Was Amazon supposed to give Parler 30 days notice rather than 30 hours notice before removing them?

john james

Active member

Was Amazon supposed to give Parler 30 days notice rather than 30 hours notice before removing them?

Did Amazon do it so soon to prevent Parler from getting new people after these same people left Twitter because Twitter and other social media sites had just banned Trump?

Has big tech distracted some A-political people and others so they won't pay attention to this situation?
 

The Pixie

Active member
Was Amazon supposed to give Parler 30 days notice rather than 30 hours notice before removing them?
Says who? Surely this is entirely up to Amazon?

Is it possible Amazon felt 30 hours notice was safer, in view of the risk of the platform being used to incite a riot? Maybe they felt this was the more socially responsible action.
 

john james

Active member
Says who? Surely this is entirely up to Amazon?

Is it possible Amazon felt 30 hours notice was safer, in view of the risk of the platform being used to incite a riot? Maybe they felt this was the more socially responsible action.
Some say it was in their contract or agreement that 30 days was to be given
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I can't imagine no contract and no termination clauses. If Parlor was a one man shop i know amazon is not. Amazon would have lawyers draft protection into their contracts. Including reciprocity which would require parlor to pay for sudden interruptions.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Some say it was in their contract or agreement that 30 days was to be given
But it is likely that 30 day period is not applicable if the site is used to break the law. If, say, there was child pornography on a site they hosted, I am sure Amazon would shut it down immediately. So if it is inciting a riot, I would guess the same applies, and Amazon had the right (and indeed the duty) to shut it down fast.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I have a very difficult time understanding why people would listen to some blogger's Youtube channel for advice on legal matters...

ps. the opening minute of this video is so stupid, it really insults the intelligence of anyone who'd watch it. That's why I stopped.
 

Ignatius

Active member
Yeah, maybe that was a poor choice of words. How about they felt the bad publicity that would ensure a court case accusing them of inciting a riot would be bad for business. The end result is the same.
But written words don't incite riots. There is nothing you can write that would make me riot. EDIT Do Not instigate /troll other posters
 

Ignatius

Active member
I have a very difficult time understanding why people would listen to some blogger's Youtube channel for advice on legal matters...

ps. the opening minute of this video is so stupid, it really insults the intelligence of anyone who'd watch it. That's why I stopped.
It didn't incite you to riot?
 

The Pixie

Active member
But written words don't incite riots. There is nothing you can write that would make me riot. In your next post write the words that would make me riot.
Those are two different statements. I do not doubt for a minute that nothing I write would incite you to riot. But it does not necessarily follow that what other people wrote could incite others to riot. You make the same mistake in your response to Whateverman. The fact that it did not incite Whateverman does not necessarily imply that it will not incite others to riot.
 

Ignatius

Active member
Those are two different statements. I do not doubt for a minute that nothing I write would incite you to riot. But it does not necessarily follow that what other people wrote could incite others to riot. You make the same mistake in your response to Whateverman. The fact that it did not incite Whateverman does not necessarily imply that it will not incite others to riot.
Incorrect. If words have the power to make people riot then they can make people riot. Words don't have power in one place but not another. They either have the power to incite riots or they don't . The listener decides to riot not the writer.
 

rossum

Active member
Says who? Surely this is entirely up to Amazon?

Is it possible Amazon felt 30 hours notice was safer, in view of the risk of the platform being used to incite a riot? Maybe they felt this was the more socially responsible action.
I suspect that there are clauses in the Amazon contract which let them terminate the contract quickly if the other party behaves in certain ways. The legal argument will likely come down to whether or not Parler behaved that way.

$0.02
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Incorrect. If words have the power to make people riot then they can make people riot. Words don't have power in one place but not another. They either have the power to incite riots or they don't . The listener decides to riot not the writer.
Sorry, but wrong. Words can incite one person and fail to move another person, depending on the person. Just because what someone says does not or would not incite you to riot does not mean that they would not incite others to do so.
 
Top