Re Parler

Thu Jan 14 18:23:51 UTC 2021

     Good to here since you're either part of:

         . Parler legal team;

         . Amazon legal team;

         . Pervue of all the communication between both corporation;

     ... or just a Parler user ... is my guess.

-----
Alain Hebert                                ahebert at pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.net    Fax: 514-990-9443

On 1/14/21 1:01 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman <mel at beckman.org> wrote:
>
>> I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because
>> I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to
>> the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts
>> managed to get the pages out of order).
>> And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
>> termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
>> weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
>> data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do
>> that in a termination.
>> Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
>> companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a
>> single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
>> Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore
>> Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do
>> business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance
>> notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since
>> Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
>> However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for
>> anyone using them for operational networking.
> This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices.
>
> Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210114/30160f80/attachment.html>