of the it’s annoying dept
I delayed writing deeper thoughts on Parler’s overall weakening, in part because so much else happened (including some more timely reports on Parler’s lawsuit about it), but more importantly because for years I asked people to think more deeply about content moderation. at the infrastructure layer, rather than at the edge. Because those issues is much more complicated than the usual debates on content moderation.
And once again I am going to make the mistake of presenting a nuanced argument on the internet. I urge you to read through this entire post, resist resistance to the knee and consider the bigger issues. In fact, when I start To write this post, I thought it would argue that the actions against Parler, although legal, were actually a mistake and something you should be concerned about. But when I examined the arguments, I simply could not justify any of them. Upon investigation, they all fell apart. And so I think, I’ll return to my initial view that businesses are free to make decisions here. However, there should be concern when regulators and policymakers start talking about content moderation at the infrastructure layer.
The ‘too long, have not read’ version of this argument (and try to understand the nuance again) is that although Parler is currently down, it is not due to a single company having total control over the market. There is alternatives. And while it seems that Parler is having trouble finding such an alternative to work with, it is the nature of a free market. If you’re so toxic that companies do not want to do business with you, it’s up to you. Not them.
It is possible to feel somewhat conflicting about this. I initially felt uncomfortable with Amazon removing Parler from AWS hosting, effectively terminating the service, and Apple removing its app from the app store, effectively blocking it from iPhones. In both cases, there appeared to be very large guns that had not been accurately targeted. I was less worried about the similar removal of Google, because it did not block Parler from Android phones, since you do not have to go through Google to get on an Android phone. But (and this is important) I think all three movements are clear legal and reasonable steps that businesses must take. While researching each issue, I keep coming back to a simple point: the problems Parler is currently facing as a result of his own actions and the unwillingness of companies to associate with such a toxic enterprise. This is the free market.
If Parler’s situation was caused by government pressure or because there was no other options for the company, then I would be much more concerned. But that does not appear to be the case.
The internet infrastructure stack is presented in different ways and there is no definitive model. But an easy way to think about it is that there are ‘edge’ providers – the sites you deal with directly – and then there is everything among them: the Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) that help traffic, the hosting- enterprises / data centers / cloud providers that provide the actual content, the broadband / network / access providers, and the domain registers and registrars that help set up naming and routing. And there are also many other players, some (like ads and certain communication providers) with elements on the edge and elements deeper in the stack.
But an important thing to understand is the degree of detail with which different players can moderate, and the overall impact that their moderation can have. It’s one thing for Twitter to delete a tweet. It’s another thing for Comcast to say ‘you can not access the internet at all.’ The effects of moderation get much worse the deeper you go. In this case, AWS’s only real option was for Parler to remove the entire service, because it could not just target the problematic content (of which there were quite a few). As for the app stores, this is a tricky question. Are app stores infrastructure, or edge? Maybe they’s a bit of both, but they had the same limited options: uninstall the app or leave it with all the content intact.
We have been talking for years about the risks of saying that players deeper in the infrastructure pile should be responsible for moderating the content. I was concerned, in 2014, when there was talk of liability on domain registrars if domains they registered were used for sites that violated the law. Some attempts have been made to hold such players accountable as if they were the real offenders, and this of course creates all sorts of problems, especially at the first amendment level. As you move deeper into the stack, the moderation options look less like scalpels and more like bad hammers that remove entire sites from their existence.
Almost exactly a decade ago, in a situation similar to what happened now, I expressed concern about Amazon deciding to weaken Wikileaks in response to angry demands from then-Senator Joe Lieberman. I found it very problematic and probably unconstitutional – although Wikileaks, without US presence, had little status at the time to challenge it. My concern was less about Amazon’s decision, and more about Lieberman’s pressure.
But it is important to go back to the first principles to think through these issues. Clearly, companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google have every legal right to remove services they do not want to associate with, and there are many reasons why people and companies do not want to associate with Parler. But many people are worried about the removal, based on the idea that Parler can be ‘completely’ degenerated, and that one company that says ‘we do not want you here’ can give them no other options. This is not so much a question about content moderation as a competition question.
If it’s a competition question, I also can ‘t see why Amazon’s decision is really an issue. AWS has only 32% market share. There are many other options – including the Trump-friendly cloud services from Oracle, which promote how easy it is to switch from AWS to its own website. Oracle’s cloud already offers Zoom (and now TikTok’s US services). There’s no reason they can not also house Parler. *
But according to Parler, it has at least been difficult to find an alternative that can accommodate it. And up front, it’s hard to have sympathy. Any business needs to build relationships with other businesses to survive, and if no other business wants to work with you, you may not be able to work anymore. Landlords may not want to rent to troublesome tenants. Fashion houses may prefer not to buy from factories with exploitative labor practices. Businesses police each other’s business practices all the time, and if you’m so toxic that no one wants to touch you … at some point, it might be up to you, Parler.
The situation with Apple and Google is slightly different, and again there are many nuances to consider. Obviously, Apple controls access to its own hardware, the iPhone. And there’s a reasonable argument that Apple is offering the full package, and part of the deal is that you can only add apps through the app store. Apple has long argued that they are doing this to keep the phone safe, although it can also cause fierce competition. But Apple has banned many apps in the past (including Parler rival Gab). And that’s part of the nature of iPhone ownership. And really, there’s a way to route Apple’s app store: you can still create web apps that will work on iOS without going through the store. It limits functionality and the ability to get deeper for certain features on the iPhone, but those are the compromises.
With Google, it seems like there should be even less concern. Parler can not only work as a web app, Google do allows you to download apps without using the Google Play Store. The restriction was therefore simple that Google did not want the app his own shop. Indeed, before Amazon took down the whole of Parler, the company promoted its own APK to download on Android phones.
In the end, it’s hard to argue that it’s as worrying as my initial gut reaction said. I’m still worried about moderating the content as it reaches the infrastructure layer. I’m very concerned that people do not think about the kind of management questions raised by these sledgehammer-not-scalpel decisions. But if you look at each of the issues specifically related to Parler, it’s hard to find something directly concerned. There are mostly alternatives available for Parler. And in the one area that apparently does not exist (cloud hosting), it seems to be less because AWS has market power, and more because many companies just do not want to associate with Parler.
And it’s basically the free market that instructs Parler to come together.
* It’s noteworthy that AWS customers can easily migrate to Oracle Cloud only because Oracle copied AWS’s API without permission, which according to its own lawyers is copyright infringement. Never expect Oracle not to be hypocritical.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. Since there are so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we appreciate you giving us our time. We work hard every day to create quality content for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, at a time when advertisers are increasingly reluctant to sponsor small, independent sites – especially a site like ours that we do not like. does not succeed in its reporting. and analysis.
While other sites are accustomed to paywalls, registration requirements and increasingly annoying / intrusive advertising, our Techdirt has always kept it open and available to anyone. But to continue, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways to support our readers, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise – and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt team
Filed Under: app stores, aws, cloud computing, content moderation, deplatforming, infrastructure, network stack, play store
Businesses: amazon, apple, google, parler