@@helpyourcattodrive they cant stop fox news but they can not provide foxnews network but the fox news network has other entertainment options other then their "news network"
@@developer8602 no Facebook really has played a huge hand in the extremism we’ve been seeing. But I’m pretty sure the capitol riot wasnt very premeditated as trump literally told them to go to the capital. Granted, he didn’t explicitly say riot, but it’s would’ve unfolded regardless of how he worded it
"What we're seeing right now is woke censorship by the Liberal companies" Reality : "You can post whatever views you like as long as your not actually breaking US law".
@@Its__Good The party of law and order, they say. It is almost like they only care about laws toward certain people, not ones they might disagree with. Almost.
@@alejandrogarcia3227 even of that were true (which is a claim that can't be supported), it isn't just the planning that is at issue. If you read AWS's response you will see some samples of what caused the suspension. These had little to nothing to do with the insurrection.
Amazon: International law says technology platforms have to ban terrorism and criminal acts as quickly as possible. Parler: We don't ban users Amazon: If you don't, we will Parler: You can't ban our users Amazon: Your right, we can't ban your users. Parler: See... what are you doing? Amazon: We can ban OUR users. PARLER ACCOUNT HAS BEEN BANNED.
Not really. "Legal" in this case just means "having to do with the law." The opposite would be Alegal Eagle or something like that. As in an Eagle that is not concerned with issues of law. Probably most eagles are alegal. Most, unfortunately, can't even read.
"Of course I saved the Breach of Contract allegation for the middle of the video *because as we all know, contract law is the sexiest of all laws.* " Yup. Court reporter here. I always have to go for smoke after a couple hours of contract law testimony. Way too exciting 😛
@@jenniferstine8567 Thanks for the reminder! Courts aren't open in my state just yet, and I'm cool with that. We're getting close. Washington State's on one of those phased algorithms for reopening. Most everything's on line still. I don't find that burdensome. Lots of pluses working from home. No traffic omg
dey relentlessly poke, begging for their just reward! is is easy to see that they have no clue. they believe their trash-talk, and they dont believe in repercussions, jus reparations and cancel culture.
Related to free speech and the 1st Amendment, any chance you'll talk about the bill working it's way through Kentucky legislation that would make it illegal to insult/taunt cops? Because that seems like a Textbook case of a 1st Amendment violation.
Yeah, that bill will crumble the instant it's challenged in court. It is, as you pointed out, exactly the type of legislation that the First Amendment protects citizens from.
"Commence Order 1/6."-Darth Hideous. Let Parlar have their platform...so FBI agents can create accounts...lots and lots of accounts. The days of Feds being on Stormfront, Daily Stormer and the National Socialist Movement's "New Saxon" platforms are done. "Step into my Parler", said the Spider to the Fed..."because I have no concept how ANYTHING I say can and will be used against me in a court of law". Normal Conservatives of course have every right to a platform, but not Nazis.The problem is, Nazis glom onto conservative causes and infiltrate con. organizations.
I don't know... these trump-nuts seem to shell out big bucks when one of their golden idols are at stake. Supposedly trump himself is raising like 2.5 mil a day with his 'stolen election' nonsense. Who's to say they won't start sending their beer money to Parler too? BTW, as a member of the GOP, I get multiple emails daily from the trump campaign asking for money, and they are flat out SHAMELESS.
And you think twitter doesn’t? And you think Facebook doesn’t? Every social media site does, just because it’s conservative doesn’t mean it’s any better or worse than any other
@@ferritparade5808 But are Facebook and Twitter actively trying to fix the problems? Your whataboutism is crap, because the issue wasn't the fact they had death threats and other unsavory content. It's that they either didn't care or didn't want to try and fix the problem. I don't use Facebook or Twitter so I got no horse in this race. However, it seems to me Parler would still be on Amazon's servers if they actually tried fixing the issues.
@@christinebenson518 This isnt true. Twitter still hasnt banned people who called for the deaths of the covington Catholic kid. And people who were organizing riots over the summer. There are still many violent threats made at people and even a hastag recently that called for the death of Trump. The idea they try to moderate this stuff is laughable.
Wait, they're claiming defamation because Amazon said they're unable or unwilling to remove content? But, they didn't remove the content, they admitted to 27,000+ backlogged items. It seems to me Amazon was being charitable by including the "unable" part, what other options even are there for why the posts would never have been moderated? The only theoretical other option for why the posts were left up I can think of would be "we were forced to", which definitely doesn't seem to be what they're claiming at all.
Personally, I'm curious what a typical backlog on Twitter is like. I've submitted reports about people saying horrible things on twitter (e.g. calling for someone to be killed) and not received a response for over a month, while the person and the tweet both remained on Twitter. I suspect 27,000 is a rather small number when it comes to moderation backlogs.
@@Felice_Enellen Twitter probably can show a "good faith effort" to enforce their TOS and any backlog is a result of their *insane* number of posts; at least on paper. Also Twitter does things like Twitter Probation (12-36 hours where only your followers can see your posts) and Twitter Jail (1-7 day unappealable suspensions) Twitter has a bunch of keywords that trigger an auto-response and so if their algorithms catch a billion posts a month and their moderation team handles another 100 million posts a month, a 30 day backlog of 1 million reports wouldn't seem that bad lol
@@mitchellhorton9382 Yeah I'm sure the scales would be significantly different, but it may be that 20-30K is entirely to be expected, given Parler's userbase and the number of things that need to be moderated. It may or may not be an indication of a failing system. I have no context to know. Giving the number without context seems a bit disingenuous to me if, for instance, the backlog on any given day on Twitter could be in the millions while Twitter is presumably considered to be doing an adequate job. Either number will seem large without context. It seems kind of sketchy not to explain what the number _ought_ to be, perhaps when compared to an operation where it's appropriate. What number is considered successful? 10,000 1000? 100? Would those numbers seem large if they had been the ones we saw first? It's all about context.
@@Felice_Enellen I don't think Parler had that many users at the time (that email was in nov 2020 and so the data would be from Sept-Oct 2020 at the latest) The relevant numbers are ratio and clear times which we don't have the data for (but Amazon would have had it, it just wasn't in those emails)
@@Felice_Enellen One of the lines he highlighted in the contract said objectionable posts had to be removed *immediately.* That might be impossible to actually do (hence the backlog) but if they agreed to it, they’re still on the hook and likely in for a lengthy argument about how the contract defines “immediately” in this particular context (e.g. within 24 hours).
I was in a game with a teenager streaming to twitch and parlor who said this among other things: "I'm supposed to report them if they're planning something violent or riot or some shit but you know slide me a few dollars through the donate and look the other way." About how illegal does that sound?
Yikes, if they’re caught saying that by Twitch they could very likely lose their account (rightfully IMO) for violating Twitch’s ToS. Edgelords really like losing money huh
I think the threats would have to be VERY specific and demonstrate a willingness to follow through with said threats. Free speech would provide a wide latitude, but twitch could shut down the streamer regardless.
It's fine as long as you're the president. Imagine if all Americans had a bicameral jury system where half of at least one of the two juries to pass had your supporters. Voir dire? Yeah, nah. Crazy americans. 🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿😉
I’ll never understand why people complain about being punished for breaking the TOS of companies they use. It’s called the ‘terms of service’ for a reason - if they break it, then surely they would understand that they don’t get service from the company.
The issue with platforms like Twitter and UA-cam is the vagueness in their ToS, allowing them to ban you for basically any reason they desire. An example would be to ban someone for "hatespeech" which doesn't actually tell anyone what they did wrong, which doesn't help at all. The person who was banned will merely go onto a different platform and play the victim and make the platform they were banned from look worse than before.
It's called the free market and capitalism, you know, the ones the republican party are all for. If their ToS and actions drive people away then they'll amend their ToS and moderate their actions to get back customers. I don't see Facebook and Twitter being too concerned about blocking QAnon and any hate speech. As providers they can do whatever they like and the free market will determine if they are successful in the long run.
ToS is full of terms and conditions that are directly tied to legislation. One of those international laws requires technology companies to remove terrorist/criminal/illegal content as quickly as technically possible. Parler refused to comply with that law (as a social media platform), so Amazon had no choice.
There needed to be a far longer pause after "I'm bringing sexy.... contract" just so we could all take the time to appreciate just how bad that joke was.
Technically it's a common factor in _any_ politically-partisan argument. Anyone making a factual argument in support of an ideology will cherry-pick facts. That's what makes ideology so fundamentally poisonous to the intellect.
Well, it's basically how our legal system works across the board: one party presents the facts they like, the other party presents the facts _they_ like, and we hope that between the two of them they present every fact that matters. If there's a key fact that isn't in their favor, they're entirely within their rights to leave it to the _other_ party to bring that fact to the court's attention. (This is completely different from academic arguments, where every person involved is expected to be an impartial judge who does their own research.)
@@Tzizenorec I dont like the way facts is used in that context. Facrs are provable, and exist outside of anyone's opinion. People can lie and pretend rhe facts are on their side, but you cant have different facts.
@@georgedent7601 Sure you can have different facts. There are plenty of facts in the world, more than enough to pick and choose. (You can't have contradicting facts, of course, but it's amazing how close facts can come to contradicting each other without actually doing it.) Facts are not on anyone's side. They can be _used_ to support one side or the other, but the facts themselves do not particularly care, and will often turn out to be rather confusing if you are honest about trying to let them speak for themselves.
That defamation argument seems really weak considering AWS has repeatedly told them to quit dragging their heels and hire people to moderate the website if the tribunal idea was not working. It'll be interesting to see if anything sticks in this lawsuit, if only because I think nothing will.
@Philip L Tite yeah defamation is an uphill battle for the claimant, they have to prove harm was done and that the statement was something the defendant knew was not factual, and the defendant does have a good faith defence in that they didn't knowingly say something inaccurate. Slightly abridged but that's generally how it works in English speaking nations. Devin's covered it a few times recently with more particulars relevant to US law. Parler as I see it doesn't have a leg to stand on for breach of contract or defamation.
Check out Texas. Instead of trying to help those that suffered during the freeze, the governor thought his time was better spent dealing with social media "silencing" conservative viewpoints.
@@mangonel “remember when”? Well you’ve got exactly 0 years between the GOP being the party of Trump, the Tea Party, Bush, Gingrich, and back to good old Strom Thurmond. Do Lee Atwater’s ideas that won the elections for Nixon and Bush Sr really reflect dignified Republican values?
As someone living in Texas. Abbot is awful. He keeps putting in legislation and taking actions that benefit him and his party regardless of facts or if it's a reasonable course of action. For God's sake, he's about to stop the mask mandate here! I can't wait to boot him from office.
"... unless it's against public policy" This seems like something you should talk about more. What is public policy and what does it mean for a contract to be against it?
Seconding the motion. This is a great, fruitful area of discussion. Public policy, especially respect to Con law, is a fascinating topic with an extensive history.
@@zargondm that’s the point op is making- your leg healed. you can sue for damages, sure, but your leg didn’t have to get amputated. if you showed up to the court claiming “irreparable damages” with two working legs, that undermines your claim.
@@zargondm There's a difference between damages & irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is damages that can't be dealt with in a judgment. The fact they were able to get back up in a few days shows the harm wasn't irreparable, so the remedy here if they had a case would be a judgment or settlement, not an injunction.
@Cyber Ghost It is a reference to the song SexyBack by Justin Timberlake, where he claims that he is bringing "sexy" back. It made little sense in the original song, but Legal Eagle deliberately made it even more ridiculous. It is barely a pun.
Speaking of Amazon, workers attempting to join unions are asking people to boycott Amazon and Amazon Prime Video from 3/7 - 3/14 in a show of support for workers and their right to unionize!
They won't have any heat from parler at all. Parler breached their terms of conditions by failing to moderate the content on their platform effectively. A backlog of 26000 cases explained by a shrug of their shoulders should put their case in the trash can.
Exactly. I got an ad on UA-cam yesterday about signing a petition in protest of Amazon “silencing and censorship” conservative voices on Parler, and the whole time I was thinking, _Amazon isn’t suddenly anti-conservative, you dopes, they just don’t want to risk being accused of supporting domestic terrorism, or being targeted for lawsuits because they’ve got deep pockets._
Jack Sparrow: Parleley, parlelellyleloooo, par le nee, partner, par... snip, parsley... Ragetti: PARLER? Jack Sparrow: That's the one. Parler. Parler. Pintel: Parler? Damn to the depths whatever man what thought of "Parler". Jack Sparrow: That would be the Proud Boys.
I gotta say. only a perpetually-drunk pirate would consider calling an app "parler", a word which people who only speak english are guaranteed to pronounce wrong.
The issue with the Parler situation is the fact I can literally name off multiple groups on Facebook that are similar to those that got Parler removed.
Facebook doesn't use AWS, so that's on them to moderate. Parler was using Amazon's servers under an agreement that they were expected to uphold, which they didn't. Amazon wanted them to remove certain content and they didn't, it's an entirely business question. Whether it's fair is immaterial because it's a contract Parler agreed to, so they accepted Amazon's terms but wouldn't uphold their agreement. Now, the argument of Parler fans that Parler is the only place for wild right-wing rhetoric (AKA Free Speech) is, on the other hand, rather undercut by that information...
Whataboutism aside, so? You answered the core of the case, AWS has no obligation to host them and there are other services available for them to use that will let them have their stupid little hate party in.
I'd absolutely be for that. Would also help for those curious about the concepts addressed that might be more difficult to discern a keyword for at a glance.
@@alexdasliebe5391 Those are auto-generated, which notoriously does speech-to-text worse than a phone from 2014 does. Granted, Devin does articulate really well for it.
Why would anybody need a right wing alternative to Facebook? Facebook is the right wing alternative to Facebook heheheheh whenever I go on FB all I see is old people ranting about bs and 90% of the time they’re conservative
I guess because Facebook, if pushed, would punish somebody for saying things like "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". Facebook has even started fact-checking people now and we can't have that.
When I was using it there were a fair amount of kids, teens and college students. My college put up flyers saying that people playing Facebook games during peak usage will be kicked out. Last time I checked it out really was while I was in college, so 10 years at least.
The argument is that "We can do just about anything ToS" are unlawful. As they should be, Amazon have a dominant market position and that should to be taken into account. They can't use that position to kill competition.
@@MrBlack1968 Parler freely agreed to that ToS though, and Amazon holds a big but hardly monopolistic market position. The internet is by its very nature immensely distributed and the fact that even sites like The Daily Stormer and indeed now Parler still find someone to host them cuts strongly against the argument that Amazon has a position in the market that would merit regulating them more strongly.
@@MrBlack1968 except they didn't use their platform to "kill competition", they used it to police violent, extremist rhetoric, which is entirely within their rights.
@@MrBlack1968 You’re making it sound like Amazon was in competition with Parler. They were the ones actively profiting from it, by all accounts they owned Parler, so if “the free market” weighs in on this, they’re allowed to do with Parler what they see as necessary.
Lets make laws so that it will be impossible for anyone to ever be convicted of it. Thats for the rich. For YOU, the laws are so vague that you can be charged for anything.
Section 230 is full of amendments that are part of international agreements/pacts. One of those amendments requires domestic/international terrorism content be removed as quickly as technically possible. Its a pact a lot of nations and tech companies agreed to unilaterally after the NZ massacre. This law is reflected in S230 and most Code of Conducts and Terms of Services. Amazon was complying with an international agreement that Parler refused to acknowledge, by their own admission of the backlog. If Parler was refusing to take down terrorist content, Amazon took down the terrorist content the only way it technically (and quickly) could.
He said he liked to wear their products when he wasn't in Court or on a Zoom call, but that includes boxers you know ? So perhaps in front of you right now is not a Legal but a Commando Eagle...
The quality of your videos are getting so much better over time. The camera you are now using, good lighting setup, excellent framing and slick background make this very visually appealing to watch. Additionally, your b-roll and stock footage fits in real nicely....also, the content is great.
can say the same about twitter? there used to be huge threads of people calling for killing people on twitter, that would stay up for months on end before eventually getting taken down, on that front twitter was doing worse then parler at curbing the hate on their platform. but you know, the incident happened and twitter said "oh shit we have all this hate, better clean that up really fast lol"
@@HiddenOcelot You cant use logic with a moron. They just dont get it. Pinkbink swallowed a pill. Until that fool coughs it up, they wont hear anything other than what they are programmed to hear.
@@pH7screwtube I mean you're right, but even still if it falls on undeaf ears, then I don't care if it changes thier mind, just that it might change a single mind
When agreeing to an EUA, I say to myself, "Yes, I'm selling my soul but it's cheap anyway". Parler on the other hand had already sold its soul (although it's really soulless) to the devil. Your ad for Mack Weldon was excellently transitioned to, as are all your sponsor's ads. It reminds me of the old cliché "Only a lawyer would consider a 500 page document a brief".
Conservatives when the law says you can't force a bakery to make a cake: Let companies decide with whom they want to conduct business! Conservatives when social media outlets moderate their posts: The government should force companies to conduct business with everyone!
It does that already. You can't refuse service because of someone's religion, race, etc, but you can if they don't have on shoes or a shirt or swear incessantly once inside. You'd think lack of money by those businesses refusing service to 20% of the population and another 78% that support minorities and would boycott would put the racists out of business in free market, but the govt did step in, based on needing a govt issued business license.
@@리주민 I think you missed my point by a few miles there, bud. Conservatives rhetorically cheer on small government while advocating to expand its duties. When the conversation was over a cake, they won, because the government shouldn't have the ability to control the free market. Now that the free market is expressing a disinterest in serving conservatives (specifically in regard to social media not wanting to host the constant violations of policy), they want the government to now step in and force companies to let them play.
It is incredible how many americans cite the 1st amendment when they get censored on youtube, Twitter or any other platform, when clearly they dont have any idea what the first amendment says or where it applies. When you confront them about it they reject it, cognitive dissonance at its finest.
True, but I do think people dismiss this point too quickly. Yes in a legal sense social media platforms can do what they want, but I do think it is worth considering the large platform these companies give people and in turn can have a large influence over one's ability to speak and asking, is that a good thing? Is that a good system in concept, or do people just like it because they agree with how these companies censor people?
@@Noschool100 people are stupid and give power to companies who clearly state what they can and cant do, they dont read anything and then bitch about it, thats the problem, but how can they live without these social media apps? Now is it a good system for these companies to censor people? Morally speaking course not, but they have the freedom to do that and that is fine, its their platform and can do whatever they want with it, its dumbass people who give them that power. Is it a good system as a business? 100% yes.
@@XxDrJewxX "its their platform and can do whatever they want with it" Yes as it is now, but like previous things private entities were allowed to do, eg segregation, discrimination, nonexistent safety standards, owning people as property, there is an argument to change that. nobody needs Facebook just as blacks didn't literally needed to eat in a legally white restaurant in the 50s but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to complain about policy people see as unfair.
@@Noschool100 my point was that of course you can complain, what would be best ia to stop using them, but people are stupid and they are going to keep using them. Show them with your wallet is the best way to go but people pretend they care and forget about it 10 minutes later. If you really want change, stop using it. This isnt a restaurant in the 60s.
@@XxDrJewxX how is is different than a restaurant tho? The response back then wasn't "private businesses can what they want and people should protest with their wallet" it was "segregated restaurants are bad and made illegal"
I'm a Canadian Web Developer and Programmer, and honestly putting all the politics and right-wing terrorism aside for the moment; I'm honestly shocked a programmer would choose AWS for such as site. Amazon's Web Hosting division is a huge company, much bigger than their retail business with 10s of thousands of websites hosted world wide, so their terms of service are very specific and among the strictest on the internet. Since, if they had to adjudicate or investigate every little questionable piece of content on that many websites, they would need an army of moderators in the 100,000 range and given the kind of content those moderators come across on a regular basis, they typically demand to be well paid (gotta pay the therapists for their eye bleach); being less strict would be unbelievably expensive and could make their service offerings unprofitable. If it were me doing the coding (not gonna happen I'm NOT a Nazi!) I would have advised them to host the Website & the rest of the platform on their own servers. First-time setup can be very expensive, and for a platform that large you would generally need to hire at least one fulltime Web Master to manage the servers, but in general it's cheaper in the long run and you have direct control over your own content moderation (although, that's not always a good thing as it can make it easier for malicious users to abuse your platform's services, See the capital riot for a textbook example) Evidently these people have never heard of 4chan and they think AWS is the only game in town.
@@juliewoodcock4655 The answer is simply that it is relatively cheap, fast setup, and you essentially pay as you go. There's a fair amount of staff and build out that does not need to happen if you decide to host with AWS or any of the other cloud providers.
Until now I thought a tort was a dessert. I also learned there are things called "toxic torts" which I would previously have interpreted as poisoned desserts XD
I hugely appreciate the in-depth explanation of Section 230 of the CDA, and feel this needs to be talked about a lot more. I was absolutely infuriated a few weeks ago when 60 Minutes ran a very skewed piece about UA-cam content creators, spinning controversial channels as some justification in favor of overturning Section 230. We live in very bizarre times when people who call themselves "journalists" are admonishing the free exchange of ideas, especially a program with the pedigree of 60 Minutes. It's so obvious that dying media formats are so desperate to compete, they will actively drag down prevailing modern media platforms down like crabs in a bucket. They don't care if it decimates the very functionality of social media at large. They are using aggressive lobbying tactics and making previously reputable news personalities read deceitful scripts in this last-ditch effort to prolong the inevitable. We need more awareness of the Section 230 overturning campaign, recognition that its efforts are not falling on party lines, and Republicans AND Democrats are speaking favorably of doing it. We the people are on our own here. Section 230 must be preserved, and we must call out the lies and fallacious cherry-picking the soon-obsolete media formats are using against it, especially when it comes from a commonly revered news outlet like 60 Minutes. No news program, regardless of reputation, is immune to the meddling of their corporate overlords. Reputation is just another form of currency, a card that can be pulled, played, and dismissed at any time.
Fun fact, in some other countries, exists a term for these sort of contracts - unified contracts. Like the one an end user will sign with AT&T for instance. In legal terms, It means the court acknowledges the fact a single person can't fight each company's contract and it gives the customer the advantage when deciphering certain parts of the contracts. For instance in Israel there's a precedence for cancelling an exit fine from a cell line, because the amount in the contract was ridiculous for a single person to pay and unwanted by the damages from the breach of contract.
I know you have to have all these "probablies" and "maybes", but effectively it really seems very, very unlikely that this lawsuit is going anywhere. Sure: If they can prove that AWS have let their guard down specifically with regards to Parlers security, thus allowing them to be hacked - ok fine. But they have some responsibility to keep their own data safe too, and they really did not. The leak was done via SQL injection which would indicate that the "security lapse culprit" is Parlers own code.
Wait, the video is unlisted? That'd explain why I'm the first commenter for the first time ever :p Is that intentional? I found it in the "Real Life, Real Law Reviews" playlist.
I mean, yeah, it’s a cloud service where they run their own code. How on earth would how they build their own app any of Amazon‘s responsibility? And didn’t they just sue Amazon in January because they said Amazon shouldn’t have influence over how they use their platform? Can’t have it both ways.
Competitiion is a word the big tech hates and it will always look for reasons to damage or restrict them. Even if they boot them for reasons that both Twitter and Facebook are all guilty off.
Je ne parle pas francais, I think that reads correctly and hopefully will explain why, as a canadian, I'll just go with the defacto americanese pronunciation.
Just look at the arguments provided by Parlers lawyers. Devin would probably say the same things. Unless Parlers lawyers are idiots. But I don't think so. They did the best they could do :)
Just a question: the agreement with Amazon seems quite onesided. Is there anything to prevent a monopolistic company to write such one sided agreements?
From the video, it seems that type of contract is both common and legal. Both parties need to agree to a contract and a company is free to dismiss any tailor-made contract for any ground they want, as are you to ignore any and every contract offering they might have. You could send them another contract but they're free to just put it in the bin. The only problem they'd have is when they start exploiting their monopoly, in which case I doubt it will open up more contract negotiations. Rather, it would force the monopolist to change its offering, i.e. that one-sided contract, or force some way to get competition back into the market. That's what I gathered. I'd still be interesting to see what Devin has to say about it
As someone who knows nothing about contracts, but a thing or two about web services, Amazon isn't a monopoly in this context. There are a lot of other places you can go for web hosting, you could even run your own servers if you wanted to without much trouble. So while the contract does look somewhat one-sided, it's far from the only option so it's probably "fine".
AWS is not a monopoly. It’s just so huge that all the other web-hosts and cloud services can live in its shadow in their own ecosystem. Almost every cloud provider has the same boilerplate TOS and EULA, this is because the ability to abuse and assault other hosts on the internet is nearly unlimited. You are giving what amounts to a stranger full access to your hardware and computer resources. That stuff is expensive. You don’t want that stuff damaged.
@12:49; And Parler didn't have the foresight to read the entire contract before agreeing to the Terms Of Services agreement. Given that they're also a business, they're not likely to get away with "But it was a large contract - nobody expects to read the whole thing!"
As much as I do not like Amazon and how companies as big as Amazon can do almost whatever they want, it seems like Parler was trying to speak with emotion showing no evidence! Parler stop wasting time of those poor guys on the court who have to go throught stuff like that everyday! Sad!
I love how they picked a short paragraph to defend themselves with and then the section just below that in the contract completely invalidated their whole argument. Parler clearly didn't read the contract they signed.
Isn't there an argument that AWS is so large now, that its infrastructure rather than a company, as such it it shouldn't be able to be block anyone from accessing its services.
"So what's your hobby?" "Oh, you know.... filing borderline frivolous lawsuits with no legal standing, failing fantastically, and then still claiming I'm right." "Neat."
When I heard parlor would try sue amazon I actually laughed, imagining being the main cause of a terrorist act and then trying to sue the black ops who stop you (black ops- amazon)
I've worked with AWS a fair bit: That point 68 that says Amazon left up Route 53 DNS records "direct[ing] hackers to Parler's backup datacenters" is almost definitely something Parler knew about. Amazon doesn't build the records for you, if there's records in Route 53 pointing to some server, you added them. Furthermore, that's possibly the point of the backup datacenter: if AWS goes down for whatever reason (including terminating your hosting), you have more servers running outside AWS that can keep handling your service, so it doesn't completely go down. (I'm assuming that's what they mean by "backup datacenters" and not "datacenter that stores backups of our data")
I'm not sure how you can see Amazon cloud fare as anything but a Monopoly there is no comfortable to Amazon cloud Fair and Google products Gmail Google maps Google search and Google calendar all have alternatives Yahoo mail MapQuest doctor go Yahoo calendar. You don't need Facebook you don't need Facebook or Twitter there was once a time when you needed Facebook but after the Russian hack everybody pretty much left Facebook as a legitimate platform and the Twitter has never been a legitimate platform Say that Amazon cloud fare isn't a monopoly but that Google is is an exercise of your ignorance I'm not even talking about parlor I'm just talking about Amazon cloud Fair
This is setting a dangerous precedent. Powerful corporations policing a large portion of public discource with no constraints but their own judgement has the potential to be really toxic. Do not take it lightly because they happen to be on the roughly progressive side for now and are tentative about it. They are testing the waters. The same principal that applies to governements also applies to huge corporations. Power over speech is too great and too tempting of a power for any strong centralised organization to have. We need to push back on this.
If a post violates the law (e.g. death threats), but doesn't violate your social media platform's terms of service, you're doing it wrong. You're an antisocial media platform at that point.
I think it's hard for people to keep in mind, that even though the TOS says we can do this at any time with no notice, that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
how is it a free market when a handful of monoplies control every aspect of your life? sure keep rooting for these cooprations, make enjoy your ever dwindling freedom
When you were talking about companies conspiring in cartels I thought about an episode of king of the hill. And then you used clips from that exact episode lol.
...part of the AWS agreement containing that 30 day delay might as well have not been written in the first place, since they have nothing binding them to actually uphold that
Ha - Love that in the middle of this was an ad from the Epoch times about "big tech" censoring voices. Enjoy their ad revenue, DJ! Keep up the great content!
⚖️ Do you think Amazon was wrong to kick Parler off?
👕 Get 20% off your first order from Mack Weldon: legaleagle.link/mackweldon
Amazon's platform. Amazon's rules apply.
No. Supressing the reich must require a heavy hand. Shock and awe.
No. They have the right as its their server
No cable needs to end station that lie like Fox too
@@helpyourcattodrive they cant stop fox news but they can not provide foxnews network but the fox news network has other entertainment options other then their "news network"
“They were just using our breach of contract as an excuse to kick us off!”
Amazon: That’s called a reason not an excuse.
When you realise that Facebook groups were mainly used to organise storming the capitol
how dare the manager kick me out of his restaurant for getting up on the counter, dropping trow, and squeezing out a deuce!!
@@gustafandersson237 THAT'S your argument to save parler?? LMAO! LOL LOL LOL LOL!!!
you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel there buddy!
@@gustafandersson237 even if true, does NOT in any way save Parler in any way shape or form.
@@developer8602 no Facebook really has played a huge hand in the extremism we’ve been seeing. But I’m pretty sure the capitol riot wasnt very premeditated as trump literally told them to go to the capital. Granted, he didn’t explicitly say riot, but it’s would’ve unfolded regardless of how he worded it
Parler: that doesn't violate our ToS
AWS: Well, it does ours.
"What we're seeing right now is woke censorship by the Liberal companies"
Reality : "You can post whatever views you like as long as your not actually breaking US law".
@@Its__Good The party of law and order, they say. It is almost like they only care about laws toward certain people, not ones they might disagree with. Almost.
Almost all of the planning for the insurrection happened on Twitter though...
@@alejandrogarcia3227 even of that were true (which is a claim that can't be supported), it isn't just the planning that is at issue. If you read AWS's response you will see some samples of what caused the suspension. These had little to nothing to do with the insurrection.
@@alejandrogarcia3227 Evidence?
Amazon: International law says technology platforms have to ban terrorism and criminal acts as quickly as possible.
Parler: We don't ban users
Amazon: If you don't, we will
Parler: You can't ban our users
Amazon: Your right, we can't ban your users.
Parler: See... what are you doing?
Amazon: We can ban OUR users.
PARLER ACCOUNT HAS BEEN BANNED.
It is amazing how people forget that companies care about themselves more than other randoms.
Pretty sure that Amazon can boot anyone who violates the Terms and Conditions.
Parler built a virtual trainwreck, and died of a self-inflicted wound.
everywhere you sign up to T&C's even the lord orange wig himself had to say he agree's to the terms of twitter
If you get involved with a company, you agree to play by the rules. Simple as that.
@@user-co6eo5pz7x Republican here.
Be careful of generalization.
@@justcows7772 except for the ones whom aren't. Which, I will grant you, aren't as numerous as they should be.
Legal Eagle implies the existence of an Illegal Eagle.
Well, of course.
Not really. "Legal" in this case just means "having to do with the law." The opposite would be Alegal Eagle or something like that. As in an Eagle that is not concerned with issues of law. Probably most eagles are alegal. Most, unfortunately, can't even read.
@@yarnosh This is such a lawyer thing to say. Well done.
@@yarnosh fool! That's what the eagles want you to think. Soon the eagles will rise up, you will see.
@@ryanfuller4401 I mean, they're birds. Rising up is kind of what they do. And I have seen it!
"you honor! we would like to accuse Amazon of actually making us face the consequences of our own actions! & that makes us sad" -Parlor, probably
The party of 'law and order' and 'personal responsibility' L - M - A - O !
@@edwardgiovannelli5191 ha ha - Exactly!
This comment is over a year old but I want to tell you that you have good taste fellow KFP employee.
"Of course I saved the Breach of Contract allegation for the middle of the video *because as we all know, contract law is the sexiest of all laws.* "
Yup. Court reporter here. I always have to go for smoke after a couple hours of contract law testimony. Way too exciting 😛
Remember to social distance though so you don't contract anything from others like Covid19.
The monotone enthusiasm is contagious, I'm gonna take a nap now.
@@jenniferstine8567 Thanks for the reminder! Courts aren't open in my state just yet, and I'm cool with that. We're getting close. Washington State's on one of those phased algorithms for reopening. Most everything's on line still. I don't find that burdensome. Lots of pluses working from home. No traffic omg
Thank you for the work u do, you do a great service to record keeping and researchers of the future!
Oooo... Surprised there isn't an OnlyFans site for contract law testimony. That's money being left on the table!
Parler sues Amazon - in related news, tiny naked man with plastic spork attacks sleeping grizzly bear.
Lol
dey relentlessly poke, begging for their just reward! is is easy to see that they have no clue. they believe their trash-talk, and they dont believe in repercussions, jus reparations and cancel culture.
😂🤣😂🤣😂
lmfao, I want to see that story.
This made my day 🤣
Thepiratebay laughs at Parler's silliness. ThePiratebay will always exist.
Do what you want, ‘cause a pirate lives free...
What if your comment ages like yoghurt?
It just goes down all the time lol
@@SirBlackReeds just scrape off the top of the yogurt and eat it.
Arrrrr. Avast ye matey. Gonna nab me some bootyhole! Long live the bay
Related to free speech and the 1st Amendment, any chance you'll talk about the bill working it's way through Kentucky legislation that would make it illegal to insult/taunt cops? Because that seems like a Textbook case of a 1st Amendment violation.
Do you have helpful sources for this? I haven't heard of this, that sounds horrible.
They can make that law but anyone would have a defence using the 1st Amendment so it would be a pointless law that wastes the courts time.
Yeah, that bill will crumble the instant it's challenged in court. It is, as you pointed out, exactly the type of legislation that the First Amendment protects citizens from.
Even though it would crumble instantly in court, I think it could be used to make a lot of unjustified arrests or used as an excuse to search people.
Just saw a video about this one on Lehto's Law
Rules of Acquisition 17: A contract is a contract is a contract
Rules of Acquisition 18: Rule 17 only applies until which time that it does not apply.
@@Robert_McGarry_Poems Perfect Ferengi logic.
I would love a Legal Eagle special on the Rules of Acquisition
@@frigginresulrum Ditto
@@frigginresulrum How about that episode where Quark's exwife seeks him out for help?
Amazon: Don't try it parler, I have the contract bound.
Parler: You underestimate my stupid.
Amazon: *cuts service*
Parler: *surprised Pikachu face*
"Commence Order 1/6."-Darth Hideous. Let Parlar have their platform...so FBI agents can create accounts...lots and lots of accounts. The days of Feds being on Stormfront, Daily Stormer and the National Socialist Movement's "New Saxon" platforms are done. "Step into my Parler", said the Spider to the Fed..."because I have no concept how ANYTHING I say can and will be used against me in a court of law". Normal Conservatives of course have every right to a platform, but not Nazis.The problem is, Nazis glom onto conservative causes and infiltrate con. organizations.
I love how "survived the dismissed" is a thing. Congrats you get a blue ribbon for making it your first lap. Now 10 more to go.
OH NOOOOOO!!! Most people agree that my vids are the worst on UA-cam. I agree to disagree. Please agree to disagree with the haters, dear blp
@@AxxLAfriku I agree with the haters, your channel is awful
@@AxxLAfriku I agree, looks like horrendous low effort clickbait garbage
More like "congrats, the referees said you are not technically unable to participate in the race. Now off to the starting blocks you go."
@@AxxLAfriku oh no!
Anyway
I learned a new word today: “monopsony.”
Thanks, Legal Eagle!
I thought this situation is more of a oligopoly because Google and Microsoft are still major contenders for cloud services.
@@ccricers There are providers all over the world. Those are just the biggest American cloud services.
Please define?
@@ThePhantomSafetyPin
A monopsony is “a market situation in which there is only one buyer.”
I think there's also the word oligopsony which describes this situation better.
"It may get expensive" is the last thing you wanna hear going up against the daddy of all fat wallets, Amazon.
I don't know... these trump-nuts seem to shell out big bucks when one of their golden idols are at stake. Supposedly trump himself is raising like 2.5 mil a day with his 'stolen election' nonsense. Who's to say they won't start sending their beer money to Parler too?
BTW, as a member of the GOP, I get multiple emails daily from the trump campaign asking for money, and they are flat out SHAMELESS.
Jeff Bezos. Amazon itself not so much. Despite it being a gargantuan company it's not even the top 10 companies in terms of revenue.
@@oxtheunlikelycontemplator2682 Amazon is the third largest company by revenue.
"Lack moderation policies" is the nice way of saying there was a f@&kton of death threats.
"Lax"
And you think twitter doesn’t?
And you think Facebook doesn’t?
Every social media site does, just because it’s conservative doesn’t mean it’s any better or worse than any other
@@ferritparade5808 But are Facebook and Twitter actively trying to fix the problems?
Your whataboutism is crap, because the issue wasn't the fact they had death threats and other unsavory content. It's that they either didn't care or didn't want to try and fix the problem.
I don't use Facebook or Twitter so I got no horse in this race. However, it seems to me Parler would still be on Amazon's servers if they actually tried fixing the issues.
There are death threats on twitter too. If you have the right politics then you wont get banned.
@@christinebenson518 This isnt true. Twitter still hasnt banned people who called for the deaths of the covington Catholic kid. And people who were organizing riots over the summer. There are still many violent threats made at people and even a hastag recently that called for the death of Trump. The idea they try to moderate this stuff is laughable.
Parlers argument is basically "I didn't read the contract and that's not fair"
Hatred of Free Speech is now a defining characteristic of Leftism.
@@johnwolf2829 even if that wasn't a Lie(it is) Itd be better than the right
@@johnwolf2829 Cry on
@@johnwolf2829 free speech doesn’t protect you from private company’s. But I doubt you actually read laws.
@@johnwolf2829 So that shop should of made that cake then
Parler was just upset that they used the word "migration."
I know it's a cheap shot, but who doesn't love a good cheap shot now and again?
Eh, I've seen better cheap shots.
Wait, they're claiming defamation because Amazon said they're unable or unwilling to remove content? But, they didn't remove the content, they admitted to 27,000+ backlogged items. It seems to me Amazon was being charitable by including the "unable" part, what other options even are there for why the posts would never have been moderated? The only theoretical other option for why the posts were left up I can think of would be "we were forced to", which definitely doesn't seem to be what they're claiming at all.
Personally, I'm curious what a typical backlog on Twitter is like. I've submitted reports about people saying horrible things on twitter (e.g. calling for someone to be killed) and not received a response for over a month, while the person and the tweet both remained on Twitter. I suspect 27,000 is a rather small number when it comes to moderation backlogs.
@@Felice_Enellen Twitter probably can show a "good faith effort" to enforce their TOS and any backlog is a result of their *insane* number of posts; at least on paper.
Also Twitter does things like Twitter Probation (12-36 hours where only your followers can see your posts) and Twitter Jail (1-7 day unappealable suspensions)
Twitter has a bunch of keywords that trigger an auto-response and so if their algorithms catch a billion posts a month and their moderation team handles another 100 million posts a month, a 30 day backlog of 1 million reports wouldn't seem that bad lol
@@mitchellhorton9382 Yeah I'm sure the scales would be significantly different, but it may be that 20-30K is entirely to be expected, given Parler's userbase and the number of things that need to be moderated. It may or may not be an indication of a failing system. I have no context to know. Giving the number without context seems a bit disingenuous to me if, for instance, the backlog on any given day on Twitter could be in the millions while Twitter is presumably considered to be doing an adequate job. Either number will seem large without context. It seems kind of sketchy not to explain what the number _ought_ to be, perhaps when compared to an operation where it's appropriate. What number is considered successful? 10,000 1000? 100? Would those numbers seem large if they had been the ones we saw first? It's all about context.
@@Felice_Enellen I don't think Parler had that many users at the time (that email was in nov 2020 and so the data would be from Sept-Oct 2020 at the latest)
The relevant numbers are ratio and clear times which we don't have the data for (but Amazon would have had it, it just wasn't in those emails)
@@Felice_Enellen One of the lines he highlighted in the contract said objectionable posts had to be removed *immediately.* That might be impossible to actually do (hence the backlog) but if they agreed to it, they’re still on the hook and likely in for a lengthy argument about how the contract defines “immediately” in this particular context (e.g. within 24 hours).
I was in a game with a teenager streaming to twitch and parlor who said this among other things: "I'm supposed to report them if they're planning something violent or riot or some shit but you know slide me a few dollars through the donate and look the other way." About how illegal does that sound?
Yikes, if they’re caught saying that by Twitch they could very likely lose their account (rightfully IMO) for violating Twitch’s ToS. Edgelords really like losing money huh
I think the threats would have to be VERY specific and demonstrate a willingness to follow through with said threats. Free speech would provide a wide latitude, but twitch could shut down the streamer regardless.
It's fine as long as you're the president. Imagine if all Americans had a bicameral jury system where half of at least one of the two juries to pass had your supporters. Voir dire? Yeah, nah. Crazy americans.
🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿🇳🇿😉
If they were caught actually taking bribes to not follow the rules, they'd definitely be banned. Twitch tries to be strict.
@@frostyskeletons8950 i am the only real edgelord and never had any money to begin with
LOL at Parler alleging defamation. As a friend of mine says: "Pot. Kettle. Black."
Why does your friend speak in broken in English?
Did you voted for AOC, because clearly your logic states it
I’ll never understand why people complain about being punished for breaking the TOS of companies they use. It’s called the ‘terms of service’ for a reason - if they break it, then surely they would understand that they don’t get service from the company.
Rules for thee but not for me.
The issue with platforms like Twitter and UA-cam is the vagueness in their ToS, allowing them to ban you for basically any reason they desire. An example would be to ban someone for "hatespeech" which doesn't actually tell anyone what they did wrong, which doesn't help at all.
The person who was banned will merely go onto a different platform and play the victim and make the platform they were banned from look worse than before.
It's called the free market and capitalism, you know, the ones the republican party are all for. If their ToS and actions drive people away then they'll amend their ToS and moderate their actions to get back customers.
I don't see Facebook and Twitter being too concerned about blocking QAnon and any hate speech. As providers they can do whatever they like and the free market will determine if they are successful in the long run.
ToS is full of terms and conditions that are directly tied to legislation. One of those international laws requires technology companies to remove terrorist/criminal/illegal content as quickly as technically possible. Parler refused to comply with that law (as a social media platform), so Amazon had no choice.
Unless declared unconscionable by the courts.
There needed to be a far longer pause after "I'm bringing sexy.... contract" just so we could all take the time to appreciate just how bad that joke was.
"It may get expensive..."
_Laughs in Jeff Bezos' bank account._
The audio was playing as I drive, but I heard a smirk in his voice as he said that.
@@Vohlfied I was going to meme, but "video you can hear" doesn't quite work XD
*accounts, plural :)
@@Vohlfied 25:06
@@InvisiblerApple facial expressions you can hear
I deeply thank Addison Cain for getting me to finally understand what "dismissed WITH PREJUDICE" actually means.
I’ve read her books. Why?
@@angelfaye101 because she’s a hack
I always hear it Jenny’s voice now :)
@@angelfaye101 Her habit of suing people who says things she doesn't like or even look at her wrong, and her encounter with Lindsay Ellis.
"leaves out key facts" which seems to be a common factor of conservative arguments.
Technically it's a common factor in _any_ politically-partisan argument. Anyone making a factual argument in support of an ideology will cherry-pick facts. That's what makes ideology so fundamentally poisonous to the intellect.
Well, it's basically how our legal system works across the board: one party presents the facts they like, the other party presents the facts _they_ like, and we hope that between the two of them they present every fact that matters. If there's a key fact that isn't in their favor, they're entirely within their rights to leave it to the _other_ party to bring that fact to the court's attention.
(This is completely different from academic arguments, where every person involved is expected to be an impartial judge who does their own research.)
@@Tzizenorec I dont like the way facts is used in that context. Facrs are provable, and exist outside of anyone's opinion. People can lie and pretend rhe facts are on their side, but you cant have different facts.
@@georgedent7601 Sure you can have different facts. There are plenty of facts in the world, more than enough to pick and choose. (You can't have contradicting facts, of course, but it's amazing how close facts can come to contradicting each other without actually doing it.)
Facts are not on anyone's side. They can be _used_ to support one side or the other, but the facts themselves do not particularly care, and will often turn out to be rather confusing if you are honest about trying to let them speak for themselves.
@@deusexaethera Too bad when it comes to conservatives, the key facts are always the elephant in the room.
That defamation argument seems really weak considering AWS has repeatedly told them to quit dragging their heels and hire people to moderate the website if the tribunal idea was not working. It'll be interesting to see if anything sticks in this lawsuit, if only because I think nothing will.
And that really is the biggest burden Parler faces, their lack of willingness to abide by the ToS they signed.
@Philip L Tite yeah defamation is an uphill battle for the claimant, they have to prove harm was done and that the statement was something the defendant knew was not factual, and the defendant does have a good faith defence in that they didn't knowingly say something inaccurate. Slightly abridged but that's generally how it works in English speaking nations. Devin's covered it a few times recently with more particulars relevant to US law.
Parler as I see it doesn't have a leg to stand on for breach of contract or defamation.
Legal eagle: "I'm bring sexy contract"
My husband: "I didn't consent to that joke"
Your compliance is not a factor.
Check out Texas. Instead of trying to help those that suffered during the freeze, the governor thought his time was better spent dealing with social media "silencing" conservative viewpoints.
@@mangonel *dignity
@@mangonel “remember when”? Well you’ve got exactly 0 years between the GOP being the party of Trump, the Tea Party, Bush, Gingrich, and back to good old Strom Thurmond. Do Lee Atwater’s ideas that won the elections for Nixon and Bush Sr really reflect dignified Republican values?
@@mangonel no problem, have a good weekend 🙂
As someone living in Texas. Abbot is awful. He keeps putting in legislation and taking actions that benefit him and his party regardless of facts or if it's a reasonable course of action. For God's sake, he's about to stop the mask mandate here! I can't wait to boot him from office.
Yeah, they complain about being silenced on national TV, in front of millions of viewers lol
I actually hadn't heard of Parler before this whole thing.
Your avatar suggests you're lying.
@@robc4191 I object to that.
Same for me.
"... unless it's against public policy"
This seems like something you should talk about more. What is public policy and what does it mean for a contract to be against it?
Seconding the motion. This is a great, fruitful area of discussion. Public policy, especially respect to Con law, is a fascinating topic with an extensive history.
Wonderful idea! Hope Legal Eagle sees.
Isn't Parler back up on a different platform now? That really undermines the irreparable harm argument.
They were harmed by the time they were offline.
But that was a small amount of time domestic terrorists couldn't plot to attack the government, so, I think it's OK.
So my broken leg healed, I can not sue for damages.
@@zargondm that’s the point op is making- your leg healed. you can sue for damages, sure, but your leg didn’t have to get amputated. if you showed up to the court claiming “irreparable damages” with two working legs, that undermines your claim.
@@zargondm There's a difference between damages & irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is damages that can't be dealt with in a judgment. The fact they were able to get back up in a few days shows the harm wasn't irreparable, so the remedy here if they had a case would be a judgment or settlement, not an injunction.
"It's time to think like a corporate lawyer, the rest of this video will be available after you input your credit card number"
Parler couldn’t Par-lay their success, it seems...
^O^ I see what you did there...
So you stole a joke that was already in this video? Good job.
You're Kirgizstani?
Boooooo!
Damned to the depths the Ruddy bastard who thought the term parley!!!!
"Court thingies" - Now you're speaking my language.
"It’s like I’m wearing nothing at all!"
Stupid sexy Flanders
ua-cam.com/video/WaeRM7X_yS4/v-deo.html
Stupid sexy contract law
That "Sexy Contract" pun was the worst thing i've ever heard and i love it
I vocally exclaimed "JESUS" to no one.
Wham! I mean it literally and figurative
@Cyber Ghost It is a reference to the song SexyBack by Justin Timberlake, where he claims that he is bringing "sexy" back. It made little sense in the original song, but Legal Eagle deliberately made it even more ridiculous. It is barely a pun.
The melody to the sexy contract was a wham! Somg.
@@AT-rr2xw Do you remember when Al Gore said "Justin Timberlake is bringing sexy back. Well here I am."? It's honestly as good as his macarana.
“if you’re watching this channel you’re an adult and you deserve nice boxer briefs”
Me, a 15 year old girl: riiiiightt….
Speaking of Amazon, workers attempting to join unions are asking people to boycott Amazon and Amazon Prime Video from 3/7 - 3/14 in a show of support for workers and their right to unionize!
Abby, thank you for posting, I'm in!
You've got my support!
If Amazon got ANY heat from the actions of Parler, they wouldn't be very pleased about that.
They won't have any heat from parler at all. Parler breached their terms of conditions by failing to moderate the content on their platform effectively. A backlog of 26000 cases explained by a shrug of their shoulders should put their case in the trash can.
Exactly. I got an ad on UA-cam yesterday about signing a petition in protest of Amazon “silencing and censorship” conservative voices on Parler, and the whole time I was thinking, _Amazon isn’t suddenly anti-conservative, you dopes, they just don’t want to risk being accused of supporting domestic terrorism, or being targeted for lawsuits because they’ve got deep pockets._
@James Rooks I don’t see where religion enters into it, but if the alternative is appearing to support something _illegal,_ then yes.
@James Rooks Well, I'm sure Amazon offends conservative Muslims, do you have a problem with that as well?
@James Rooks Your argument is about as hollow as Trump's 2020 election win.
Jack Sparrow: Parleley, parlelellyleloooo, par le nee, partner, par... snip, parsley...
Ragetti: PARLER?
Jack Sparrow: That's the one. Parler. Parler.
Pintel: Parler? Damn to the depths whatever man what thought of "Parler".
Jack Sparrow: That would be the Proud Boys.
I tip my hat to you, good sir, for an amazing parodied adaptation of this information.
@@Xzanah thank you sir
Yes! Thank you Fred Skull! You’ve made my weekend!
I gotta say. only a perpetually-drunk pirate would consider calling an app "parler", a word which people who only speak english are guaranteed to pronounce wrong.
@@ianism3
Did not Amazon give them notice when they first notified Parlor about the content that Amazon found questionable?
I remember downloading parler out of curiosity. I wanted to gouge my eyes out.
Same. I never knew my faith in humanity could possibly drop any lower.
Tell me more?😶😂
@@aprilmason1616 It's basically a Twitter clone that allows the N-word.
@@aprilmason1616 Imagine a huge circle-jerk of boomers that believe the democrats are causing the fall of western civilization
@@juliabrooks8396 my words exactly
The issue with the Parler situation is the fact I can literally name off multiple groups on Facebook that are similar to those that got Parler removed.
Facebook doesn't use AWS, so that's on them to moderate. Parler was using Amazon's servers under an agreement that they were expected to uphold, which they didn't. Amazon wanted them to remove certain content and they didn't, it's an entirely business question. Whether it's fair is immaterial because it's a contract Parler agreed to, so they accepted Amazon's terms but wouldn't uphold their agreement. Now, the argument of Parler fans that Parler is the only place for wild right-wing rhetoric (AKA Free Speech) is, on the other hand, rather undercut by that information...
AWS doesn't respect free speech, Parler should have known that. That was their big mistake
Whataboutism aside, so? You answered the core of the case, AWS has no obligation to host them and there are other services available for them to use that will let them have their stupid little hate party in.
“Feels like wearing nothing at all”
Stupid sexy eagle
That'd be why there's so many people in the comments of all his vids thirsting over "Law Daddy".
I read that as “Stupid Sexy Seagull” 😆
@@Ajehy that’s when dj goes on his vacation shoots and shows off the shorts and T-shirt look
@@ThePhantomSafetyPin Okay. Don’t judge us for having rly good taste in certain Legal Content Creators😂
LegalEagle that fifty shades clip was so well placed. I can’t 😂
"Feels like absolutely nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all...
Stupid, sexy LegalEagle!
Hahaha, that was good reference sir
Hi, could you please add some closed captions. Thank you.
🙏 Yes, please do! On behalf of the hearing impaired viewers and SUBSCRIBERS (like me!) please add subtitles. Then I'll HEAR you in court! 😉
I'd absolutely be for that. Would also help for those curious about the concepts addressed that might be more difficult to discern a keyword for at a glance.
The “CC” button turns on subtitles. Just did this on iOS.
@@alexdasliebe5391 Those are auto-generated, which notoriously does speech-to-text worse than a phone from 2014 does. Granted, Devin does articulate really well for it.
Commenting and upvoting here so Devin sees this! Also good for people whose first language isn't English
Why would anybody need a right wing alternative to Facebook? Facebook is the right wing alternative to Facebook heheheheh whenever I go on FB all I see is old people ranting about bs and 90% of the time they’re conservative
I think it’s more of a right wing conspiracy theorist alternative to Facebook
it’s a counterpart to twitter
I guess because Facebook, if pushed, would punish somebody for saying things like "the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat". Facebook has even started fact-checking people now and we can't have that.
When I was using it there were a fair amount of kids, teens and college students. My college put up flyers saying that people playing Facebook games during peak usage will be kicked out. Last time I checked it out really was while I was in college, so 10 years at least.
I see both sides, but yeah. Facebook is a cesspit of political arguing from my experience.
How is there even still anything to this case given they’re sort of back now and Amazon has the typical we can do just about anything ToS?
The argument is that "We can do just about anything ToS" are unlawful. As they should be, Amazon have a dominant market position and that should to be taken into account. They can't use that position to kill competition.
@@MrBlack1968 Parler freely agreed to that ToS though, and Amazon holds a big but hardly monopolistic market position. The internet is by its very nature immensely distributed and the fact that even sites like The Daily Stormer and indeed now Parler still find someone to host them cuts strongly against the argument that Amazon has a position in the market that would merit regulating them more strongly.
@@MrBlack1968 except they didn't use their platform to "kill competition", they used it to police violent, extremist rhetoric, which is entirely within their rights.
@@MrBlack1968 You’re making it sound like Amazon was in competition with Parler. They were the ones actively profiting from it, by all accounts they owned Parler, so if “the free market” weighs in on this, they’re allowed to do with Parler what they see as necessary.
@@MrBlack1968 if you don't like it, go make your own company. Amazon web services access isn't a constitutional right.
Lets make laws so that it will be impossible for anyone to ever be convicted of it. Thats for the rich. For YOU, the laws are so vague that you can be charged for anything.
Me: Finds this channel because of dumb laws in TV shows.
Me now: Is always ready to learn about literally anything DJ talks about.
Section 230 is full of amendments that are part of international agreements/pacts.
One of those amendments requires domestic/international terrorism content be removed as quickly as technically possible. Its a pact a lot of nations and tech companies agreed to unilaterally after the NZ massacre. This law is reflected in S230 and most Code of Conducts and Terms of Services.
Amazon was complying with an international agreement that Parler refused to acknowledge, by their own admission of the backlog. If Parler was refusing to take down terrorist content, Amazon took down the terrorist content the only way it technically (and quickly) could.
Feels like I'm wearin' nothing at all, nothing all, nothing at all!
Gah! Stupid sexy Devin
He said he liked to wear their products when he wasn't in Court or on a Zoom call, but that includes boxers you know ?
So perhaps in front of you right now is not a Legal but a Commando Eagle...
@@matthiasjoseph4863 better that than as a cat or in the middle of surgery
I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid that you'll be hearing from my injury attorney because that joke physically hurt me
Which one? Sexy contract?
The quality of your videos are getting so much better over time. The camera you are now using, good lighting setup, excellent framing and slick background make this very visually appealing to watch. Additionally, your b-roll and stock footage fits in real nicely....also, the content is great.
Parler: for those who want to hide their shit in a cesspool.
can say the same about twitter? there used to be huge threads of people calling for killing people on twitter, that would stay up for months on end before eventually getting taken down, on that front twitter was doing worse then parler at curbing the hate on their platform. but you know, the incident happened and twitter said "oh shit we have all this hate, better clean that up really fast lol"
Implying Twitter isn't already a cesspool.
@@HiddenOcelot You cant use logic with a moron. They just dont get it. Pinkbink swallowed a pill. Until that fool coughs it up, they wont hear anything other than what they are programmed to hear.
@@pH7screwtube I mean you're right, but even still if it falls on undeaf ears, then I don't care if it changes thier mind, just that it might change a single mind
"Time to think like a corporate lawyer"
I really do not want to do that
In the words of a certain Geo Daddy:
Ones who break their contract, shall suffer the Wrath of Rock.
When agreeing to an EUA, I say to myself, "Yes, I'm selling my soul but it's cheap anyway".
Parler on the other hand had already sold its soul (although it's really soulless) to the devil.
Your ad for Mack Weldon was excellently transitioned to, as are all your sponsor's ads. It reminds me of the old cliché "Only a lawyer would consider a 500 page document a brief".
Conservatives when the law says you can't force a bakery to make a cake:
Let companies decide with whom they want to conduct business!
Conservatives when social media outlets moderate their posts:
The government should force companies to conduct business with everyone!
For thee not for me!
It does that already. You can't refuse service because of someone's religion, race, etc, but you can if they don't have on shoes or a shirt or swear incessantly once inside. You'd think lack of money by those businesses refusing service to 20% of the population and another 78% that support minorities and would boycott would put the racists out of business in free market, but the govt did step in, based on needing a govt issued business license.
@@리주민 I think you missed my point by a few miles there, bud. Conservatives rhetorically cheer on small government while advocating to expand its duties. When the conversation was over a cake, they won, because the government shouldn't have the ability to control the free market. Now that the free market is expressing a disinterest in serving conservatives (specifically in regard to social media not wanting to host the constant violations of policy), they want the government to now step in and force companies to let them play.
It is incredible how many americans cite the 1st amendment when they get censored on youtube, Twitter or any other platform, when clearly they dont have any idea what the first amendment says or where it applies. When you confront them about it they reject it, cognitive dissonance at its finest.
True, but I do think people dismiss this point too quickly. Yes in a legal sense social media platforms can do what they want, but I do think it is worth considering the large platform these companies give people and in turn can have a large influence over one's ability to speak and asking, is that a good thing? Is that a good system in concept, or do people just like it because they agree with how these companies censor people?
@@Noschool100 people are stupid and give power to companies who clearly state what they can and cant do, they dont read anything and then bitch about it, thats the problem, but how can they live without these social media apps? Now is it a good system for these companies to censor people? Morally speaking course not, but they have the freedom to do that and that is fine, its their platform and can do whatever they want with it, its dumbass people who give them that power. Is it a good system as a business? 100% yes.
@@XxDrJewxX "its their platform and can do whatever they want with it"
Yes as it is now, but like previous things private entities were allowed to do, eg segregation, discrimination, nonexistent safety standards, owning people as property, there is an argument to change that.
nobody needs Facebook just as blacks didn't literally needed to eat in a legally white restaurant in the 50s but that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to complain about policy people see as unfair.
@@Noschool100 my point was that of course you can complain, what would be best ia to stop using them, but people are stupid and they are going to keep using them. Show them with your wallet is the best way to go but people pretend they care and forget about it 10 minutes later. If you really want change, stop using it. This isnt a restaurant in the 60s.
@@XxDrJewxX how is is different than a restaurant tho? The response back then wasn't "private businesses can what they want and people should protest with their wallet" it was "segregated restaurants are bad and made illegal"
I'm a Canadian Web Developer and Programmer, and honestly putting all the politics and right-wing terrorism aside for the moment; I'm honestly shocked a programmer would choose AWS for such as site.
Amazon's Web Hosting division is a huge company, much bigger than their retail business with 10s of thousands of websites hosted world wide, so their terms of service are very specific and among the strictest on the internet.
Since, if they had to adjudicate or investigate every little questionable piece of content on that many websites, they would need an army of moderators in the 100,000 range and given the kind of content those moderators come across on a regular basis, they typically demand to be well paid (gotta pay the therapists for their eye bleach); being less strict would be unbelievably expensive and could make their service offerings unprofitable.
If it were me doing the coding (not gonna happen I'm NOT a Nazi!) I would have advised them to host the Website & the rest of the platform on their own servers. First-time setup can be very expensive, and for a platform that large you would generally need to hire at least one fulltime Web Master to manage the servers, but in general it's cheaper in the long run and you have direct control over your own content moderation (although, that's not always a good thing as it can make it easier for malicious users to abuse your platform's services, See the capital riot for a textbook example)
Evidently these people have never heard of 4chan and they think AWS is the only game in town.
I was wondering that. My company has its own servers, and we aren’t even that big.
@@juliewoodcock4655 The answer is simply that it is relatively cheap, fast setup, and you essentially pay as you go. There's a fair amount of staff and build out that does not need to happen if you decide to host with AWS or any of the other cloud providers.
You use AWS because you can scale up and down at will.
Until now I thought a tort was a dessert. I also learned there are things called "toxic torts" which I would previously have interpreted as poisoned desserts XD
Tortes are desserts. Torts are court thingies.
@@grmpEqweer tort is a form of law, torte is what Mary Berry makes
@@rachaelevans8351 😂
@@grmpEqweer Funny I always thought the dessert was a tart which also be the lady down the street. 😏😉
@@valerieperry9030
Tarts are also dessert items.
I hugely appreciate the in-depth explanation of Section 230 of the CDA, and feel this needs to be talked about a lot more. I was absolutely infuriated a few weeks ago when 60 Minutes ran a very skewed piece about UA-cam content creators, spinning controversial channels as some justification in favor of overturning Section 230. We live in very bizarre times when people who call themselves "journalists" are admonishing the free exchange of ideas, especially a program with the pedigree of 60 Minutes.
It's so obvious that dying media formats are so desperate to compete, they will actively drag down prevailing modern media platforms down like crabs in a bucket. They don't care if it decimates the very functionality of social media at large. They are using aggressive lobbying tactics and making previously reputable news personalities read deceitful scripts in this last-ditch effort to prolong the inevitable. We need more awareness of the Section 230 overturning campaign, recognition that its efforts are not falling on party lines, and Republicans AND Democrats are speaking favorably of doing it.
We the people are on our own here. Section 230 must be preserved, and we must call out the lies and fallacious cherry-picking the soon-obsolete media formats are using against it, especially when it comes from a commonly revered news outlet like 60 Minutes. No news program, regardless of reputation, is immune to the meddling of their corporate overlords. Reputation is just another form of currency, a card that can be pulled, played, and dismissed at any time.
Well said! If UA-camrs can get unionized, they would have an easier time of pushing back.
Fun fact, in some other countries, exists a term for these sort of contracts - unified contracts. Like the one an end user will sign with AT&T for instance.
In legal terms, It means the court acknowledges the fact a single person can't fight each company's contract and it gives the customer the advantage when deciphering certain parts of the contracts.
For instance in Israel there's a precedence for cancelling an exit fine from a cell line, because the amount in the contract was ridiculous for a single person to pay and unwanted by the damages from the breach of contract.
Came for the litigation, stayed for the Legal Briefs
Thank you for reiterating that the 1st amendment has nothing to do with companies providing platforms for communication for profit.
"WITH PREJUDICE" - said in the tone of Jenny Nicholson as Addison Cain
I know you have to have all these "probablies" and "maybes", but effectively it really seems very, very unlikely that this lawsuit is going anywhere.
Sure: If they can prove that AWS have let their guard down specifically with regards to Parlers security, thus allowing them to be hacked - ok fine. But they have some responsibility to keep their own data safe too, and they really did not. The leak was done via SQL injection which would indicate that the "security lapse culprit" is Parlers own code.
Wait, the video is unlisted? That'd explain why I'm the first commenter for the first time ever :p Is that intentional? I found it in the "Real Life, Real Law Reviews" playlist.
Wow, you were definitely first... Lol
I mean, yeah, it’s a cloud service where they run their own code. How on earth would how they build their own app any of Amazon‘s responsibility? And didn’t they just sue Amazon in January because they said Amazon shouldn’t have influence over how they use their platform? Can’t have it both ways.
Competitiion is a word the big tech hates and it will always look for reasons to damage or restrict them. Even if they boot them for reasons that both Twitter and Facebook are all guilty off.
I guarantee every Canadian pronounces this "par-lay."
That's how it was originally pronounced, but its user base couldn't figure out the silent R.
Je ne parle pas francais, I think that reads correctly and hopefully will explain why, as a canadian, I'll just go with the defacto americanese pronunciation.
Man... that you got through that initial opening about how Parler removal was a not a problem with a straight face I'll never know.
One of these days I would like to see Devin try his best to act as a devil’s advocate for stupid cases like this.
No thank you. They already cannot form valid arguments because of how deranged they are, I don't want them having the ammunition of a good argument.
Just look at the arguments provided by Parlers lawyers.
Devin would probably say the same things.
Unless Parlers lawyers are idiots. But I don't think so. They did the best they could do :)
Just a question: the agreement with Amazon seems quite onesided. Is there anything to prevent a monopolistic company to write such one sided agreements?
From the video, it seems that type of contract is both common and legal. Both parties need to agree to a contract and a company is free to dismiss any tailor-made contract for any ground they want, as are you to ignore any and every contract offering they might have. You could send them another contract but they're free to just put it in the bin. The only problem they'd have is when they start exploiting their monopoly, in which case I doubt it will open up more contract negotiations. Rather, it would force the monopolist to change its offering, i.e. that one-sided contract, or force some way to get competition back into the market.
That's what I gathered. I'd still be interesting to see what Devin has to say about it
As someone who knows nothing about contracts, but a thing or two about web services, Amazon isn't a monopoly in this context. There are a lot of other places you can go for web hosting, you could even run your own servers if you wanted to without much trouble. So while the contract does look somewhat one-sided, it's far from the only option so it's probably "fine".
AWS is not a monopoly. It’s just so huge that all the other web-hosts and cloud services can live in its shadow in their own ecosystem. Almost every cloud provider has the same boilerplate TOS and EULA, this is because the ability to abuse and assault other hosts on the internet is nearly unlimited. You are giving what amounts to a stranger full access to your hardware and computer resources. That stuff is expensive. You don’t want that stuff damaged.
@12:49; And Parler didn't have the foresight to read the entire contract before agreeing to the Terms Of Services agreement.
Given that they're also a business, they're not likely to get away with "But it was a large contract - nobody expects to read the whole thing!"
25:51 "Feels like absolutely nothing at all"
...nothing at all! .... nothing at all!!!! ...NOTHING AT ALL!!!!
A little glass vial ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I can just see a litigious person disappointed that the Legal Briefs briefs are missing the LegalEagle logo, citing emotional damage.
"I'm bringing sexy......... contract."
NO. No Devon. No.
Amazon: We’ll host you as long as you don’t break our terms of service
Parler: *Proceeds to break terms of service and loses hosting*
Parler: 😮😡🤬
As much as I do not like Amazon and how companies as big as Amazon can do almost whatever they want, it seems like Parler was trying to speak with emotion showing no evidence! Parler stop wasting time of those poor guys on the court who have to go throught stuff like that everyday! Sad!
Uhm, who did Parler ask legal advice from? Trump? Sounds like it...
I love how they picked a short paragraph to defend themselves with and then the section just below that in the contract completely invalidated their whole argument.
Parler clearly didn't read the contract they signed.
🤣 Obviously Dr knows more than a Captain! Nice
They had several lawyers who passed on this... And the initial suit was filed by someone who really didn't specialize in this type of lawsuit.
Obviously Giuliani.
0:47 lmao i have never seen more beautifully thrown shade 😂
Isn't there an argument that AWS is so large now, that its infrastructure rather than a company, as such it it shouldn't be able to be block anyone from accessing its services.
AWS would have to be nationalized for that to be the case.
"So what's your hobby?"
"Oh, you know.... filing borderline frivolous lawsuits with no legal standing, failing fantastically, and then still claiming I'm right."
"Neat."
When I heard parlor would try sue amazon I actually laughed, imagining being the main cause of a terrorist act and then trying to sue the black ops who stop you (black ops- amazon)
I've worked with AWS a fair bit: That point 68 that says Amazon left up Route 53 DNS records "direct[ing] hackers to Parler's backup datacenters" is almost definitely something Parler knew about. Amazon doesn't build the records for you, if there's records in Route 53 pointing to some server, you added them.
Furthermore, that's possibly the point of the backup datacenter: if AWS goes down for whatever reason (including terminating your hosting), you have more servers running outside AWS that can keep handling your service, so it doesn't completely go down. (I'm assuming that's what they mean by "backup datacenters" and not "datacenter that stores backups of our data")
There are legitimate uses of the Sherman Anti-Trust this however, is not one of them. **stares at Alphabet**
Don't forget Facebook. The Zuck knows everything about you
Stares at Unilever
Alphabet isn't anti-trust. It's one company, you can't be in a trust with yourself.
I'm not sure how you can see Amazon cloud fare as anything but a Monopoly there is no comfortable to Amazon cloud Fair and Google products Gmail Google maps Google search and Google calendar all have alternatives Yahoo mail MapQuest doctor go Yahoo calendar.
You don't need Facebook you don't need Facebook or Twitter there was once a time when you needed Facebook but after the Russian hack everybody pretty much left Facebook as a legitimate platform and the Twitter has never been a legitimate platform
Say that Amazon cloud fare isn't a monopoly but that Google is is an exercise of your ignorance I'm not even talking about parlor I'm just talking about Amazon cloud Fair
There are no legitimate uses of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. Monopolies require government protections.
"I'm bringing sexy contract"
I didn't know you had kids. Congrats.
This is setting a dangerous precedent. Powerful corporations policing a large portion of public discource with no constraints but their own judgement has the potential to be really toxic. Do not take it lightly because they happen to be on the roughly progressive side for now and are tentative about it. They are testing the waters.
The same principal that applies to governements also applies to huge corporations. Power over speech is too great and too tempting of a power for any strong centralised organization to have. We need to push back on this.
If a post violates the law (e.g. death threats), but doesn't violate your social media platform's terms of service, you're doing it wrong. You're an antisocial media platform at that point.
"Court thingies that it says Amazon did wrong." "Court thingies" is my new best layman's term for 'legal mumbo-jumbo'. lol
Is that like a wotsit or a Thingamajig? Or more like an Oojamaflip?
@@jon-paulfilkins7820 More like a whatchamacallit.
That's why he's the law talking guy.
I think it's hard for people to keep in mind, that even though the TOS says we can do this at any time with no notice, that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.
Conservatives: Let the free market decide
*Free market decides
Conversations: No not like that
This is a great comment, but your auto-correct changed the second Conservatives to Conversations 😅
how is it a free market when a handful of monoplies control every aspect of your life?
sure keep rooting for these cooprations, make enjoy your ever dwindling freedom
Liberals: we support free speech. Conservatives:says anything. Liberals: no not like that.
You may be the only person who can make law entertaining, funny, and interesting--all at the same time! Thanks for the great work.
When you were talking about companies conspiring in cartels I thought about an episode of king of the hill. And then you used clips from that exact episode lol.
...part of the AWS agreement containing that 30 day delay might as well have not been written in the first place, since they have nothing binding them to actually uphold that
Ha - Love that in the middle of this was an ad from the Epoch times about "big tech" censoring voices. Enjoy their ad revenue, DJ! Keep up the great content!
Classic RWDB projection: be guilty of all the bad faith and treasonous behavior you're accusing others of.
Given all of the other amateur tech decisions that Parlor made, it is entirely likely that they incorrectly configured their Route 53 setup.