Just keep in mind if you are deploying to AWS, GCP or Azure that they will terminate your services without recourse if you do something that someone at the company doesn't like - and the benchmark for "doesn't like" is pretty malleable.
Agree. This is a great reason to avoid any cloud system, including Amazon.
We personally will be looking for other providers. Will still take the best deal, but if the deal is identical, competitor wins.
Parler says they will be back up 12 hours from the takedown Sunday night, but fully functional by Tuesday.
So, posturing for Amazon, and I hope it costs them something.
Well, not really. The will terminate your services without recourse if you violate the terms of those services. You know, the ones you sign a contract for.
But there *is* still due process. All of these companies have the right to go to court and get an order for Amazon to continue to host them or they can seek damages. Of course the same people who make statements like this are the same ones who reject the judgment of courts... or even sixty courts.
There is due process and right of appeal. If a company terminates your service even though you did nothing to violate the terms of the contract, they are doing something illegal and can be taken to court. That's why contracts exist, idiot.
> and the benchmark for "doesn't like" is pretty malleable
it's pretty simple - AWS gets a shitton of money from the USG and Parler pays way less than Biden, so they're going to fellate the rich guy and not risk losing his business.
The corporate/government merger is the root problem. S.230 shouldn't protect such entities which don't honor Constitutional values. They're free to not take that business.
You are aware that Parler is funded by the Mercer-family, right? They happen to be billionaires, while Joe Biden's net worth is a paltry $9 million.
Section 230 doesn't protect, it just says that the one who did or said the bad thing is the one who is responsible and can be moderated without repercussions. Or are you suggesting that punishing someone for something someone else did is a constitutional value?
-1 Troll The definition of "doesn't like" hasn't changed one bit. Remember Biden voters represent 75% of the economy. You are hard pressed to find a company of any size where Trump and his supporters aren't hated. The difference isn't a change of what is hated but rather that there was an insurrection that resulted in thugs and vandals entering the US capital building and ransacking the place. Nobody is going to do business with anybody who uses violence as a technique. This has nothing to do with vie
Yeah, this is a lesson that needs to be reinforced from time to time: NEVER rely on a single provider for all of your IT infrastructure.
If you happen to own a politically controversial website and you're hosted on AWS, you really should consider a "multicloud" or hybrid cloud strategy to avoid getting shut down.
I'm pretty certain Amazon hosts a lot of content "someone at the company doesn't like".
If I ran a website that people were planning an insurrection on and weren't making efforts to stop it from being used for that, then I'd expect my hosting provider to take a dim view of it too and kick me off. Just as I'd expect them to if they were using it to sell illegal drugs, etc.
Stop taking extreme situations and assuming they apply to non-extreme ones. That's not how the world works.
The chip-foundry business went through something like this in the 90's, when fabless companies found themselves high-and-dry when they got outbid for production capacity. The solution was to ink long-term contracts with things like guaranteed production slots in exchange for minimum buy quantities, and so forth, of the sort you may see in the crude oil markets.
Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.
This is why you don't "Big Cloud" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, not really. The will terminate your services without recourse if you violate the terms of those services. You know, the ones you sign a contract for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No right of due process, no right of appeal, no rights at all. Wait... isnâ(TM)t that basically unconstitutional.
Due process? What in the name of the fuck are you babbling about?
I don't know if you got the memo, but Amazon is not the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
I suggest you generally refrain from talking as you probably make a fool of yourself when you do.
Re: This is why you don't "Big Cloud" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> and the benchmark for "doesn't like" is pretty malleable
it's pretty simple - AWS gets a shitton of money from the USG and Parler pays way less than Biden, so they're going to fellate the rich guy and not risk losing his business.
The corporate/government merger is the root problem. S.230 shouldn't protect such entities which don't honor Constitutional values. They're free to not take that business.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that Parler is funded by the Mercer-family, right? They happen to be billionaires, while Joe Biden's net worth is a paltry $9 million.
Section 230 doesn't protect, it just says that the one who did or said the bad thing is the one who is responsible and can be moderated without repercussions. Or are you suggesting that punishing someone for something someone else did is a constitutional value?
Re: (Score:1)
Joe Biden's net worth is a paltry $9 million
He was referring to Biden's next job, not his personal fortune.
If it helps, his point was that the Mercer family will not spend as much with Amazon as the US Government.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this is a lesson that needs to be reinforced from time to time: NEVER rely on a single provider for all of your IT infrastructure.
If you happen to own a politically controversial website and you're hosted on AWS, you really should consider a "multicloud" or hybrid cloud strategy to avoid getting shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain Amazon hosts a lot of content "someone at the company doesn't like".
If I ran a website that people were planning an insurrection on and weren't making efforts to stop it from being used for that, then I'd expect my hosting provider to take a dim view of it too and kick me off. Just as I'd expect them to if they were using it to sell illegal drugs, etc.
Stop taking extreme situations and assuming they apply to non-extreme ones. That's not how the world works.
Re: (Score:2)