Judge refuses to reinstate Parler after Amazon shut it down
Here's the denial of the TRO:<p><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKgWZyCq/view" rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qhXD-4Kaw5dCEBv0dUM8buygEKg...</a><p>Parler hasn't lost the case, just a TRO that demands reinstatement on AWS, but the ruling on the TRO requires the judge to tip their hand about the case, and Parler is going to lose.<p>I don't think you even need to read the AWS AUP to know that Parler has no real case here. To buy Parler's contract claim, you'd have to believe that Amazon's lawyers are so stupid that they set out a TOS for the world's largest hosting provider that didn't give AWS the right to boot customers, which is something AWS --- really, every hosting provider --- has to do all the time. You almost have to not know anything about the hosting business to think there could be a case here.<p>But if you need to read a judge laughing Parler's claims off, well, now you can. Real "based" energy in excerpting the AWS AUP in their complaint and clipping it right before the clause that gives AWS the right to terminate service without notice to customers who violate their AUP. The judge, uh, noticed.<p>(As the judge points out, among the many problems with Parler's restraint of trade argument, there's the fact that AWS doesn't host Twitter's feed.)