Re: Re Parler

[Alain Hebert <ahebert () pubnix net>]

    Good to here since you're either part of:

        . Parler legal team;

        . Amazon legal team;

        . Pervue of all the communication between both corporation;

    ... or just a Parler user ... is my guess.

-----
Alain Hebert                                ahebert () pubnix net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.net    Fax: 514-990-9443

On 1/14/21 1:01 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman <mel () beckman org> wrote:
>
> > I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because
> > I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to
> > the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts
> > managed to get the pages out of order).
> > And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
> > termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
> > weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
> > data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do
> > that in a termination.
> > Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
> > companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a
> > single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
> > Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore
> > Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do
> > business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance
> > notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since
> > Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
> > However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for
> > anyone using them for operational networking.
> This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion 
> dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices.
>
> Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST 
> associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers 
> who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has 
> already been demonstrated as fact.