is strongly discouraged, and is subject to additional review and may be removed at the sole determination of Smashwords. Note that erotic BDSM fiction that adheres to BDSM best practices, where all role-playing is consensual with safe words, is allowed and not to be confused with rape or sexual slavery erotica.
• Scat, snuff and necrophilia erotica is prohibited
• Bestiality erotica is allowed but not encouraged. A one-off title is more likely to be acceptable than if a publisher is publishing dozens or hundreds of such titles. At Smashwords discretion, such content may be removed or accounts closed.
• Incest and pseudo-incest (sexual relations among non-biologically related relatives and siblings) erotica is allowed, but it will be blocked by most retailers and library aggregators.

Like I said, Amazon's TOS is intentionally vague so they can kick you off for "reasons." There are a number of Miscers who sell in the marketplace, I would recommend taking a close look at your TOS to see how specific it is. And I don't know about the marketplace sellers, but Amazon keeps what they owe you if they capriciously decide to ban your account. And the whole reason is that most of their sellers are small fish they think will simply write off those earnings and go away quietly. they screwed up with Parler, because they're not going away quietly. And since Parler is turning this into a broader anti-trust case, this has the potential to be an expensive mess for Amazon.

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-s...ust-litigation

[AlwaysFocus]

No it isn’t. Any good lawyer will tear parlors argument apart

It’s just logical patterns.

When David is at the mall, Andrew is at the mall. Does that mean that when David isn’t at the mall Andrew isn’t? No.

Same logic. Amazon can ban parler with a 30 day notice. That doesn’t mean amazon can’t ban parler without a 30 day notice.

after reading your posts, ive come to conclusion you are a moron, lol

[navid93]

Like I said, Amazon's TOS is intentionally vague so they can kick you off for "reasons." There are a number of Miscers who sell in the marketplace, I would recommend taking a close look at your TOS to see how specific it is. And I don't know about the marketplace sellers, but Amazon keeps what they owe you if they capriciously decide to ban your account. And the whole reason is that most of their sellers are small fish they think will simply write off those earnings and go away quietly. they screwed up with Parler, because they're not going away quietly. And since Parler is turning this into a broader anti-trust case, this has the potential to be an expensive mess for Amazon.

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-s...ust-litigation

This

The amount of Miscers who think they understand how Amazons contract will hold up in a court of law better than hundreds of amazon lawyers is hysterical

[navid93]

after reading your posts, ive come to conclusion you are a moron, lol

Miscers are some of the dumbest people on the planet...

Do you honestly think Amazon would be so lazy with their contract wording that random people on the misc could crack it?

You don’t think amazon got hundreds of top tier lawyers who specialize in this category to review it multiple times? You don’t think it was intentionally written in a way so vague that amazon could use loopholes?

Or let me guess. The hundreds of lawyers at amazon are wrong and Miscers who have never been to law school understand business law better than amazon

[JayJ350]

Miscers are some of the dumbest people on the planet...

Do you honestly think Amazon would be so lazy with their contract wording that random people on the misc could crack it?

You don’t think amazon got hundreds of top tier lawyers who specialize in this category to review it multiple times? You don’t think it was intentionally written in a way so vague that amazon could use loopholes?

Or let me guess. The hundreds of lawyers at amazon are wrong and Miscers who have never been to law school understand business law better than amazon

Pride and arrogance can make people reckless with power.

[navid93]

Pride and arrogance can make people reckless with power.

“(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.

This says amazon can terminate the agreement, which includes the 30’days, if Parler broke rules. Parler broke rules by promoting violence and terrorism on their platform.

Yeah, parler isn’t going to win this

[JayJ350]

“(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.

This says amazon can terminate the agreement, which includes the 30’days, if Parler broke rules. Parler broke rules by promoting violence and terrorism on their platform.

Yeah, parler isn’t going to win this

Lol @ the armchair lawyer trying to dictate the law.

[z4v4]

In case it isn't obvious leftists as admitted over and over on this forum are for fascism as long as it's in their favor.

But trying to overthrow the election results, democracy, and the US Capitol is A OK.

[z4v4]

Parler is going to get mashed worse than Lin Wood did when he tried to sue Elon Musk.

[4Mum69]

Like I said, Amazon's TOS is intentionally vague so they can kick you off for "reasons." There are a number of Miscers who sell in the marketplace, I would recommend taking a close look at your TOS to see how specific it is. And I don't know about the marketplace sellers, but Amazon keeps what they owe you if they capriciously decide to ban your account. And the whole reason is that most of their sellers are small fish they think will simply write off those earnings and go away quietly. they screwed up with Parler, because they're not going away quietly. And since Parler is turning this into a broader anti-trust case, this has the potential to be an expensive mess for Amazon.

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-s...ust-litigation

Terms of Service for their retail services are very different to corporate contracts for Amazon Web Services. Its not a like for like matter legally. This is very basic stuff and for some reason (in the case of the libs its sheer retardation) everyone is getting themselves confused between what legal rights companies have under what is very simple and very concrete contract law.

This is a matter of civil law under common law which goes back hundreds of years. Its not even unique to the USA, this is basic contract law in every single country the Brits colonized. Our legal systems are built on the foundations of common law and contracts in particular are a specific area where governments arbitrate on them. This is the main reason why we have civil courts.

This is not like you agreeing to Netflix terms of service, and if you dont like it you can just go start your own Netflix. Netflix sets terms and you agree to them or you dont use the service. A contract like the one Parler would have in place is contract that both companies agree to and have legal obligations to adhere to, if AWS would not agree to it then Parler could have gone elsewhere. They were denied that right by essentially being lured into a contract that AWS as a supplier dishonored, and they did it in a way where it killed Parler completely.

AWS cannot just "ban" their customers if they have a fixed agreement in place that requires 30 days notice of termination. There is no grey area with this matter, there are no ifs or buts. It does not matter if they were were issuing them daily warnings to change their evil ways, under the eyes of the law there would be absolutely no way to terminate a service contract like that without the agreed to notification period. No company in their right phucking mind would agree to those sorts of terms from their suppliers in the first place. Regardless of what moral justifications AWS wants to try and make here, there is absolutely no way in hell this should stand in any court anywhere. Not here in the US, not in the UK, Canada, Australia or even places like phucking Bermuda.

What makes this matter even worse, and I am going to stress this because it is important, is that AWS not only breached their contract with Parler, they did so in a way that led to security breaches and it basically tanked Parler in the process. It does not matter what side of the fence you are on, right wing or retard (lib) - companies and in particular massive conglomerates and corporates like Amazon simply cannot be allowed to break civil laws like this with impunity. The cherry on top is that they did it for political reasons, which in itself is beyond disgusting.

If this cannot sink into your skulls then I dont know what to say. The real issue here is that libs being the disgusting dregs that they are are so high and filled with blood lust over the cancellation of everything that they disagree with right now that they actually have started to believe that they are entitled to rewrite common law.

[JuicedMayhem]

So many fuks here defending censorship and against free speach. I literally wanna come pay u visit and smack the gallon of cum outta your your mouth

[Weightaholic]

Terms of Service for their retail services are very different to corporate contracts for Amazon Web Services. Its not a like for like matter legally. This is very basic stuff and for some reason (in the case of the libs its sheer retardation) everyone is getting themselves confused between what legal rights companies have under what is very simple and very concrete contract law.

This is a matter of civil law under common law which goes back hundreds of years. Its not even unique to the USA, this is basic contract law in every single country the Brits colonized. Our legal systems are built on the foundations of common law and contracts in particular are a specific area where governments arbitrate on them. This is the main reason why we have civil courts.

This is not like you agreeing to Netflix terms of service, and if you dont like it you can just go start your own Netflix. Netflix sets terms and you agree to them or you dont use the service. A contract like the one Parler would have in place is contract that both companies agree to and have legal obligations to adhere to, if AWS would not agree to it then Parler could have gone elsewhere. They were denied that right by essentially being lured into a contract that AWS as a supplier dishonored, and they did it in a way where it killed Parler completely.

AWS cannot just "ban" their customers if they have a fixed agreement in place that requires 30 days notice of termination. There is no grey area with this matter, there are no ifs or buts. It does not matter if they were were issuing them daily warnings to change their evil ways, under the eyes of the law there would be absolutely no way to terminate a service contract like that without the agreed to notification period. No company in their right phucking mind would agree to those sorts of terms from their suppliers in the first place. Regardless of what moral justifications AWS wants to try and make here, there is absolutely no way in hell this should stand in any court anywhere. Not here in the US, not in the UK, Canada, Australia or even places like phucking Bermuda.

What makes this matter even worse, and I am going to stress this because it is important, is that AWS not only breached their contract with Parler, they did so in a way that led to security breaches and it basically tanked Parler in the process. It does not matter what side of the fence you are on, right wing or retard (lib) - companies and in particular massive conglomerates and corporates like Amazon simply cannot be allowed to break civil laws like this with impunity. The cherry on top is that they did it for political reasons, which in itself is beyond disgusting.

If this cannot sink into your skulls then I dont know what to say. The real issue here is that libs being the disgusting dregs that they are are so high and filled with blood lust over the cancellation of everything that they disagree with right now that they actually have started to believe that they are entitled to rewrite common law.

Partially correct, I'd be amazed if Amazon didn't include something in their terms that they could simply pull you if you were using AWS to do something illegal. I make no claims as to the legality of what Parler may or may not have been doing, but to simply state they require 30 days notice of termination in every instance is very likely incorrect. Unless Amazon's huge legal team are wildly hilariously incompetent.

So many fuks here defending censorship and against free speach. I literally wanna come pay u visit and smack the gallon of cum outta your your mouth

Freedom of speech applies to government censoring you, businesses are under no obligation to allow you freedom of speech.