I read it and Amazon said they found 98 posts across serval weeks that were related to violence and the included screen shots showed very little engagement with those posts. I read that Parler had 2.3 million DAU in December. Feels like weak sauce from Amazon, but I do get their objection to the CEOs moderation comment.
Parler said in its lawsuit they did address everything Amazon raised. My point was the small number against the large user base. BTW, that bomb post had 0,0,0 which I assume is retweeets, up votes, and down votes. Amazon looked over several weeks and that was the best they could find?
It's not that Amazon was able to find these comments, it's that they had looked for examples, given those examples to Parler, and even that low barrier for moderation wasn't reached after a normal amount of time. As in 'here's specific examples of what you agree clearly need moderation, and are calling for terrorist attacks on our (Amazon)'s infratstructure, you (Parler) still haven't taken down days later'.
> It’s our view that this nascent plan to use volunteers to promptly identify and remove dangerous content will not work in light of the rapidly growing number of violent posts. This is further demonstrated by the fact that you still have not taken down much of the content that we’ve sent you.
They sent the examples well before they sent the final letter, gave Parler plenty of time, and Parler refused to even moderate under those extremely generous circumstances.
Yup, in its lawsuit Parler said..."AWS knew its allegations contained in the letter it leaked to the press that Parler was not able to find and remove content that encouraged violence was false because over the last few days Parler had removed everything AWS had brought to its attention and more. Yet AWS sought to defame Parler nonetheless."
Ehh, why don't you go ahead and post proof. A single example will be sufficient for me: show me a single example of something Amazon asked Parler to remove that Parler didn't remove. It's okay, I'll wait...
