Did Parler Earn Its Fate?
Or, how many TOS violations does it take for a company to enforce its TOS?
The social media landscape has been changing dramatically in the wake of the Capitol riot. Donald Trump has either temporarily or permanently lost every social media account he had, Twitter has mass deleted over 70,000 accounts that promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory, but the most controversial decision has been the deplatforming of the social media app Parler.
On January 8th, it was announced that Apple had given Parler 24 hours to submit a content moderation policy or the company would remove the Parler app from the App Store. Google followed suit, removing the app from the Google Play store the same day citing their content moderation requirements. The final blow came from Amazon, who announced on January 9th that it would be suspending the hosting provided through the Amazon Web Services (AWS) service. Effective January 11th, Parler is digitally homeless and looking for a new hosting service.
Both Apple and Amazon’s notices of service termination to Parler reference a comment made by Parler’s CEO John Matze on the New York Time’s podcast Sway in response to the Capitol riot, saying that “I don’t feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform.”
In response to Amazon’s actions, Parler has filed suit and asked for a temporary restraining order to force the company into hosting Parler while the lawsuit makes it way through the courts. Parler is claiming Amazon’s decision constitutes a breach of contract, violates antitrust law, and interferes with Parler’s business relationships. Amazon filed a response laying out almost a hundred specific incidents in which Parler violated the AWS terms of service regarding content moderation; AWS requires that apps hosted through their service remove content promoting violence due to such content being banned from AWS servers. In addition, Amazon claims that it has been trying to work with Parler to resolve the content moderation issues since November and was in contact with Parler as late as January 9th to find a workable solution.
With the deplatforming of Parler the discussion about the power tech companies have to determine the fate of companies like Parler. I’m not unsympathetic to those who have concerns; the debate about how content moderation and deplatforming are handled is one I’d love to see happen. In Amazon’s case, it seems the company bent over backward to keep Parler as a customer but the platform was not willing to comply with the TOS it agreed to. Again I understand the concerns that Apple, Google, and Amazon wielded an enormous amount of power but there is a valid question as to when wielding that power is appropriate.
The Parler case is another case where the decision seems easy -- the platform was a cesspool that allowed all matter of vile content and all three companies had solid legal reasons to deplatform the company. In Amazon’s case, it seems that the company tried to work in good faith to resolve its issues with Parler for months before suspending service. Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that Apple has suspended Parler from the App Store, not banned it, and that Apple is open to allowing the app back into the store if Parler can comply with the App Store TOS. If Parler chooses to run its platform in a certain way that is their choice, but companies are not obliged to allow them to violate the TOS it agreed to.
In my post on Donald Trump’s Twitter ban I expressed support for the decision but not the rationale behind it -- Twitter based their decision around what might happen if Trump was left on the platform. In contrast, the decision made by Apple, Google, and Amazon is based on what Parler already did. It has been established that Parler violated the TOS of the three companies and, based on the statement above from Matze and others he made on Parler directly, that the company had no intention of changing its content moderation policy. Put in that position, I don’t see what choice the three companies had other than suspending or removing Parler from their platforms.
There is a knee jerk reaction that is becoming entrenched -- that Big Tech is always in the wrong and acting in the most nefarious ways possible in order to screw over the poor powerless Little Guy. If we are to have a serious discussion about deplatforming and content moderation we can’t start from a place where one side is immediately demonized and the other is immediately sainted. Sometimes, it’s Little Guy who is being a jerk and Big Tech who is in the right.
UPDATE - On January 21st U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled in Amazon’s favor, denying Parler’s request to force Amazon into hosting it. In her decision she cites Parler’s failure to show why Amazon should be forced to host the content posted to Parler, writing "At this stage, on the showing made thus far, neither the public interest nor the balance of equities favors granting an injunction in this case." Rothstein also dismisses Parler’s argument that Amazon has shown Twitter favorable treatment, noting that AWS does not host Twitter’s feed.
Why does Amazon's TOS have anything about content moderation in it? In the end AWS is a place to "host stuff". Provided you're not hosting illegal content, it really shouldn't matter what you're doing.
I think there's going to be some blowback with service providers for being too damn nosey about what you're doing with it.