in it’s complicated Department
I delayed writing deeper thoughts about Parler’s total platform, in part because there were so many other things going on (including some more timely posts about the Parler process about it), but more importantly, because for years I’ve been asking people to think more deeply about moderating content at the infrastructure layer, rather than at the edge. Because these problems are much more complicated than the usual content moderation debates.
And, again, I will make the mistake of offering a nuanced argument on the internet. I recommend that you read this entire post, resist any automatic response and consider the bigger questions. In fact, when I started to write this post, I thought I would argue that the plays against Parler, while legal, were actually a mistake and something to worry about. But as I explored the arguments, I just couldn’t justify any of them. After the inspection, they all came apart. So I think I’m going to go back to my initial position that companies are free to make decisions here. There should be concern, however, when regulators and legislators start talking about moderating content at the infrastructure layer.
The “too long, I didn’t read” version of this argument (and again, try to understand the nuance) is that, although Parler is currently down, it is not due to a single company having complete control over the market. Over there it is alternatives. And while it seems that Parler is having a hard time finding any alternative to work with it, that is the nature of a free market. If you are so toxic that companies don’t want to do business with you, it depends on you. They do not.
It is possible to feel somewhat at odds with this. I initially felt uncomfortable with Amazon removing Parler from AWS hosting, effectively shutting down the service, and with Apple removing its app from the app store, effectively preventing it from iPhones. In both cases, they looked like very large weapons that were not narrow targets. I went Any less concerned about similar removal from Google, because that didn’t stop Parler from Android phones, since you don’t need to go through Google to get on an Android phone. But (and this is important) I think that all three movements are clearly legal and reasonable measures for companies to take. As I explored each issue, I kept coming back to a simple point: the problems Parler is currently facing are due to your own actions and the companies’ reluctance to join such a toxic operation. This is the free market.
If Parler’s situation was caused by government pressure or because there was no other option for the company, I would be much more concerned. But it doesn’t seem to be the case.
The Internet infrastructure stack is represented in different ways and there is no definitive model. But an easy way to think about it is that there are “advanced” providers – the sites you interact with directly – and there’s everything underneath them: the content delivery networks (CDNs) that help route traffic, companies / hosting data centers / cloud providers that host real content, broadband / network / access providers and domain registrars and registrars that help deal with naming and routing configuration. And there are also many other participants, some (like advertising and certain communication providers) with elements at the edge and deeper elements in the stack.
But it is important to understand the level of granularity with which different players can moderate and the overall impact that their moderation can have. It is one thing for Twitter to remove a tweet. Another thing is Comcast saying “you can’t access the internet at all”. The consequences of moderation become much more serious the deeper you go in the pile. In that case, the only real AWS option for Parler was to remove the entire service, because he could not target only the problematic content (of which there were many). As for app stores, it is a complicated issue. Are app stores infrastructure or edge? They may be a little bit of both, but they had the same limited options: remove the app entirely or leave it with all the content intact.
For many years, we’ve talked about the risks of saying that the deepest players in the infrastructure stack should be responsible for moderating content. I was concerned, in 2014, when there was talk of holding domain registrars accountable if the domains they registered were used for sites that broke the law. There have been some efforts to hold these players accountable as if they were the real offenders, and this obviously creates all kinds of problems, especially at the 1st Amendment level. As you progress through the stack, the moderation options look less like scalpels and more like mallets that remove entire sites from existence.
Almost exactly a decade ago, in a situation that has some parallels with what is happening now, I highlighted concerns about Amazon deciding to deplete Wikileaks in response to furious demands from then-senator Joe Lieberman. I found this highly problematic and probably unconstitutional – although Wikileaks, with no presence in the United States, had little power to challenge at the time. My concern was less with Amazon’s decision and more with Lieberman’s pressure.
But it is important to return to the first principles when thinking about these issues. It’s pretty clear that companies like Amazon, Apple and Google have a legal right to remove services they don’t want to join, and there are a number of reasons why people and companies may not want to join Parler. But many people are concerned about the downturns based on the idea that Parler may be “totally” off the platform and that a company saying “we don’t want you here” could leave them with no other option. This is not so much a matter of content moderation as it is competition.
If it’s a question of competition, I also don’t see why Amazon’s decision is really an issue. AWS has only 32% market share. There are many other options – including Oracle’s Trump-friendly cloud services, which show how easy it is to switch from AWS on your own website. Oracle’s cloud already hosts Zoom (and now TikTok’s services in the US). There is no reason why they cannot host Parler. *
But, at least according to Parler, he has struggled to find an alternative that will host him. And on that front it is difficult to feel sympathy. Any company needs to build relationships with other companies to survive, and if no other company wants to work with you, you can close the door. Owners may not want to rent to troubled tenants. Fashion houses may choose not to buy from factories with exploitative work practices. Companies police each other’s business practices all the time, and if you’re so toxic that no one wants to touch you … at some point, maybe that’s your fault, Parler.
The situation with Apple and Google is a little different and, again, there are many nuances to consider. With Apple, of course, it is controlling access to its own hardware, the iPhone. And there is a reasonable argument that Apple offers the full package, and part of that deal is that you can only add apps through your app store. Apple has long argued that it does this to keep the phone safe, although it may also raise some anti-competitive concerns. But Apple has banned many applications in the past (including competitor Parler Gab). And that is part of the nature of iPhone ownership. And really, there is a way around the Apple app store: you can still create web apps that will work on iOS without going through the store. This limits functionality and the ability to access the iPhone more deeply for certain features, but these are the tradeoffs.
With Google, it looks like there should be even less concern. Parler not only functioned as a web application, Google does allow you to sideload apps without using the Google Play Store. Therefore, the limitation was simply that Google did not want the application your own store. In fact, before Amazon took down the whole Parler, the company was promoting its own sideload APK on Android phones.
In the end, it is difficult to argue that this is as worrying as my initial instinctive reaction said. I am still concerned with moderating content when it reaches the infrastructure layer. I am very concerned that people are not thinking about the type of governance issues raised by these hammer and non-scalpel decisions. But when exploring each of the Parler-related issues specifically, it is difficult to find something to worry about directly. There are mainly alternatives available for Parler. And in the one area that apparently doesn’t exist (cloud hosting), it appears to be less because AWS has market power and more because many companies just don’t want to partner with Parler.
And that’s basically the free market telling Parler to act together.
* Note that AWS customers can easily migrate to Oracle Cloud just because Oracle copied the AWS API without permission, which, according to their own lawyers, is a copyright infringement. Never expect that Oracle is not a hypocrite.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to spread quality content to our community.
Techdirt is one of the few truly independent media remaining. We don’t have a giant company behind us and we rely heavily on our community to support us, at a time when advertisers are increasingly disinterested in sponsoring small, independent sites – especially a site like ours, which doesn’t want to make detours in their reporting and analysis.
While other sites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements and increasingly irritating / intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But to continue doing this, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and legal merchandise – and every little help. Thanks.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed under: app stores, aws, cloud computing, content moderation, deplatforming, infrastructure, network stack, play store
Companies: amazon, apple, google, parler