On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:32:29PM +0100, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: > * sro...@ronan-online.com (sro...@ronan-online.com) [Sun 10 Jan 2021, 14:46 > CET]: > >While Amazon is absolutely within their rights to suspend anyone > >they want for violation of their TOS, it does create an interesting > >problem. Amazon is now in the content moderation business, which > >could potentially open them up to liability if they fail to suspend > >any other customer who hosts objectionable content. > > Didn't that ship sail when they booted WikiLeaks off their platform? > > > -- Niels.
Yeah, pretty much. See, the real issue here is AUPs which initially were used to make sure users knew that their services could not be used to facilitate illegal things and then used to keep order on the platforms by restricting abusive behavior. However the definition of "abusive" has now been extended so greatly and with constantly changing rules that it's making the statement, effectively, "if we don't like what you say, or if we don't like you or your business, sucks to be you." Editorializing without labeling it as edititorializing. At some point, that breaks down. It has to. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
