The PopulistCast - SoundSage

View Details

Thomas Talleyrand 0:02
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We're heading into episode number 11. We are moving right along. We're going to get back into parlor verse Amazon. We are going to also discuss some other information that is broken rich recently pastor coats in Canada has been set up to be fried. I don't know if he's free yet but I believe he is. The button administration and salts China, China hits back at the Biden administration. One of the dumbest, idiotic, I mean, you know, what do you expect when you hire a bunch of Obama retreads? Okay, so getting back into the parlor versus Amazon lawsuit, we're on page 20 chapter 59. This termination by AWS could not have come at a worse time for parlour a time when the company was surging with the potential of even more explosive growth in the next few days. Worse than the timing was the result. parlor tried to find alternative companies to host it and they repeatedly are unable to do so often because of the public defamation by AWS. This delayed parlours ability to get back online by over a month. That delay meant that many past parlor users have had to move on to other platforms. telegram past 500 million users as people seek Facebook and Twitter alternatives. And that is in the Kevin Shively parlor CEO john mattes responded angrily after jack Dorsey endorsed Apple's removal of a social network favored by conservatives, Business Insider. I mean, why he would even say something publicly when he knows that he's got antitrust lawsuits coming against him. parlor rival social media apps that are alternatives to Facebook and Twitter are experiencing experiencing record growth on parler was not available both current users and prospective users turn to alternatives, including but not limited to Twitter, or Facebook. And once those user users have begun to use another platform, they may not switch or return to parlor after parlor was offline for over a month 61 by silencing parlor, AWS silences the millions of parlor users who do not feel comfortable using Twitter or other social media apps to express their views because among other things, these other companies take advantage of users personal data for advertising and other revenue sources. What is more by pulling the plug on parlour but leaving Twitter alone despite the posting of massive amounts of troublesome content on Twitter and Amazon itself, AWS has revealed that it's expressed reasons for suspending parlor service are but pretext. Because AWS declared we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others. AWS NATS the pending termination of parlor services. But AWS knew that its allegations against parlor was specious. Okay, little analysis here. parlor was doing everything and actually being more responsive than Twitter, Amazon itself, Facebook and other companies that Amazon does business with. Amazon accepts advertising from facebook, facebook, except that accepts advertising from parlour. They're all incestuous. They all work together. They at least have a business relationship if not a monopoly monopolistic relationship. So this is very, very worrisome if you are a consumer because of the way that they are crushing speech. And it goes into what China had to say about the United States with the government using social media platforms to censor speech just like China does. However, we are supposed to be above it all we're not supposed to act like China. Instead, we're acting worse, China at least tries to look out for some of its citizens. If parlour were a newspaper, AWS would try to portray the content it flagged as appearing in on the front page but as the facts above show

Thomas Talleyrand 4:41
the minimal amount of problematic material that AWS flag combined with the fact that much of us buried could not be easily shared, meant it was hardly noticed. Those of parlour was a newspaper the problematic content was buried at the bottom right column on page d 17. And small type the reason that they are go through such links to explain the this stuff in terminology that someone who's not internet friendly or internet savvy can understand is because what they ran into what this judge who should, you know, have retired A long time ago a woman has no business. Being a federal judge in high tech case, especially Making matters worse, Chapter 65 or paragraph 65 AWS leaked this termination email to the press knowing that it's allegations of email, claiming that parlor was unable to find and remove content that encouraged encouraged violence for false. So AWS in a parlours opinion. The reason that they defined parlor was not only to lie and break the contract, but in their opinion, it was to library contract and put parler out of business so that they couldn't compete against data against AWS is number one client or one of their biggest clients, Twitter. Getting you know, they go into all of their AWS brought attention AWS to define parlor nonetheless. And because of AWS as false claims parlor, not only lost current and future customers, but for weeks parler was unable to find an alternative West web hosting company. Also because people think that now parlor is going to have to go through extreme measures. For instance, if you tried to post something on one of their in one of your accounts, you can tell it's being pre screened before it's posted. that people don't trust parlor parlors lost a lot of trust, because what they've had to do is probably implement this AI prior to it being ready to roll. And so it is not as transparent as they had hoped. And therefore, you alienate some customers, you're already seeing how Twitter and other companies once they've gotten to a certain point, they're started to abuse their customers. Moreover, although AWS claims its terminated parlor, because parlor was used to incite, organize and coordinate the January 6 attack on the capital, that claim is a pretext that is not backed by evidence. AWS has identified no evidence that writers used parlour to format or coordinate the attack at this time of its termination email, and it still has no such evidence. By contrast, there's increasing evidence that Twitter and Facebook parlors much larger competitors were used to format to format and coordinate the riot. For instance, Ashley Babbitt, the woman killed by law enforcement when she forced her way into the Capitol Building did have a parlor account, but it has not been used since November. Instead, she had a Twitter account that was in use that very day of the riot. Further, the federal government has indicated that the attack was coordinated in at least part on Twitter. See, Michael Balsamo and Eric Tucker. FBI says it was warned about prospective violence ahead of the US Capitol Riot that's in the Navy times. Facebook and and as already noted, Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube are the top social media sites found in charging documents for rested writers. Not parler also an Tifa a NTIF. A. They are supposedly anti fascist they are actually very fascist. And they are anti first amendment their anti American values, uses Twitter and is promoted to use twitter twitter often does nothing every once in a while they'll purge a few people. Andy no is allowed to be harassed racial comments are hurled at him I believe in he knows also gay and they use homophobic slurs against Andy on Twitter. Twitter does absolutely nothing about it because Andy now is conservative. You know, he's Asian, he's gay. So he's a minority he's gay but Twitter hates him. So Twitter Lindsey and Tifa talk to him anyway they want to they were somebody talking yesterday after Andy knows was beat up in a earlier riot. And a

Thomas Talleyrand 9:26
ascitic milkshake was dawned on him that had quick drawing, see Matt and it. Somebody said, Well, I wish they'd let that semen dry so it breaks them bones. Twitter does nothing about it. Finally, the Add injury to injury after AWS shut off all services to parlor, AWS left open route 53 highly scalable domain system, which directed hackers to parlors backup data centers and cause the hackers to initiate a sizable DNS account. Excuse me attack. In other words, AWS essentially illuminated a large neon arrow directing hackers to parlours backup data centers. And the hackers got the message, launching an extremely large attack one to 250 times larger and 12 to 24 times longer than the average and distributed denial of service or a DDoS attack. Later, AWS would terminate the route 53 link but the damage was already done. And this AWS facilitated attack was a threat by at AWS to future data centers that they were to host parlor they too would be attacked by unprecedented attacks. This is one of the the criminal behavior by parlor, or excuse me about Amazon here is amazing people should probably go to jail, but under the current environment, that's not going to happen. Finally, such termination AWS Amazon has been secretly selling parlours, user data, including images and video to whomever has an Amazon s3 account and is willing to pay to download data that's intentionally interfering with parlors contracts with its current users. Amazon is sharing parlour user data in violation of AWS is on contract with parlor and profiting to boot. This is direct evidence of tortious interference with partners contracts with its current parlor users. This AWS enabled black market for parlor user data also enables others to access this data and then engage in Max and mass doxxing. And harassment of parlor users, these AWS enabled activities will hamper parlors ability to get new users and cause it to lose existing users who will be wary of parlors ability to protect their privacy. All right, so that ends the facts. Underneath this now we're gonna get into the claims. I don't know how deep I'm gonna go into the claims of this county and play it by ear. But if the facts if they can back up the facts, especially the the allegation that the parlor was sent a or saw a screenshot of some potentially violent or bad behavior. And that screenshot was sent. And that they have determined that somebody that was employed by Amazon posted the parlor, the parlay, and took the screenshot of it. That's a problem. They're gonna if they can prove that and they can prove these last few things that I just discussed, power up parlors, data being sold, and parlors, dd OS account being left wide open, so that it could be hacked. And if they can really if they can find any emails or any chat and the way that these left-wing wokesters use chat. That's all backed up because of Sarbanes Oxley. I think it's gonna be kind of interesting to see if they can just get the frickin discovery without going broke. In what do I mean by Sarbanes Oxley? So, Sarbanes Oxley, and the Dodd bill that supposedly cleaned up banking says that anybody that is listed on the stock exchange, especially any public company, in any company over a certain amount of employees, or a certain amount of revenue, possibly, you have to keep all internal communications that are written for a certain amount of time, we're certainly within that. I believe it's seven years, it could be a different amount of time. But it's so that investigators, lawsuits, disk discovery, can go back and look to see what was being said, between people.
Thomas Talleyrand 14:08
So that was the thing that salesforce.com did, where they act, forget the name of the product. But you could have it for up to 5000 users for free, if you have just one account with them have a certain level. And you could put all your users on it. So everybody could say, you know, if you had two salespeople that were using Salesforce, and then of course you got three users, but you could use this chat function to it was kind of like Twitter, that you could put everybody on, you could and you could use that to send back and forth. Let's say you've got let's say that you're a furniture distribution company. And so you import furniture, you have a couple of sales managers, that handles your independent contractors. And you also have, you know, three or 4000 Lazy Boy stores or rooms to go stores that need to be able to communicate with you to make orders you can put them on this system they can go back and forth with you they can send you your orders they can upload them that way you can run them through a couple of other options that they have but basically you can use it for customer service and you can use it for communication within the whole company and so that internal instant communication block which you can set up groups with and you can give different user permissions to all is to provide compliance with sarbanes oxley and so you know i've seen stuff on these chat things that are even on salesforce dot coms chat stuff not through them but through other companies that used it that that we consulted with and you're just pulling your hair out why would someone say you know this customer is a bunch of cheap b fo b's or this particular customer i mean i don't even know why we do business with them all they do is complain and you know and i saw another deal in a sexual harassment lawsuit where the core for two guys we're talking about a receptionist and they're you know writing whether she's you know doable or not i mean it is absolutely insane the stuff people will put on there even though they know this is going to be kept up and usually it's because of lacks management not coming down on them not monitoring what they're supposed to do and i have a feeling that amazon has extremely lacks management from reading some of their articles the you know they they treat the people in their warehouses like slaves but the white collar workers they are treated like royalty because they don't want them getting stolen you know some game operator comes in and wants to do the next that competitor to dune can steal somebody that's a programmer and pay him more money and have them do more fun work so you know it's pretty highly competitive and that leads to really bending over backwards to make these people happy alright we are into section four causes of actions causes of action a pre termination and termination of the contract count one washington consumer protection act before the termination in connection with the termination aws engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices injuring parlor this is i mean i don't see how aws gets around this parlor it seems this is their side of the story has got aws in at the very least right like bottom line i mean it's it's just if their stuff proves out that's that's what they're alleging so parlour restates and alleges this is a legal thing you have to do number 71 that paragraph 71 they point out the washington consumer act provides that unfair deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce commerce are unlawful under the act any person who has entered who is injured in his or her business or property by a violation of the act may bring a civil suit for injunctive relief so you know they meet that

Thomas Talleyrand 18:39
the plaintiff must prove an unfair deceptive act or practice or practice occurring in trade or commerce affecting the public interest injury to a person's business or property and five causation you know so they've got they've got to solve all five of those i believe i don't think they can just i don't think it's like a three prong thing where one thing outweighs more than the others aws engaged in them so now they're going to try to go through and say what they did they engaged in unfair and deceptive series of acts and practices in bad faith and caused injury the customer agreement is a contract of adhesion this is paragraph 74 which aws forces each customer to accept without negotiation in order to use aws services upon information and belief many of aws customers are a captive audience who do not have ready access to an effective and affordable alternative to aws services aws is fully aware that aws customer agreement is a contract of adhesion which is exemplified by the fact that the agreement itself provides that aws may unilaterally modify the agreement at any time with or without notice to its customers AWS may modify the agreement including any policies at any time. But posting a revised version on AWS is SIPE, by continuing to use the service offerings. After the effective date of any modification to this agreement, you agree to be bound by the modified terms, it is your responsibility to check the AWS site regularly for modification that almost makes their contract invalid. If I'm sitting on a jury. And I de point that out, I'm going to invalidate their rights under their contract, I'm going to rule in total favor of anybody else. But there's no way as a juror if I was a juror, and I probably will never get to be one now that I've got this podcast again. But as a juror, I would just that would be yet I'd be done. You know, I don't do these contracts of adhesion, UCC code, Bs contracts, they have to be ruled on. And I believe this is also the legal theory and responsibility of the judge to do, but they have to be looked at, and the most negative light possible. If you are ever serving on a jury. And you run into one of these cases, you have to the company that makes the contract that says something that crazy, you have to just assume that they are working from a position of bad faith, because otherwise why would they put that they would say, Hey, you got 30 days to change this contract or give us notice and you as soon as the your contracts up, you're leaving to another one, the new terms don't apply to you. But you can not have a one way contract like this, and be thought to be a good actor. AWS unilaterally drafted the AWS customer agreement in a manner that unfairly deceptively and unconsciously advantages AWS and harms its customers. I mean, that's kind of what I just said. But that's paragraph 75. By way of example, only AWS knows that customers will use services to provide a platform for third party end users to post content. AWS is aware that it is not possible to completely prevent those third party end users from posting objectionable content that violates AWS policies. Nevertheless, AWS contends that a customer breaches this contract of adhesion if any third party end user does not posts or excuse me, does post such object, objectionable content, irrespective of whether the customer has adopted or is working to adopt appropriate measures to block or remove such content and effect by AWS, his own interpretation, which interpretation parlor disputes, AWS has knowingly drafted its contract of adhesion in a manner that will force its customers to breach the contract in mass. In turn, AWS contends that it has the right to terminate the contract for the contract for the contract for cause in the event of such a break, with no notice.

Thomas Talleyrand 23:14
To and meaningful remedy for any of its customers, AWS has done so despite having full knowledge that its customers rely upon the continuation of AWS services for the very survival of their business. I'm going to break into another company that I've exchanged emails on just kind of asking them, they out of the blue kind of I think I might have looked at something on their website, started contacting me about setting up a sales presentation. During this talk, I also knew someone who was possibly willing to sign up with them. And I told the past customer said let me make sure that these people are going to not act like Twitter, Facebook and Facebook are doing. I got into an email exchange, which I'm thinking about publishing with one of these act on sales reps, cheese and mechanics act trying to get things over to a real account exact, she's just kind of weeds through the sales leads. And I was shocked at what she had to say, you know, and basically she was pretty bigoted. You know, she hates people who believe in God. She said that, you know, just find somebody that's in a Bible thumping state and do business with them. Instead, Trump's a loser. Put that in an email. Like I said, there's going to be some good discovery in this. So in effect, AWS is back into the the into the posting, or into the lawsuit. As AWS knows that customers will use AWS services to provide a platform for third party end users to post content. AWS is aware that it is not possible to completely prevent those third party end users from posting objectionable content that violates AWS policies. Nevertheless, AWS contends that a customer breaches this contract of adhesion, if any third party end user does post such objectionable content, irrespective of whether the customer has adopted or is working to adopt appropriate measures to block or remove such content and effect by AWS, his own interpretation, which interpretation parlor disputes, AWS has knowingly drafted a contract of you know, they're going to repeat this over and over again. When AWS and parler entered into the AWS agreement for cloud computing services that parlor needs for its apps and websites to function on the internet. They knew that this was going to be impossible they keep restating that. parlor performed under the contract in good faith by mothers by among other things paying for AWS service. AWS repeatedly made representations to partial to parlor, which were designed to and then give parlor, the assurance that AWS did not view posting of allegedly objectionable user content on parlours platform as a breach of the party's contract. Especially in the light of parlours efforts to remediate such content, by way of example, only on January 7 2021, AWS assured parlor that a prior complaint regarding objectionable content on parlor had been resolved. At the same time, AWS has solicited additional business from parlor parlor worked with AWS to expand the scope of the products and services that it purchased from AWS based in part on the assurances it received from AWS, in other words, partners stating that they had been doing business with Amazon for so long, and they had been doing business in such a comfortable way that they were both working together to make the contract work, to make the services as good as possible for parlour to for parlour to on its end to come to make Amazon comfortable with the way that they were dealing with content that they felt like that not only was parlor waiving large portions of its contract, but that it should be stopped from ever enforcing those portions again, because of the way we're in a stopple role. They don't come out and say that, but that's exactly what I think they're getting at.

Thomas Talleyrand 27:44
The big thing is, and we're going to, let's see, we're going to go down to the true reason why AWS decided to this is 82 decided to suspend and or terminate its contract with parler was not because of an alleged breach of contract contact. But because AWS did not want parler to be able to provide a new platform to conservative voices, including Donald Trump, or to compete effectively with other macroblock blogging platforms such as Twitter. On the same day that AWS terminated its contract with parlor and also publicized false information about parlor to the media. AWS a series of acts and practices deceptive and unfair. AWS is jeopardy. Paragraph 85 AWS is unfair and deceptive acts and practices impact the public interest. AWS not only made deceptive statements to partner directly, but also made deceptive statements about parler to the public at large at large count to there's more to this but count to defamation they kind of restate some of the stuff we just went over I think that if you read through that you'll do some do yourself some good and understanding this. They're down to paragraph 111 gets into count three breach of contract, which is also you know, we've kind of already went over so I don't see any need to beat you to death rating this kind of stuff. The get into the fallacy of the immediately suspend and then the terminate without cause and determinate with cause and how you can't count how one of those forms outweighs the other one. This is really good stuff they get they really lawyer down on some terminology in here. Brief count for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. I'm just gonna read out the counts here. And if anyone wants me to go back, count five torture interference with the contractor business expectancy. Count six the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Count seven Because they restate so much stuff. The Washington Consumer Protection Act AWS unfairly and falsely criticized parlours moderation system as a way to preserve its market share in the global cloud services infrastructure market after AWS as decided to eject parler from system to go back and look at the claim up here. AWS unfairly used parlors dependence on AWS before it terminated the contract to thwart parlours expansion of its share of the global internet advertising Mark market, in which AWS its AWS itself was competing. Camp eight the Seattle fair contracting practices organizing ordinance AWS Amazon violated ordinance by discriminating against parlor in its contracting decisions on the basis of parlors proceed political ideology and the political content published on parler system.

Thomas Talleyrand 31:02
I want to read this because this is just awesome. Paragraph one at the City of Seattle has an act in a fair contracting practices ordinance that declares it to be an unfair contracting practice for any business enterprise to demonstrate to discriminate against any person with respect to to conditions terms price or performance standards or other provisions of a contract Seattle use municipal code 14 dash 10 dash excuse me 14 dot 10.0 30 subparagraph A under the ordinance parlor is a person and AWS and Amazon our business amot Enterprises. Under the ordinance to discriminate means any act whether by itself or as part of a practice the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among individuals or groups or of individuals by reason of political ideology. The political ideology means any idea or belief or coordinated body of ideas or belief relating to the purpose conduct, organization, function or basis of government, and related institutions and activities, whether or not characteristic of any political, party or group. This term includes membership in a political party or group that includes conduct reasonably reasonably related to political ideology, which does not interfere with job performance. And parlours contract with AWS was a contract as defined in Seattle's fair contracting practices ordinance. AWS only raised concerns about parlour after it looked like then President Trump would join parlor and bring millions of conservative Twitter users with him. Twitter would be almost a ghost town right now. You would have a left wing echo Twitter. That's it. AWS only raised concerns about parlor after it looked like then President Trump would join parlor like I said while ago, Twitter users would you know it would be pretty bland over there. And the representative who was represented repeatedly inquiring into whether Trump was going to come to parlor was by her Twitter account, a rabid Joe Biden fan I can't wait till we get to watch the deposition for her. Further Amazon employees pressured Amazon and AWS to drop parlor claiming credit for the move. See Ashley Stewart and Eugene Kim some Amazon employees are taking credit for parlors ban Business Insider January 20 2021. Additionally, some AWS employees who have speculated The decision was driven by a combination of employee unrest and major customers complaining to company to company leadership. The largest customers have executive sponsors so they can call directly in many cases, and jassie, co CEO of AWS himself. One former senior AWS employee said the decision to boot parlor broke new ground in terms of the company's enforcement actions. One of AWS is major customers is Twitter. Not only did Twitter CEO tweet his approval for AWS his action actions against parler. But President Biden was the clear favorite of Twitter employees when it came to campaign donations during the 2020 election. And Twitter employee donations to Democrats versus republicans was 98% to 2% split. That's from a board on Twitter employees heavily favored Biden over Trump ahead of priceless man, Fox News. Big tech employees landed top post in the Biden Harris transition team with at least nine different button transition team members or advisors having previously held positions at Facebook, Google or Twitter. Several transition team members work in Obama adminer straight administration before joining one of the tech giants and then later re entering politics as part of the biden team in other words they work for obama twitter hire twitter amazon google facebook one of those hired them overpaid them for work that they probably weren't qualified to do for work that today doesn't help to build value for the stockholders and probably possibly breaks the fiduciary responsibility except for the fact that now they're back in government where they can give favorable treatment to those same companies talk about quid pro quo i'm sorry

Thomas Talleyrand 35:42
that's just plain corruption ethically and morally if not legally 185 and it wasn't just twitter donors and political action committees affiliated with amazon coming.com inc and other big tech companies through their money behind former vice president joe biden's presidential campaign that's from s&p in fact employees are google's parent alphabet and microsoft car corp amazon inc apple inc and facebook inc are the five largest sources of money for by mr biden's campaign and joint fundraising committees among those identifying and corporate employers along with according to a wall street journal analysis of campaign finance reports how boring is that to read all that stuff huh thank you for doing that though it is not surprising then that the news emergent efforts by big tech to stop trump for example twitter and facebook decided to neither den president a platform to put out his message it's just more re explanation of facts already that have been presented and now we're down to be post contract termination content count nine breach of contract contract aws violated section 3.1 3.2 of the contract by selling parlors user data user data to third parties we've discussed that tortious interference with contract or business expectancy by selling parlors user data after terminated the contract aws intentionally interfered with parlors contracts with current and future users that's interesting rating right there we're down to 214 count 11 washington consumer protection act after determination aws engaged in additional deceptive and unfair unfair trade practices in drink parlor count 12 negligence by negligence negligently directing hackers to parlors backup databases after it terminated the parlor contract aws caused massive financial and reputational harm to parlour that's true it did cause harm to parlor we'll see if that is actionable or not count 13 tortious interference with a contract or business expectancy by directing hackers parlors backup databases after terminating the parlor contract aws intentionally and maliciously maliciously interfered with park parlors expected future contracts with other service contractors count 14 washington consumer protection act aws unfairly used park parlors dependence on aws after terminated the contract i think we're starting to get a little thin the girls a little thin here the washington consumer protection act aws some fairly compromised partners reputation after its termination as a way to preserve its market share and the global cloud services infrastructure market once aws decided to eject parler from it systems and that is prayer for relief and instead of asking for some crazy amount of money because this is a real lawsuit parlour praise for judgment against aws this fall of provide a jury trial on any issue trial level by right missouri grant parlor damages including trebled and exemplary down damages and amount to be determined at trial and three grant parlors attorney fees and cost for grant parlor other such relief as a court deems just improper i don't know what's legal for them to grant but i would have to look at the total valuation of aws and amazon and if i was a juror i'm just talking about an f my opinion if i was a juror and parlor can actually prove all of this stuff i would grant actual damages of it little least $3 billion i would probably grant punitive damages in some amount above the actual valid value of amazon itself that's just where i'm at the

Thomas Talleyrand 40:19
behavior here is so absolutely horrendous that these employees deserve to lose their jobs and to do that i would bankrupt parlor that would be my goal is your excuse me i would bankrupt amazon that's my opinion and that's if they could prove this stuff now listen i'm gonna listen to what amazon has to say i don't see there's any way that i wouldn't rule in favor of parlor just from what i know publicly and from reading parlors excuse me reading amazon's own statements so just reading amazon's own statements reading the portion of the contract that's been disclosed unless i see something else in the contract or they have some emails going back and forth showing that that is not a contract of adhesion then i'm going to probably at least award the valuation of of parlor at that time that they were talking i think that the valuation will go up i think i would probably be looking somewhere around the evaluation of what twitter is or the 27 billion that salesforce just paid for a company a few days ago or a week or two ago so you know you're talking about a lot of money parler was probably worth the 27 billion in that 10 to $20 billion range and i don't care what a judge has to tell me i'm gonna go by what the jury says you know if the jury gets to do this and i think probably they do in the state of washington you know so amazon's got a tough road to hoe they really probably need to settle this account by need to probably right parlor a couple of checks and i believe because i have not seen any follow up coverage on this i think amazon realizes they're good goose was cooked and they're probably in settlement negotiations now the other thing that i would do as a juror i would make amazon host parlour for the next 10 years at their expense i would make i would make amazon and i'd make amazon set up somebody within their company that they would have to pay to make sure that they were getting the right treatment or a special master i would be pretty creative and i would bring down the hammer on amazon from you know because some of its gonna get cut back in appeal and you got to think about that but i think you have a responsibility as a juror in one of these types of cases to stop the bad behavior that's the reason that we have these cases more than anything else not only do we want to reimburse may call the company or the party that was damaged to begin with we want to make sure they pull company start to pull it put in drains that can't that will keep somebody from getting sucked down on the bottom and drowned that was a huge 100 million dollar lawsuit that was settled out or they won i can't remember which but you know now when you build a pool you have safe drains because no one wants to be exposed now you know you can go the other way though kind of like the black mold case happened where you know you can't get insurance in the state of texas that covers mold now or at least it's pretty hard to i haven't looked at my latest policy but they used to always have a rider on them for standing water so they would cover a leak but they wouldn't cope if you you had a certain time to report the leak if you didn't report the leak and you had mold they were out they were free from from covering it because a jury gave somebody $300 million because they got mad about the way the insurance company treated them now because i promised you something at the end i want to talk to you about this little deal in china excuse me in alaska i'll link to this too this is the spectator when biden a diplomatic disaster in alaska basically what happened was bunch of woke people who don't understand what it's like to deal with real people guy named jake sullivan and anthony blinken who should have never been confirmed they were obama retreads They are woke stirs. They're not serious people thought that before they started off in negotiations with China that they would blast them about the jaegers and civil rights this and that, but they didn't even you know, get into the Coronavirus. They.

Thomas Talleyrand 45:19
They were shocked. And you can tell by watching the video I will link to the article. They were shocked that China stood up for themselves and China pointed out that hey, you know, the Obama administration is using Twitter and, and Amazon and Facebook and Google to go after its political enemies. It's censorship, you got the overreaction to this the terrible thing on the six but it's nothing compared to what an Tifa has done. You got an idiotic, this idiotic judge who says that the difference between the thing that makes the thing terrorism is what happened during the daytime, the antivirus stuff happened during the day time t. And it doesn't matter what time of day, whether it's meant to impact the use violence to impact the political narrative. The Case for the January 6 is all starting to fall apart on the federal government. There's no weapons that have been found the few things that were supposedly brought there, the plastic handcuffs, the zip ties were actually located in, they have filmed with the guy picking them up off of the desk inside the inside the Congress. So no one brought anything no one brought weapons, you got a an Tifa guy that kind of started everything. And so they are running out of options. You got one of the most corrupt FBI directors in the history of the FBI, the guy that drummed up the fake wittmer kidnapping, and you got a situation where I think you're gonna end up with more insiders, more undercover operatives than not undercover operatives. And, and Tifa people being involved with getting this whole thing going. And you know, I've already had a podcast where I talked about the idiocy of Q, and how sad it is that people want to do something. But you know, they're praying that whoever ran to Q is preying on the people who feel frustrated, they feel like they have lost power. They look around, and they see that the only thing that got people to do anything or to act was the an Tifa and BLM riots. And so they want to make their voices heard. They want to fight back. It's been proven that the BLM rights, especially when you read that Time magazine article affected the election. So if you know if that's what it's going to take to effect an election, you have a few people who are going to do something stupid. And think that they're doing the right thing. And you know, I think that you my lesson to you if you're reading this or listening to this, three years from now, his question everything, investigate everything, always go to source documents. There's no secret codes, there's no everybody's a white hat, gray hat, black hat. There's only what you can actually prove you've got to think for yourself. And violence is never going to be the way for us to keep our country in tact. You know, the using violence to offset an election or to get somebody to do what you want to do is not the right way to go about it. Vote, get out and run for office. Sign up for Viva fray and Robert Barnes is local page. I'm going to have a URL, I have a locals page. You're welcome to follow me there. I don't post that much stuff there. I'm about to start on some other alternative media websites. I am on Twitter. And of course we have all of the podcasts places that we want to be. I think my next podcast is going to be a book report. We're going to look at a Arthur that is I think he's kind of a populist, but he's also a historian. And he really likes looking at the fall of Rome and putting it into science fiction. And so I think in the next couple of podcasts, I'm reading one of his books right now and I want to go over it It is a expose on the media. And it is timely. He wrote it prior to the election, and but it does have a lot of stuff in it that probably, we should think about what these false flag operations that,

Thomas Talleyrand 50:20
you know, when I say false flag operations, I don't mean that the god dylann roof really wasn't a bad guy. What I mean here, what I mean is, is they put out public information that drives people to do bad things. And whether that's dylann roof who was just frustrated and wanted to hurt somebody, or it's the guy that attacked the the, the congressional baseball game, or baseball softball practice, and shot skull as it works both ways. You know, my recommended websites, YouTube channels are Rick, Rick ADA, they are Viva Frey. And his family's website also is really good. I don't know what the name of it is off the top of my brain here. But when I link to Viva in the transcript, it'll be he'll be he'll have it listed there. And also anything to do with Robert Barnes. The People's pundit daily is another great YouTube channel. And I suggest that you support them on locals also. And I guess until then, wear a mask if you want to, it's only wear in 95. Don't touch them, put them on, right. If you wear them in one place, don't wear them into another, they cost about $1 apiece, so no, they're kind of expensive. But that's just the cost of wearing a mask if you want it to actually work. use your best judgment on the injections. You know, my thing is, I'm probably going to get a get the shot. I'm not going to get one of the ones that has some parts in it that I don't approve of because I don't approve of using aborted baby fetuses. However, if you're going to allow that kind of thing, and like I told you in my first podcast, I am somewhat pro choice. At least something good comes down but that's something that the mother needs to consent to you and I don't believe mother's consent to that right now. In most states, so let's just see what's going on. Use common sense, is the number one thing and don't do anything violent. Thank you. I love you. God bless you.

View Details

Thomas Talleyrand 0:02
Hello, this is Thomas Talleyrand, and welcome to the PopulistCast

Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Episode 10 in Episode 9, we discussed the salesforce.com entry into the censorships base. And I just want to circle back to that to steal from our worst press secretary in the history of the United States. But I'm actually going to circle back to it, I want to make sure that you understand what I'm trying to say. Veritas because salesforce.com for no reason that I can think of other than outright bigotry and discrimination is being canceled from salesforce.com, they could have hundreds of 1000s of dollars. Same thing with RNC who most certainly does have six figures tied up in salesforce.com, plus another six figures that they're being forced to spend, certainly in the $10,000 range, that they're being forced to bend to find another provider. So it's not just the game they provide, find another provider, they also have to pay for the implementation of the new software. So it's an interruption to their business services. And it'll be interesting to see, I don't know that it's legal to sue them, because I'm pretty sure that they have a right to terminate, but, but it's something you had to factor into when you are interviewing prospective vendors when you put out a request for proposal. And prospective vendors are trying to woo your business, you need to start having it written into these contracts, exactly what they're going to do, how they're going to treat language, what the difference, what the definition of words are. I mean, when you have to get down to they have to change the definition from inciting violence to potentially might kind of will incite violence, you need to get that all ironed out and in your contracts. Because most of these contracts are contracts of adhesion. think that if you can't get somebody that you trust, you're going to have to negotiate a better contract. Or possibly, you're going to have to go back to paper and pencil for contact relationship management, or outlook, which a lot of people and small businesses are going to are going to do now. salesforce.com pictures itself is an enterprise platform, it prices itself as an enterprise platform, but it spends a ton of resources and money on trying to woo small businesses. Small businesses are less than 500 employees. So they're not that small. And they make up most of the employer, employees, and employers and opportunity for growth. For companies like salesforce.com, it's just they're not as profitable as an enterprise sale. If you can go into landing a T Mobile account, let's say just use them, you know, you might end up with 10s of 1000s of seats just on one installation, versus trying to get at 10 seats at a time. So you can see where the the scale, you can see where the scale can m pack down their profitability. However, they're going to have to pay out the same kind of sales commission, it's just less effort once they get the product up and running. Now, that's usually negotiated out in price. So they're gonna pay a lot less per seat for a large company, Coca Cola, many fortune 500 company that might decide to use a CRM, they're going to pay less per seat once they negotiate it down. And that's going to be to their economies of scale also. Now, what are we going to discuss today, we're going to discuss the parlor versus Amazon lawsuit. And we'll see where we go from there. I want to keep this one short, get it out. It's the start of spring break. And ladies and gentlemen, thank you to Greg Abbott, for having the common sense

Thomas Talleyrand 4:33
to go with what the data is showing us and the data is showing us that first of all, masks don't seem to be working as well as they had hoped. And also that people are going to wear masks in heavily populated areas because they just have a common sense. Hey, it might help. Like I discussed before, like I say at the end of my podcast if you're gonna wear a mask, And then 95 do not wear a cloth mask, okay? There's possibly some health problems with that. It might be better than nothing. But if you had to wear masks for a long period of time, you don't you want something that's pretty high grade, you don't want to be breathing in a lot of small particles of cloth or paper into your lungs, you don't know what that's gonna do is those degrade over time? There are some studies that show that it might, might cause cancer. So I don't think we need the government to tell us what to do. I think we're all grown people. That's why in March, I started wearing a mask. It kills me to go to the store. I have severe asthma. like I've discussed before. But thank you, Greg Abbott, for not making it a government mandate. I noticed that in my town, everybody still wears a mask in a grocery store. No one wants to get anybody sick peer pressure. And education would do much more than lying to us. And trying to Gaslight us. It's just that simple. People, you know, when you make it a government mandate, you're impinging on our civil rights. The government doesn't have these rights. And just because a quarter rolls of courts have so far ruled in their favor doesn't mean that's going to be the way that it ends up. And just because the court rules something doesn't mean that it's properly decided. We have no further to look back to the Jim Crow law days, the days of separate but equal and even before that. So here we are dealing with a masculist, Texas that still somewhat masking up our numbers will probably be exactly what they were to begin with. That gets me into the parlor lawsuit. Let me go find it so I can read it to you. Now, this is going to be in state court. They dismiss their federal complaint. They had to with that judge, she was obviously unqualified, biased. And you know, to me, she sounded like she is crazy. Her rulings were not very good. They weren't bounded in law. And black, Nick ricotta says they probably killed Amazon. Excuse me, they probably killed Palor. parlor. Seems dead to me too. Just like Nick says when you go on there. It seems like there's nobody there. There's no community anymore. However, I think that this lawsuit is much better written just like Nick ricotta says. And, you know, hopefully this will lead to large judgment against Amazon. And enough that Amazon will start to treat their contracts seriously. Nature, the action defendants amazon inc. And its subsidiary, Amazon Web Services are a commercial Goliath. It goes on to talk about what their net worth is. talks about how they help parlor had a rising app on all the markets, expect parlors going to sue some other companies as well. The big thing that they get into is that they were a huge concern for Twitter. And they were a huge concern for Facebook. They would also probably be a huge concern for Parler, excuse me for Google, as they start to get into having more resources. Where were they going to get more Reese's resources from? Well, pretty seriously.

Thomas Talleyrand 9:03
Or, well, we learned that parlor was looking at going public that they had a business valuation of over a billion dollars. And as we know, with these type of blue sky companies that are social media companies, they tend to blow up in value, with just a slight aside that they might eventually be able to turn some kind of profit. Twitter is a case study in this. So a Snapchat, YouTube was not that popular until they were taken over by Google. So you know, that's what everybody bets on. They bet on one of the big vendors purchasing Google or Microsoft are somebody coming in and purchasing the next software so that they can cash out. It's how the market works. It's why these things are probably with what's called Blue Sky, blue sky is the value of a company of its goodwill, good name and cash. Cash flow that is not necessarily part of its net asset value. Its net asset value being the actual value of its contracts, its liabilities, its liabilities, its assets, its customer base, and its cash flow. So parlour was going to be able to go public, and if they were to go public, their valuation was brought to me about a billion dollars. That was prior to the millions of new users that they got and getting up to number one, and and both of the app stores parlor was prevented from getting online. And there's a lot of things we'll skip the introduction and the venue arguments. Get into the facts. parlours platform is not like Amazon's Twitter's, or Facebook's Twitter and Facebook, gather data on our users and sell it. And these tech giants also employ targeted advertising by leveraging user data, something they can charge advertise users more for see Stigler center for the past girlies inside the excitement's. I'm going to put a link to this in there. This goes on to talk about how there's a difference and the advertising scheme. And that parlor is also different in the way that it serves up its content, which is one of the reasons I don't think they're ever going to recover from this. However, had they been left in place, they would have been fine. But because of their business model, they can't take getting kicked off of all the platforms, they can't take being dark for one minute, much less for a month. more discussion about the direct messaging different between impressions and views. parlors internal data show that users are on parlor about 22 to 28 minutes a day. On average, and that is multiple sessions. Thus when there are hundreds of comments on a parlay few people spend the time to read through all the comments. This is talking about the about the way that they distribute their data again. Now, one thing that they get into that Southland very interesting is that the day before. On January 8 2020, AWS announced it was terminating parlor services. One of the top trends on Twitter was hang Mike pets with over 1000 I'm sorry 14,000 tweets. Hang my pants trends on Twitter after platform suspense Trump or risk of incitement for violence box news. A Los Angeles Times article also covered it.

Thomas Talleyrand 13:20
Violence inciting material is also continued to circulate on Twitter after AWS pulls parlor parlors plug with such post. Receiving lied play. For instance, noted critic of President Trump Alec Baldwin tweeted recently that he had a dream The EX president was on trial for sedition and a noose awaited him outside the courthouse. See angry Mark Miller, Alec Baldwin tweets about drain. At the time a screenshot was taken up for a new story it had over 1000 likes. On January 20, the daughter of the late Iranian general and terrorist qasem soleimani, who was killed in a US missile strike ordered by President Trump tweeted a threat that Trump will live in fear of foes indefinitely. a screenshot taken within 24 hours showed nearly 5000 likes and 2000 people tweeting about it. This is amazing. The President of the United States has kicked off a Twitter but they leave up a terrorist supporter. The top of violent content on Twitter is not new. It's the same stuff in a lot of ways as they did before. Kathy Griffith also reposted her bloody head of President Trump and the recent lawsuit was filed against Twitter, Twitter alleging that it refused to take down widely shared pornographic images and videos of a teenage sex trafficking victim because its investigation didn't find any violation of the company's policies. After Multiple complaints were filed with Twitter and actor the material had racked up over 167,000 views and 2200 retweets. Twitter responded, we reviewed the content and didn't find it a violation of our policies. So no action will be taken at this time. That's a federal offense to obtain child pornography to host child pornography. But it's okay with Twitter to do so. It took a federal agent from the Department of Homeland Security to remove the material from Twitter. You know what, let me back up. This is teenage sex trafficking victim I do not know that that's an under aged victim. So maybe that's what they're hanging their head on. It took a federal agent from the Department of security to remove the material from Twitter. Well, this article says Twitter refused to remove child porn because it didn't violate policies. That's a New York Post article. Further, as is well documented, some groups use Twitter to threaten or harass media members, Andy No, no, is always harassed on there by an Tifa members. We never see Twitter doing anything about it. Amazon itself also hosts significant amounts of content that incite violence, particularly on its own online store. For example, Amazon allowed people on its site to buy a shirt that right that states kill all Republicans, a listing that was even sponsored by Amazon, or one could have bought an Amazon t shirt, with a graphic image of former President Trump blowing his brains out. Likewise, Amazon long sold anti Trump paraphernalia with the message. Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that we really need him? As Newsweek has pointed out, the neo nazi shirts worn by the proud boy supporters are sold on Amazon. Wow. At one time, Amazon allowed travelers to purchase Auschwitz themed towels, bottle openers or Christmas ornaments. Similarly, Amazon shoppers could buy Nazi propaganda such as anti semitic children's book, written by a member of the Nazi Party later executed for his crimes against humanity, or Hitler's mind cough. Me personally, I think that people ought to be able to read mine comp so that they can see what an evil person Hitler was. But still, that's why you have freedom of speech. In fact, so common is such material on Amazon that it has been condemned by the Council on American Islamic Relations for selling white supremacist material. Amazon defended selling such materials based on concerns about censorship, you can't make this crap up. And crime raiding crime rings have used Amazon to sell stolen goods. There's a North Texas fed site crime ring traveled us to steal retail goods and sell them on Amazon.

Thomas Talleyrand 18:14
I thought eBay was America's fence. Apparently Amazon is to that material being sold on Amazon that promotes violence is Legion. And while Amazon sometimes pulls some of this material, it is still up for some time often until someone out of Amazon brings it to Amazon's attention causing the Auschwitz Memorial Museum to comment that it appears people are taking upon themselves the job that Amazon should be doing. verifying the products that are uploaded there. Wow. That's pretty bad when the Auschwitz museum has to criticize you. That's for Amazon to accuse parlor for failing to police violent inciting material is worse than the pot calling the kettle black. It's a transparent subterfuge. This whole paragraph should have been in the original filing. You know that trigger judge might have realized that Amazon wasn't telling her the truth. Nor is Facebook immune. It knew it had problems with violent content on forums for like minded users called groups. And last August Facebook data scientist warned the company's executives that calls to violence are filling the majority of the platform's top civic groups. those groups are generally dedicated to politics and related issues and collectively reach hundreds of millions of users and enthusiasts that calls for violence every day filled 150 8000 member group. And in the weeks after the election, many large groups including some named in the August presentation, question the results of the vote organized protest about the results and helped indoctrinate the protest. That proceeded the riot. In fact, and a review of the charging documents of the 223 individuals under investigation by the Department of Justice for the January six riot, it was disclosed at 73 of those documents referenced Facebook, far more references than other social networks. What Google owned YouTube the second most direct referenced on 24 and Instagram, a Facebook owned company was next on 20. The data does strongly indicate Facebook was the rioters preferred platform and Facebook was known or has down its content moderation efforts were grossly inadequate for some time. Facebook's abject failure to police such content was confined in a 2020 survey by the anti defamation League, which discovered that the people who had suffered online hate and harassment 77 77% reported at least some of their harassment occurred on Facebook 27% reported experience are experiencing harassment or hate on twitter 8% on Google on YouTube, and 17%, on Instagram. Twitter is mostly a politically driven site. I mean, it started off as a great place to get news. It started off as an interesting place to talk about baseball or football with people that you knew. And then it grew into this. It's just filled with rage and hate at this point, mostly from the left, although people on the right are starting to get tired. Even I'm starting to get tired with people I told a lady that was arguing about the statistics on math mandates. That, you know, she's like, well, what did we learn from this argument and where you're showing us that they don't really seem to have any statistical need, you still ought to do it. I said, you know, what we've learned is that people, you know, like car are shallow thinkers, they only think about the first level of their first blush impression. I never think three things well, is there harm to people who have asthma, is there harm to people who have cancer, like the CDC website says, obviously, that could be a case and needs to be something that's at least accommodated for. If you know, I know when I wear a mask, my oxygen level can drop by as much as 10 points. One of the reasons that I am only able to go to the store maybe once in a day, sometimes it takes me the rest of the day to get over because of my respiratory system issues. So given the this is paragraph 35. Given the problems with

Thomas Talleyrand 23:04
violent content on Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter and other websites and apps, it's simply not accurate to suggest that parler had or has a disproportionately large problem with such content. Nor can AWS explanations for taking down parlor hold water. The stated reasons were pretextual designed to conceal AWS his true motives for canceling partner parlor, which were crushing economic competitor for both itself and a major client. See the AWS parlor relationship before January 8 of 2020 parlar contracted with AWS to provide cloud computing services parler needs for its apps and website to function on the internet. Further. Both the apps and the website were written to work with AWS technology as of January 8 2020. switching to a different service provider would require extensive work to migrate parlours platform meaning parlor would be offline for a financially devastating period. And AWS knew this. What is more, AWS sought this defendant relationship. It did so in part by repeatedly trying to sell parlor more services that would magnify parlours dependency on AWS making it hard to ever leave for another cloud service provider. In industry parlance, this is called vendor lock. This is one of the reasons that I discussed salesforce.com service. vendor lock is what every service providing businesses going to want to try to sell, or get their clients to achieve. So that it's just easier to do business with people you already have a good relationship with and you trust That's that's the whole idea. So you're violating that trust when you're making these arbitrary statements and arbitrary cancellations, like salesforce.com seems to be doing with rnc with Vera pass, and probably what some other people, you know, not that my business had anything to do with even raising money, much less being political, or social media would be concerned with being cut off or promoting violence, what it's the fact that they're looking at a contract and an arbitrary, one sided way, it's a contract of adhesion, you don't get a chance to negotiate it. And if you do start depending on them, what are they going to do? Just because the political winds go against you? Are you at car dealership chain, your car dealership chain, you deal with a lot of customers, you sign up with the CRM system, they decide that because the the dealerships that you represent don't have enough electronic vehicles, or electric vehicles, or hydrogen vehicles, or whatever solar powered vehicles, whatever is going on in the future, that they don't want to let you use their platform name anymore. In the meantime, you spent a decade with the company, buying them hundreds of 1000s of dollars, maybe even millions of dollars over the course of the 10 years that you've been with them. Plus, you've trained all of your employees on how to use it, to separate from them will it require you changing out the way that you do everything from interview a customer to do your accounting to pay your bills, to follow up on a customer if they bring a car in for service. And now you've got, you know, 70 $80,000 $100,000 and expenses to change plus the training for another $30,000 just for one of your 15 or 20 dealerships. So that's how this impacts people who are looking to do business that's just with dealerships. Maybe you're an insurance agency, maybe you're a real estate provider, they decide that they don't want to deal with real estate providers that are in the state of Texas, because Greg Abbott cancelled your mask mandate, it's got absolutely nothing to do with you. But they decided to renew you because you do not own the software, you're screwed, there's just no other way to say it, they're probably not gonna just cut you off in the middle of your contract, but it's your next renewal, which usually going to be only 12 months away, they're gonna cut you off. And if you've got a contract for longer than that, they're going to start to try to go after you for any little breach of service, any little term. So they're going to start analyzing anything any employee put into that system, even if they put in something as a joke. Even if they put in something, let's say that you're with salesforce.com,

Thomas Talleyrand 28:01
you have an employee sexually harass another employee, using their messaging system that they have for your employees. You obviously you're going to deal with that you fire the guy, but they say you didn't fire or the girl, I guess it could be both ways. They say you didn't do it quickly enough. And they use that for cars, because they're mad because Greg Abbott cat canceled the mask mandate. It's a slippery slope. I'm not saying that's for salesforce.com going, but it's what you have to prevent yourself from being exposed to chapter 38. From the very beginning of the contractual relationship between AWS and parlar AWS knew about parlours reactive methods for calling problematic content, as well as parlours community guidelines not once before January 9 2020. The de Ws express any concern that parlors policies and methods violated either the teeth, the AWS acceptable use policy, or the AWS customer agreement to the contrary, AWS actively led parler to believe that AWS considered parlours, policies and methods appropriate and consistent with AWS customer agreement 39 up until January 8 2020. Moreover, the relationship between parlour and AWS was a good one, with every indication it would continue into 2021 and beyond. For example, in September 2020 at AWS and parlour an email offering to finance parlor, as part of AWS is funding program for startups with high potential on November 10 2020. At AWS is invitation parlour CEO met with AWS representatives to explore the possibility of parlours long term engagement using AWS Excuse me AWS systems, more vendor lock, including a move to Amazon's proprietary database. This would require a great deal of investment and trust on parlours behalf, as it would have to specifically design portions of its software to work only with Amazon specific products. At that time, AWS knew there was a possibility that then President Trump might obtain a parlor account likely bringing with him a surge of followers to the parlor platform. What is more, around that time parlor had formed and formed AWS, that parlours initial test using AI to pre screen and appropriate content, including material that encouraged or incited violence or returning promising results? In mid December 2020, at the AWS representatives spoke with parlour representatives seeking to sell additional proprietary AWS services on which parlor might rely for its core functionality. Wow. All vendor lock core functionality. All these offers ridden with full knowledge of parlors existing systems for dealing with problematic content, something every social media platform has to deal with. So there's something in the law called waiver and estoppel. waiver and estoppel. I mean, AWS is way too there. This is the this is their argument from parlor, AWS, not only did they act inappropriately, how they also had waived portions of their contract. In the past, they have interpreted their contract in a certain way. And they so they should be stopped or unable to change the way that they word that contract or the way that they enforce that contract going forward. It's gonna that's always a hard one. They like waiver and estoppel with you know, people shoe and insurance companies, they're not that fond of it in these kind of relationships. However, this is the good fight portion that they're going to get to it and a little bit. AWS admitted to parler in an email on December 16th 2020, from an AWS technical account manager to parlors

Thomas Talleyrand 32:25
chief technical officer that the AWS manager used to receive more than a dozen report sick per hour per day for another customer and at Twitter's moving their timeline workload into AWS, which I can imagine will mean more abuse for Twitter to the AWS manager further stated that as far as any abuse reports regarding parlor were concerned, he was definitely in this journey with you to be sure AWS had from time to time sin parlor, problematic content, which parlor immediately investigated and resolved. The last such communication before January 6 2021, was on December 19 2020. As usual, parlor properly looked into the flag content, removing anything that might have been problematic. In addition, after that December 19 communication parlor took additional steps to facilitate any internally escalating problematic material, and parler continued testing a new AI based system that would screen problem problematic content before it was posted with plans to deploy the AI system in early 2021. On January 6 2021, AWS forwarded to parler a generic complaint about problematic content, but without any particular examples. That same day, parlours Chief Technology Officer responded, informing AWS that parler had been dealing appropriately with this content, including cooperating with law enforcement, and offer to get on a call to discuss the measure measures parler was taking. The next day January 7, AWS responded via email that the previous email was just for parlors information, and to consider the matter resolved. Thus before January 8 2020, parlor had no communication to the effect that AWS was considering parlor to have an ongoing problem. That parlours current and future plans for content moderation. Were deficient or the parlor was violating the user agreement. In fact, AWS had assured parlor precisely the opposite, inducing parlours ongoing reliance on AWS cloud services, giving all this I'm sorry, given all of this AWS is post hot claims. That booting parlor was a decision months in the making is false. See Ashley Stewart and Eugene Kim some Amazon employees are taking credit for parlors banned Business Insider. That's great article two. parlor is also a competitor of Twitter's and Facebook's. As all three provide a similar platform for users communicate with short messages, links and pictures. Like many social media platforms, parlours business model is not based on subscription fees parlours, also a competitor with Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and Google for internet advertising. In mid December 2020, AWS issued a press release announcing a new multi year deal with Twitter. Under the deal, AWS will provide global cloud infrastructure to deliver Twitter timelines. Paragraph 50. Twitter Moreover, will leverage AWS proven infrastructure and portfolio services to support delivery of millions of daily tweets. This isn't contrary to what they said in the federal lawsuit that AWS said that they wouldn't be handling tweets. This deal built on the company's more than a decade long collaboration where AWS continues to provide Twitter with storage compute, database and content delivery services to support its distribution of images, videos, and add content. What is more, together Twitter and AWS will create an architecture that extends Twitter's on premise infrastructure to enable them to seamlessly run and scale the real time service globally increased its reliability, and rapidly move new features into production around the world. But the one at the same time, parlor began to significantly increase its usership at the expense of Twitter and Facebook. After the election in November, the New York Times reported that millions have migrated to alternative social media and media sites like parlor. They have also thought that's the New York Times. In fact, less than a week after election day between November 3 and November 8 parlors app experienced nearly 1 million downloads.

Thomas Talleyrand 37:21
This resulted in parlor rocketing to the number one free app in the iOS store up from number 1023, just a week earlier. Likewise, in that same week, the parlor app went from 496th to first in Google Play rankings. Not surprisingly, the app was the 10th most downloaded social media app in 2020, with 8.1 million new installs for a lot of installs. Despite this increase in users, there is no evidence that parlor was used to coordinate the infamous attacks on the Capitol on January 6, in 2021 this trend, this is paragraph 52. Both continued and accelerated thanks to Twitter's and Facebook's announcement that they would permanently ban former President Trump from their platforms. As a result parlour saw installs increase in the United States by 355%. After Twitter's announcement conservative politicians and media figures began encouraging their followers to switch to parlor. They also chapter 53, speculation began to mouth that then President Trump would likewise move to parlour given the close to 90 million followers the President had on Twitter. This would be an astronomical boon to parlour and a heavy blow to Twitter. There is a huge study done that most of the error a large amount of the interactions on Twitter or related to Donald Trump over the last five years, and AWS official, who had known about the possibility that Trump might join parlor became increasingly inquisitive as to whether parlors CEO had heard whether that Trump would become an over and what would occur in the wake of Facebook and Twitter banning the former president. On Thursday morning January 7 2020. She asked parler CEO given Trump's exclusion from these other platforms, does he plan on joining parler on Friday morning, January 8 2021. She stated I see sean hannity said Trump has joined parlor. She then asked Is that true parlor CEO responded I believe Trump has an account, but it's not verified and incognito. Not certain to which the AWS representative responded no communication from his team. Not once did this AWS representative raise any concerns about problematic content on par? I want to stop right there. Nick croqueta on his site, points out some of that they might have been looking at this to know whether they were going to be able to sell more storage and more functionality or just needed to provide more functionality should Trump join parlour officially, I don't see it. As such a nice engagement, I see it as them testing the water to find out if Twitter was going to be negatively impacted by massac. So this and that it would really damage the Amazon Twitter relationship. You got to understand these companies are so symbiotic. They are parasitic, actually off of each other. It's kind of a weird relationship that they have, they all work with each other. They all decide with within each other's business relationship, how that they can monetize things together. But don't I'm not saying that. One person from each business unit gets on the phone and they conspire, saying that they work together in an effort theoretically to make things better for their customers. And it was working this way it's starting to not so given the context of parlours, flaming competitive threat to Twitter, as well as AWS, Google and Facebook, and given the fact that the Facebook and Twitter bans might not long muzzle the former President if he switched the parlor, potentially bringing 10s of millions of followers with him. AWS moved to shut down parlor shortly after Twitter announced it was banning then President Trump on January 8 of 2021, Google removed parlor from its google playstore a Google spokesperson falsely said that Google did so because of continued posting in the parlor app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US, which presents an ongoing and urgent public safety threat. This is false. This never happened. They go on to show how it didn't happen. did not happen.

Thomas Talleyrand 42:23
That is the other TechCrunch article. Banning parlour from google playstore was significant because the overwhelming majority of Android apps are found on that store. And the Google Play stores ban explanation was suspect that might cause enormous amounts of content inciting violence can be found on Facebook and Twitter. Yet Google did not remove these two apps from the Play Store. The next day, January 9 2021. At 6:07pm PST web news site, BuzzFeed posted an article with screenshots of a letter from AWS, the parlor informing parlor, that it service would be suspended at 1159 pacific standard time on Sunday, less than 30 hours later. This is the beginning of the end of parler. We're going to wrap it up right here for this episode. I'm going to start off at chapter 50. Or Yeah, paragraph 58. On page 20 of the lawsuit, we will link as always to the lawsuit and I will put up a rah rah transcript that I'll end up editing as time goes on. I want to roll out several more podcasts in the next few days. Hopefully, we can get right to them. If you are getting to enjoy spring break, have a good time Hope you're safe on your vacation to Texas or Florida because you're allowed to actually have a good time there. And you know, if you feel like it, wear a mask if you wear a mask wear and then 95 masks, be safe, put it on right Don't touch it. Don't wear it for more than an hour and social distance wash your hands. But never let the government to tell you to do any of that. The government does not have that authority. God bless you. We'll wrap this up on the next episode.

View Details

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/leaked-insider-tape-reveals-salesforces-plan-to-deplatform-broader-range-of/
https://babylonbee.com/news/in-an-effort-to-scare-all-the-californians-back-texas-removes-mask-mandate

episode-9

Fri, 3/5 · 8:08 PM

34:10
SUMMARY KEYWORDS

SPEAKERS
Thomas (100%)

Thomas Talleyrand