Monumentale Korruption: Amazon und Twitter kolludieren und führen MS-Journalisten am Nasenring spazieren

Haben Sie sich schon einmal gefragt, warum es um die Mafia so still geworden ist?
Die Mafia ist offenkundig aufgegangen, in dem, was BigTech genannt wird.
Bereits vor einigen Tagen haben wir über das Geschäftsmodell von Facebook, das auf “Schutzgelderpressung” basiert, berichtet.

Heute nun haben wir etwas ganz Besonderes für unsere Leser:

Sind Sie bereit für eine Reise in die Welt der Korruption, des organisierten Verbrechens, der Kartellbildung, der Täuschung und des Betrugs?

Los geht’s.
Eine Timeline.

  • Am 15. Dezember 2020 schließen Twitter und AWS -Amazon Web Service – einen Vertrag, um die bisherige Zusammenarbeit auszubauen:Der Deal hat ein Umfang in der Gegend von mehreren Hundert Millionen US-Dollar und sieht nicht nur vor, dass AWS für Twitter die Cloud-Infrastruktur bereitstellt, die Twitter erstmals nutzen will, um seine Echtzeitdienste anzubieten, er sieht auch die gemeinsame Entwicklung einer Architektur vor, die die Technologie von Twitter erweitert und verbessert.Der Deal ergänzt die bisherigen Verträge zwischen AWS und Twitter die z.B. die Nutzung von CloudFront betreffen. Mit diesem Vertrag sind die Profite von Twitter und AWS aneinander gekoppelt: Je mehr Profit Twitter macht, desto mehr Profit macht AWS.Noch einal das Datum des Abschlusses: 15. Dezember 2020.
  • Nach der US-Wahl beginnt Parler, direkter Konkurrent zu Twitter und ebenfalls bei AWS gehostet, einen Höhenflug. Die Zensur auf Twitter treibt immer mehr Nutzer weg von Twitter und zu Parler. Die Downloads der Parler-App im Apple-Store und bei Google explodieren. Im Dezember ist die Parler-App Nummer 1 in den Appstores von Apple und Google, innerhalb von einer Woche schießt die App bei Apple von Platz 1023 in den Download-Rankings auf Platz 1 und von Platz 486 bei Google ebenfalls auf Platz 1.

View Fullscreenhttps://sciencefiles.org/wp-content/plugins/pdfjs-viewer-shortcode/pdfjs/web/viewer.php?file=/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Twitter-Selects-AWS-as-Strategic-Provider-to-Serve-Timelines-_-Amazon.com-Inc.-Press-Room.pdf&dButton=true&pButton=true&oButton=false&sButton=true#zoom=auto&pagemode=none


  • Die positive Entwicklung für Parler setzt sich im Januar 2021 fort. Die App des Unternehmens sieht ein Wachstum von 355% bei Downloads und Installationen.
  • Nachdem Twitter Donald Trump schon seit Monaten zensiert, wird Donald Trump nach dem 6. Januar permanent gesperrt. Die Sperrung wird von einer stalinistischen Säuberungswelle, der eine Reihe konservativer Accounts auf Twitter zum Opfer fallen, begleitet. Ein regelrechter Exodus von Twitter nach Parler beginnt.
  • Parler taucht als Antwort auf die Frage, welche Plattform Donald Trump in Zukunft nutzen wird, immer häufiger auf. Wenn Donald Trump zu Parler wechselt, dann sind Parler weitere mindestens 10 Millionen neue Nutzer sicher und das ist gering gerechnet. Immerhin hatte Donald Trump rund 80 Millionen Follower auf Twitter.
  • BigTech entschließt sich offenkundig zur Kollusion, zur Absprache, um die Konkurrenz von Twitter, die droht, Twitter zu überholen und zu deklassieren, zu zerstören. Apple und Google App Stores kündigen in selten geübter Einigkeit an, die Parler-App aus ihren Appstores zu entfernen.
  • Am 9. Januar veröffentlicht Buzzfeed um 6:07 Uhr (PST) ein Schreiben von AWS an Parler, in dem AWS ankündigt, Parler von seinen Servern zu löschen. Als Deadline wird der 10. Januar 23.59 Uhr angegeben. Nicht einmal 30 Stunden verbleiben Parler, um sich nach einem neuen Host umzusehen.
  • Am 9. Januar um 7:19 Uhr (PST) setzt AWS auch Parler per eMail über die beabsichtigte Löschung von Parler in Kenntnis. Das Schreiben an Buzzfeed wurde somit vorab geleakt, um einen Frame vorzubereiten, der so gestaltet ist, dass die einfach Konditionierten, die sich als Journalisten ansehen, den Köder im Schreiben fressen und sich nicht nach den wahren Gründen für die “Beendigung der Geschäftsbeziehung” fragen.
  • Und – wundert es jemanden – die Journalisten-Attrappen der ARD-Tagesschau gehören zu den ersten, die mit nur schlecht verborgener Freude darüber berichten, dass Parler, die App, die angeblich Hatespeech keine Grenzen setzt und nicht gegen Aufrufe zur Gewalt vorgeht, von Amazon geschlossen wurde. 
Im ScienceFiles-Shop bestellen
Im ScienceFiles-Shop bestellen

Diese Timeline zeigt bereits sehr deutlich, dass BigTech kolludieren, um einen Konkurrenten zu beseitigen. Damit verstoßen Apple, Twitter, Google und Amazon gegen den Sherman Act, der bereits in seinem ersten Paragraphen jede Form der Kollusion verbietet, die geeignet ist, trade oder commerce zu unterbinden oder zu behindern.

“15 U.S. Code § 1 – Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty U.S. Code

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Und weiter

15 U.S. Code § 2 – Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

Zudem verstößt AWS gegen den Vertrag, den das Unternehmen mit Parler geschlossen hat. Darin ist eine Kündigungsfrist von 30 Tagen vorgesehen. Statt 30 Tagen wurde eine Frist von nicht einmal 30 Stunden gewährt. Einmal mehr zeigt sich, dass es nicht darum geht, eine Geschäftsbeziehung fair und geordnet zu beenden, sondern darum, einen Wettbewerber zu beseitigen.

Aber natürlich wird man bei AWS in das Horn des Zeitgeistes stoßen und behaupten, man habe Parler gelöscht, weil Gefahr im Verzug war, weil auf Parler zu Gewalt aufgerufen wurde, weil Parler nicht gegen die Gewaltaufrufe vorgegangen sei. Letzteres ist gelogen, denn Parler löscht Parleys, die gegen geltendes US-Recht verstoßen und ersteres ist vorgeschoben, denn der Hashtag “FuckMikePence”, den Amazon auf Parler beanstanden hat, findet sich bei Twitter als “HangMikePence”. An HangMikePence nimmt AWS somit keinerlei Anstoß. An FuckMikePence schon. Wenn man differenzierte Behandlung wie diese sieht, dann gibt es ein einfaches Mittel, um die Diskrepanz im Verhalten zu erklären: Man analysiert den Nutzen aus der differenzierten Behandlung. Und wie es der Zufall so will, hat AWS mit Twitter gerade einen Vertrag über eine langjährige Zusammenarbeit abgeschlossen, der beider Profit-Geschicke aneinandner koppelt, einen Vertrag, der durch den enormen Erfolg von Parler an Lukrativität für beide Seiten eingebüßt hat.



Also wurde Parler von AWS gelöscht und man kann eigentlich nur den Kopf schütteln, ob der Minderbemittelten in den MS-Redaktionen, die sich über die Zensur von Angeboten freuen, die Meinungsfreiheit zulassen und ansonsten ihre mickrigen Gefühlchen über die Frage stellen: Was wirklich hinter der Aktion von AWS steckt. Dadurch, dass AWS das Kündigungsschreiben an Parler zuerst an Buzzfeed geleakt hat, wird eigentlich sehr deutlich, wie hier MS-Journalisten und ihre geistige Bornierung instrumentalisiert werden sollen, um den folgenden Frame zu bauen: Wir, die guten von AWS, wir wedeln hier mit Tugend, dass es kaum mehr auszuhalten ist, aber das macht nichts, denn ihr Idioten in den Redaktionen, ihr glaubt natürlich, dass es uns um den Kampf gegen Hatespeech und Gewalt und das, was ihr in eurer ideologischen Enge so wichtig findet, geht. Also servieren wir Euch, was ihr gerne hören wollt und bereichern uns hemmungslos und das Schöne bei diesem miesen Spiel, die Deppen in den Redaktionen der MS-Medien feiern Amazon und Twitter als Helden und merken nicht einmal, wie sie am Nasenring von der PR-Abteilung beider Unternehmen durch die Manage geführt werden.

Wer Dummheit sucht, sollte Redaktionen von MS-Medien aufsuchen.
Hier der komplette Schriftsatz von Parler Inc., der vor dem US-District Court for the Western District of Washington eingereicht wurde.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT -10David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington at “Amazon struck [a] blow Saturday [against the chances of Trump adopting the platform], informing Parler it would need to look for a new web-hosting service effective midnight Sunday.” Id. 23.This death blow by AWS could not come at a worse time for Parler—a time when the company is surging with the potential of even more explosive growth in the next few days. Worse than the timing is the result—Parler has tried to find alternative companies to host it and they have fallen through. It has no other options. Without AWS, Parler is finished as it has no way to get online. And a delay of granting this TRO by even one day could also sound Parler’s death knell as President Trump and others move on to other platforms.1It is no wonder, then, that competitor Twitter’s CEO has heartily endorsed efforts to remove Parler from the public sphere. See Kevin Shalvey, Parler’s CEO John Matze Responded Angrily After Jack Dorsey Endorsed Apple’s Removal of the Social Network Favored by Conservatives, Busines Insider (Jan. 10, 2021), https://www.businessinsider.com/parler-john-matze-responded-angrily-jack-dorsey-apple-ban-2021-1. 1AWS indefinitely suspending Parler’s account is categorically different than Google or Apple dropping Parler from their app stores. In the instance of the latter, existing Parler users can still use its app—it’s just harder for Parler to sign up new users. But with AWS’s move, both existing users and new users are completely prevented from using the app until Parler can find some other service to replace AWS.Users are also prevented from using Parler’s website, which is likewise dependent upon AWS. Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 10 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -11David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington 98501(509)

.Parler’s rival social media apps, such as conservative-oriented Gab or conservative media Rumble, are also experiencing record growth right now. See Isaac & Browning, Fact-checked on Facebook and Twitter, supra. If Parler is not available, people will turn to alternatives, or perhaps return to Twitter or Facebook. What is more, Parler’s current users are likely to leave and go to anotherplatform if Parler is down for an indefinite period. And once those users have begun to use another platform, they may not return to Parler once it’s back online.25.And by silencing Parler, AWS silences the millions of Parler users who do not feel their free speech is protected by Twitter or other social media apps.26.What is more, by pulling the plug on Parler but leaving Twitter alone despite identical conduct by users on both sites, AWS reveals that its expressed reasons for suspending Parler’s account are but pretext. In its note announcing the pending termination of Parler’s service, AWS alleged that “[o]ver the past several weeks, we’ve reported 98 examples to Parler of posts that clearly encourage and incite violence.” Exhibit A. AWS provide a few examples, including one that stated, “How bout make them hang?”, followed by a series of hashtags, including “#fu–mikepence.” Id. 27.AWS further stated to Parler that the “violent content on your website . . . violates our terms.” Id. Because, AWS declared, “we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 11 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -12David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington

encourages or incites violence against others,” AWS announced the pending termination of Parler’s account. Id.28.However, the day before, on Friday, one of the top trends on Twitter was “Hang Mike Pence,” with over 14,000 tweets. See Peter Aitken, ‘Hang Mike Pence’ Trends on Twitter After Platform Suspends Trump for Risk of ‘Incitement of Violence’, Fox News (Jan. 9, 2021), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-trending-hang-mike-pence. And earlier last week, a Los Angeles Times columnist observed that Twitter and other social media platforms are partly culpable for the Capital Hill riot, by allowing rioters to communicate and rile each other up. See Erika D. Smith, How Twitter, Facebook are Partly Culpable for Trump DC Riot, LA Times (Jan. 6, 2021), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-06/how-twitter-facebook-partly-culpable-trump-dc-riot-capitol. Yet these equivalent, if not greater, violations of AWS’s terms of service by Twitter have apparently been ignored by AWS.29.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. And because of AWS false claims, leaked to the public, Parler has not only lost current and future customers, but Parler has also been unable to find an Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 12 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -13David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington

alternative web hosting company. In short, AWS false claims have made Parler a pariah.Count One: Sherman Act, Section 1AWS is prohibited from contracting or conspiring to restrain trade or commerce.30.Parler restates, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the rest of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.31.Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce . . .”15 U.S.C. § 1. “To state a claim underSection 1, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, will prove: (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) intention on the part of the co-conspirators to restrain trade, and (3) actual injury to competition.”Coalition For ICANN Transparency, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 611 F.3d 495, 501-02 (9th Cir. 2010).32.Less than a month ago, AWS and Parler’s competitor, Twitter, entered into a multi-year deal. Late Friday evening, Twitter banned President Trump from using its platform, thereby driving enormous numbers of its users to Parler. Twenty-four hours later, AWS announced it would indefinitely suspend Parler’s account.33.AWS’s reasons for doing so are not consistent with its treatment of Twitter, indicating a desire to harm Parler.Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 13 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -14David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington 98501(509) 747-2800123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313234.By suspending Parler’s account, AWS will remove from the market a surging player, severely restraining commerce in the microblogging services market.35.AWS’s actions violate the Sherman Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1.36.Parler is entitled to injunctive relief.Count Two: Breach of ContractAWS breached its contract with Parler by not providing thirty days’ notice before terminating its account.37.Parler restates, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the rest of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.38.Under Washington law, “[a] breach of contract is actionable only if the contract imposes a duty, the duty is breached, and the breach proximately causes damage to the claimant.” See Northwest Independent Forest Mfrs. v. Dept. of Labor and Industries, 78 Wn. App. 707, 712, 899 P.2d 6 (1995).39.The AWS Customer Agreement with Parler allows either party to terminate the agreement “for cause if the other party is in material breach of this Agreement and the material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice by the other party.” Exhibit B.40.On January 8, 2021, AWS brought concerns to Parler about user content that encouraged violence. Parler addressed them, and then AWS said it was “okay” with Parler. Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 14 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -15David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington 98501(509) 747-2800123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313241.The next day, January 9, 2021, AWS brought more “bad” content to Parler and Parler took down all of that content by the evening. 42.Thus, there was no uncured material breach of the Agreement for 30 days, as required for termination. 43.Further, while AWS used the term “suspension” in its notice to Parler, it stated that it would “ensure that all of your data is preserved for you to migrate to your own servers, and will work with you as best as we can to help your migration.” Exhibit A. This is not action AWS would take for a temporary suspension, but rather for a permanent termination. Thus, whatever words AWS used, it was terminating the Agreement with Parler.44.This termination will immediately make it impossible for Parler to have an online presence for at least a week, depriving Parler’s current users of any use of the app and website, and completely preventing any new users from downloading and using the app, or the website.45.Thus, AWS will have breached its contract with and harmed Parler. Further, lost future profits inthis case are difficult to calculate due to the rapidly increasing nature of Parler’s user base. That’s because “[t]he usual method for proving lost profits is to establish profit history.” Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash.2d 1 (1998). But that history will, at best, undervalue the future given how quickly Parler is growing. And at worst, Parler will get nothing as “[l]ost profits cannot be Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 15 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -16David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington 98501(509) 747-28001234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132recovered where they are speculative, uncertain and conjectural” because “[t]he amount of lost profits must be established with reasonable certainty.” Id. Thus, money damages may not be available, but at the least are insufficient to make Parler whole.46.Parler is entitled to injunctive relief.Count Three: Tortious Interference with a Contract or Business ExpectancyBy terminating Parler’s account, AWS will intentionally interfere with the contracts Parler has with millions of its present users, as well as with the users it is projected to gain this week.47.Parler restates, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the rest of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.48.In Washington, “[t]he elements of tortious interference with a contract or expectancy are: (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that relationship; (3) an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; (4) the defendant’s interference for an improper purpose or by improper means; and (5) resulting damage.” Koch v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 108 Wn.App. 500, 506, 31 P.3d 698 (2001).49.Parler currently has over 12 million users under contract. It expects to add millions more this week given its growth the last few days and the growing voice of conservatives encouraging their Twitter followers to switch to Parler.Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 16 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT -17David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington 98501(509) 747-2800123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313250.AWS is aware of Parler’s user numbers and current trends. AWS also knew that Parler was negotiating with it to increase its server capacity given this ongoing and expected growth. AWS also knew of public speculation that Trump, with his nearly 90 million Twitter followers, was going to switch to Parler, likely bringing many of those followers with him. Finally, AWS also knew from public statements that Parler was about to go to the market to raise money.51.AWS intentionally will interfere with Parler’s current contracts and future expected customer relationships by terminating Parler’s Agreement with it under the pretext that Parler was in violation of that contract when AWS knew Parler was not in violation (and when Twitter was engaging in identical conduct but AWS did not terminate its contract with Twitter).52.Parler will be severely damaged financially and reputationally if it must go offline Sunday at midnight because AWS terminates Parler’s account. As noted above, given the speculative nature of Parler’s financial and reputational damages, money damages will not make it whole.53.Therefore, Parler is entitled to injunctive relief.PRAYER FOR RELIEFPlaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: A.Grant Parler’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and order AWS to maintain Parler’s account until further notice from this Court, and to refrain from Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 17 of 19VERIFIED COMPLAINT – 18 David J. Groesbeck, P.S.Attorney and Counselor1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, Washington 98501(509) 747-28001234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132suspending, terminating or failing to provide any services previously provided under Parler’s customer agreement with AWS. B.Grant Parler damages, including trebled damages, in an amount to bedetermined at trial. C.Grant Parler such other relief as the Court deems just and proper./// /// /// /// Dated: January 10, 2021. Respectfully submitted, /s David J. Groesbeck WSBA No. 24749DAVID J.GROESBECK, P.S.1716 Sylvester St. SWOlympia, WA 98501(509) 747-2800david@groesbecklaw.com621 W. Mallon Ave., Suite 507 Spokane, WA 99201 Counsel for Plaintiff Case 2:21-cv-00031-BJR Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 18 of 19

VERIFICATIONI, John Matze, say that I am the Chief Executive Officer of Parler LLC in the case captioned Parler LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, and have authorized the filing of this complaint. I have reviewed the allegations made in the complaint, and to those allegations of which I have personal knowledge, I know them to be true. As to those allegations of which I do not have personal knowledge, I believe them to be true.

Dated: January 10, 2021 Verified by: John Matze Chief Executive Officer, Parler LLC

Quelle

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: