<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation
under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this idea - I have not studied it and also realize that Amazon is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential.
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
As a big fan of the 1st amendment, but someone deeply appalled by the riot last week and keenly aware of how social media are letting the mud to the surface, I am very perplexed how to reconcile free speech and the garbage flowing through our social streets.
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Brielle <bruns@2mbit.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, January 10, 2021 5:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> sronan@ronan-online.com <sronan@ronan-online.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Parler</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText">They’re a private company. The same statues that give providers the right to refuse spam and block abuse give them the right to fire customers for whatever reason they want.<br>
<br>
If their contract with Parler says they can be terminated for violations of TOS / AUP or (more likely) for any reason Amazon decides, then it’s a done deal.<br>
<br>
‘Frea Speeks’ as we liked to joking call it when spammers made the claim, is a govt thing. Private businesses aren’t bound by the 1st amendment.<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPad<br>
<br>
> On Jan 10, 2021, at 6:44 AM, sronan@ronan-online.com wrote:<br>
> <br>
> While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which could potentially open them up to liability if they fail
to suspend any other customer who hosts objectionable content. <br>
> <br>
> When I actively hosted USENET servers, I was repeatedly warned by in-house and external counsel, not to moderate which groups I hosted based on content, less I become responsible for moderating all groups, shouldn’t that same principal apply to platforms
like AWS and Twitter? <br>
> <br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
> <br>
>> On Jan 10, 2021, at 3:24 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:<br>
>> Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in<br>
>> search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the<br>
>> proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.<br>
>> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/">
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/</a><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Bill HErrin<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>