9 ms·

Does saying “Fuck You AWS” constitute offensive content?

100 points by jmdeon 6y ago

dangus 6y ago
I think the author is taking the legalese too seriously and reading too far into the phrase “otherwise objectionable.” This is just a standard abuse TOS. Yes, “otherwise objectionable” casts a wide net, but I think in the legal understanding of the sentence it’s supposed to refer to “similarly egregious things that a judge would agree were in this same relative severity of abusive content.” A judge wouldn’t simply allow “otherwise objectionable” to mean “literally anything.” I would also point out that if you host abusive/illegal content on your own PC your ISP can shut you down just the same.
- IanGabes 6y ago
  I think the legalese should be taken seriously! For instance, we can draw a comparison to recent controversy with social media platforms. Do you think that social media platforms should be able to remove any content on their platform, regardless of legality? I believe that they can! Otherwise objectionable is hopefully that catch all. I view the OP as a bit of a misguided test. The blog post, in all likelihood, will remain up. The control the authour speaks of will still remain in the cloud provider's hands.
  - millennialist 6y ago
    Not only do I believe that social media websites should be able to remove content arbitrarily, but that they ought to remove as much content as they can arbitrarily as possible. this, combined with new government regulation such as EARN IT will make it as difficult and frustrating as possible to communicate on the web, and this will help people move from worse, censorship-prone forms of communication to more robust forms of communication on the internet.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    If you're going to take "legalese" seriously, what you need to take seriously is what it means, which is often slightly different from what it appears to say to a non-lawyer.
- stordoff 6y ago
  > A judge wouldn’t simply allow “otherwise objectionable” to mean “literally anything.” Only matters to a limited degree when read in the context of: > The examples described in this Policy are not exhaustive. We may modify this Policy at any time by posting a revised version on the AWS Site. By using the Services or accessing the AWS Site, you agree to the latest version of this Policy. If Amazon object to it, even if it isn't 'similarly objectionable', they can adjust their AUP to take it down.
zelly 6y ago
S3 is nice but it's really the wrong tool for the job here. The problem with hosting a site on S3 is there's no way to use TLS. "You don't need TLS for a static site" blow me
- mcspiff 6y ago
  Put CloudFront in front?
- zokier 6y ago
  > The problem with hosting a site on S3 is there's no way to use TLS. The standard solution for having TLS on sites hosted on S3 is to use CloudFront.
  - cs02rm0 6y ago
    The standard solution for any issue on AWS is to add another service.
    - john-shaffer 6y ago
      Separation of concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns I, for one, greatly appreciate having CDN features cleanly separated from object storage. It makes sense, since they are completely different things.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      The standard solution for any issue on Unix is to pipe the output to another service but very few people complain about POSIX.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        Because they aren't incrementally charged for each one in according to an arcane and opaque costing schedule.
cft 6y ago
These are rules specifically written for selective enforcement on case by case basis.
- cheez 6y ago
  Thats it, move on
phren0logy 6y ago
Is there a reason to say "Fuck You AWS" other than to cause offense? It's certainly devoid of any meaningful criticism.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Well, he'd want to say that after they had nuked his page ;)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sascha_sl 6y ago
No, this will not be removed. Just like "we might kick you for any reason or without reason" is not a clause you can test-violate. This specifically sounds like the clause you'd use to kick sites like The Daily Stormer out that are just universally despised and put a large amount of political pressure on whoever enables them, no matter if they're just a "neutral transit provider" or not.
teh_klev 6y ago
I ultimately got booted off twitter for a tweet that said: "Dear @AmazonUK AI, please kill yourself now". This clearly wasn't aimed at a human but their Artificial Intelligence. Attached to the tweet (to provide the tweet with some context) was a screenshot of it recommending a whole bunch of those Hello and Chat type B-list celeb trash gossip mags. Items I swear I have never browsed for on Amazon, let alone a newspaper. I was reported, possibly by @AmazonUK, or detected by Twitter's own idiot AI for "promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm". FFS. Despite my attempts to appeal I gave up. It counted towards my three strikes (one was a Frankie Boyle kinda joke about why no-one had had a pop at trump with a gun, buggered if I can remember the other, I think I may have used the "c" word). Turns out I need to tailor things I say, that wouldn't be considered offensive in a Scottish pub, to Twitter's puritanical view of the world. But it's their shitshow and @jack can go fuck himself. Edit: just to be clear, I've never encouraged anyone to kill themselves or "die in a fire". The Trump tweet was clearly a bad joke and in no way could be construed as encouraging anyone to try and assassinate the US President, nor anyone else. The "c" word was not aimed at anyone in particular other than the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, who're pretty much considered fair game in Scotland.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  I was with you every step of the way until you lamented the puritanical rules. Your original example was indeed a dumb misunderstanding on their part. However, if you had addressed a real person that way, the reaction would not be puritanical. The other two cases sound potentially reasonable too.
- VectorLock 6y ago
  It might have been less self-harm promoting and more conceptually correct to tell the AI to delete itself, instead.
- somishere 6y ago
  to be fair, unless you're proletizing coe, there's not much considered offensive in a scottish pub
- freehunter 6y ago
gioscarab 6y ago
I vote for pi hosting :)
paulpauper 6y ago
Amazon is pretty lenient. You have to screw up really badly to lose your AWS account . I have noticed this it be the case for almost all cloud-based hosting services except of of course dropbox.
jascii 6y ago
"If this post gets removed then I know I have not fully achieved my ownership goal and it might be time to just host on a pi." If the post does not get removed you do NOT know that you have fully achieved ownership. The simple fact that that clause exists means you do not have full ownership. Hosting on a pi might not make much difference as most ISP's have similar clauses in their EUP's. The only way to come close to "full ownership" I can think of would be by either owning the entire stack to the reader or maybe some encrypted p2p system. Does anyone have any practical suggestions?
- swiley 6y ago
  Yes, put it on TOR. Even non TOR users will be able to see it since there are multiple gateways and if those are blocked people can always use tor themselves. It’s pretty underrated, especially if you don’t have a public IP. Also using TOR helps people in dangerous situations.
  - mirimir 6y ago
    Yes, Tor onion sites are indeed an excellent option. And as noted elsewhere, you don't even need a public IP address. However, using Tor2web proxies is very risky, because proxy operators can see and modify traffic.
    - swiley 6y ago
      If it’s something important you might consider signing your content with pgp before posting it.
      - captn3m0 6y ago
        Would the W3C signed exchange spec work for this?
      - mirimir 6y ago
        In my experience, that's harder to do than you might expect. Some years ago, I found some unmaintained software that worked for signing html. But I didn't find anything to verify signed pages. Just an old Firefox extension that no longer works. Please do share if I've missed useful apps.
CivBase 6y ago
All content is "objectionable" depending on the audience. We just have to trust our new Amazon overlords. I like AWS and the general concept of cloud computing, but I'm extremely concerned about how difficult it appears to be to transition from one solution to another. As someone working on an AWS app, I'm worried about the possible day where my employer announces that we're moving everything to Azure or some other platform. The lack of compatibility between cloud computing platforms makes it difficult to switch when issues like this come up. I suspect in most cases, it's just more economical to stick with the current provider and hope you aren't impacted in the future. Because of that, I doubt providers like Amazon see much immediate impact from things like this.
- simple_phrases 6y ago
  These are the reasons that I refuse to build any of my projects on some cloud provider's special snowflake solutions.
  - tlrobinson 6y ago
    You mean this? https://aws.amazon.com/solutionspace/financial-services/solutions/snowflake-data-warehouse/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutionspace/financial-services/solu...
    - edoceo 6y ago
      I think they mean custom/managed+locked-in solution. EG: I can move HA PG to any provider but if I build around RDS specific tooling I'm boxed in and any migrations are OOM harder.
    - simple_phrases 6y ago
      Haha, no I didn't mean that service in particular. I was using 'special snowflake solution' as a derogatory term for the branded and managed services that cloud providers sell.
      - tlrobinson 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pnw_hazor 6y ago
Doesn't matter: "The examples described in this Policy are not exhaustive. We may modify this Policy at any time by posting a revised version on the AWS Site. By using the Services or accessing the AWS Site, you agree to the latest version of this Policy." Everyone uses AWS at the complete discretion of Amazon.
- distrill 6y ago
  > Everyone uses AWS at the complete discretion of Amazon Isn't this totally obvious? What might be more interesting to note, and what the author is testing for, is if/when these cloud providers change the rules of their discretion often or abruptly. But of course we're all at the mercy of these private companies when we run on their hardware.
  - Animats 6y ago
    Which is an argument for "common carrier" type regulation. Railroads once had a similar monopoly position. They could refuse to carry items from one shipper to favor another. In the US they have an obligation to provide "reasonable service for a reasonable rate upon a reasonable request from a shipper".[1] There's long history around this, and it may be time to apply it to some Internet services. [1] https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/RailroadsCommonCarrierObligation.pdf https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Railroads...
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    > Isn't this totally obvious? Without looking at contracts, no.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    There is no line that can be tested. There is no common law or due process here. Tech platforms operate by fiat. I take that back a bit, there is a line, but it is measured in money not principles.
mcs_ 6y ago
Half of the spam I'm receiving comes from Amazom web services. > I am Mark Ben John Bill. from FBI unit,i have been instructed by the FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, to inform you that out of our thorough investigation lately , we found out that one of the abandoned valid Packages such as ATM Cards And Consignment Boxes by diplomatic agents who complained that the beneficiaries failed to pay for the anti terrorist clearance certificate to guide and show that the fund is no way related to fraud or drug money,with the information we have here , we found out that one of the funds belongs to you and it worth the sum of $10.5 million US Dollars. So, IMO, Fuck you AWS, I'm rich now!
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  Why do you say this comes from AWS?
  - teh_klev 6y ago
    Likely spam originating from AWS IP addresses.
    - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
      AWS IP addresses are blacklisted by most email providers...
      - teh_klev 6y ago
        I'm not sure that's true, I've successfully dispatched SMTP mail from their platform without it getting blocked or tagged as spam.
        all_blue_chucks 6y ago
        You can send using SES or SNS but if you send from your own EC2 instance you are gonna have a bad time.
        mcs_ 6y ago
tlrobinson 6y ago
This reminds me of Douglas Crockford's classic story about the JSLint license containing a "The software shall be used for Good, not Evil" clause: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA
aronpye 6y ago
Unless and until we start regulating cloud providers and social media companies as utilities then these issues will continue to present themselves.
all_blue_chucks 6y ago
Are there any hosting providers that claim the opposite? Who has a ToS that specifically allows the items in AWS prohibits?
atlgator 6y ago
Wear that on a t-shirt at AWS Reinvent and see what happens.
copperx 6y ago
The author should AB test two pages on different accounts: one insulting AWS and the other Bezos.
femto113 6y ago
There's certainly no shortage of "fucks" already on S3, so I'm guessing AWS doesn't give any about them. https://buckets.grayhatwarfare.com/results/fuck/ https://buckets.grayhatwarfare.com/results/fuck/
SamWhited 6y ago
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. My understanding is that when interpreting the law and legal documents like a ToS or EULA things within a list are interpreted to be related to one another. So objectionable" doesn't literally mean anything anyone finds objectionable ever in perpetuity throughout the universe, it means "this list is not comprehensive, other things like the things in this list count". If you added 'saying fuck AWS' to the rest of that list would it make sense in context? The answer is pretty clearly 'no', so that would not be covered. And before someone says "well some people probably thing swearing is as bad as the other things in that list", the law also frequently defines things like this in terms of what a "reasonable" person would think. There is wiggle room, but for things where it's easy to get general consensus, not a lot. Again, not a lawyer, grain of salt, all that.
dijit 6y ago
Well; speaking candidly: I once called one of our internal datacenters "trash" (for not meeting specifications, having no local support, overloaded switches and inconsistent hardware platforms) and I got a written warning for it. So, yes. I would say it constitutes offensive content.
- gruez 6y ago
  Isn't this totally unrelated? In your case it was your employer reprimanding you for your performance on the job. In OP's case it's him acting in his own capacity.
  - dijit 6y ago
    You're right of course, but we're treating developers (and developer spaces) as being professional settings. Gone are the "underground hacker" days, as Antirez put it, so I think it applies.
- mustardo 6y ago
  Wow, did you quit? Id have
QuinnyPig 6y ago
I was wondering if they'd try something like that for https://www.lastweekinaws.com--it's https://www.lastweekinaws.com--it's critical of them, and they've had a few angles over the years to go after it (trademark, suspending the domain, etc). Years into the experiment I can safely say that their tolerance for criticism extends far beyond what I'm willing to test out, as I am not a human dumpster goblin.
jquast 6y ago
I made fourteen requests over sixteen days to delete my amazon.com account. I followed up and re-submitted almost every day. Each time I was told to wait 24-48 hrs and someone would contact me to complete the process, and I would follow up 24 hours later to repeat the process over again when nobody contacted me. When I finally gave up, Something like a week of 1+ hour/day chats, I deleted all of the information I had control over (address, CC’s, etc) to “anonymize” it at the very least. I then had a very juvenile idea to change my preferred first name to “FUCK” and lastname to “AMAZON” and made one last request. Customer support deleted my account within the hour, no multi-step process, no “customer support specialist will contact you in 24-48hrs”, just an immediate deletion. Finally!!! I’ve also learned a good lesson — delete any new online account after you create it, before conducting business. if it isn’t easy to do, then don’t use the service. Otherwise, create another. Most sites are just a button, or a chat request, but Amazon was very ridiculous, (equal to airbnb, which required me to send a photograph of myself and my DL, and then replied to say I have to wait another 90 days and do it again?!)
- oliwarner 6y ago
  I think what we've learned is that if you start a new support ticket about the same thing, the old one gets ignored.
einpoklum 6y ago
Of course it does, it mentions Amazon, and that's quite offensive.

100 points by jmdeon 6y ago

I think the author is taking the legalese too seriously and reading too far into the phrase “otherwise objectionable.” This is just a standard abuse TOS. Yes, “otherwise objectionable” casts a wide net, but I think in the legal understanding of the sentence it’s supposed to refer to “similarly egregious things that a judge would agree were in this same relative severity of abusive content.” A judge wouldn’t simply allow “otherwise objectionable” to mean “literally anything.” I would also point out that if you host abusive/illegal content on your own PC your ISP can shut you down just the same.

IanGabes 6y ago
I think the legalese should be taken seriously! For instance, we can draw a comparison to recent controversy with social media platforms. Do you think that social media platforms should be able to remove any content on their platform, regardless of legality? I believe that they can! Otherwise objectionable is hopefully that catch all. I view the OP as a bit of a misguided test. The blog post, in all likelihood, will remain up. The control the authour speaks of will still remain in the cloud provider's hands.
- millennialist 6y ago
  Not only do I believe that social media websites should be able to remove content arbitrarily, but that they ought to remove as much content as they can arbitrarily as possible. this, combined with new government regulation such as EARN IT will make it as difficult and frustrating as possible to communicate on the web, and this will help people move from worse, censorship-prone forms of communication to more robust forms of communication on the internet.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  If you're going to take "legalese" seriously, what you need to take seriously is what it means, which is often slightly different from what it appears to say to a non-lawyer.
stordoff 6y ago
> A judge wouldn’t simply allow “otherwise objectionable” to mean “literally anything.” Only matters to a limited degree when read in the context of: > The examples described in this Policy are not exhaustive. We may modify this Policy at any time by posting a revised version on the AWS Site. By using the Services or accessing the AWS Site, you agree to the latest version of this Policy. If Amazon object to it, even if it isn't 'similarly objectionable', they can adjust their AUP to take it down.

zelly 6y ago

S3 is nice but it's really the wrong tool for the job here. The problem with hosting a site on S3 is there's no way to use TLS. "You don't need TLS for a static site" blow me

mcspiff 6y ago
Put CloudFront in front?
zokier 6y ago
> The problem with hosting a site on S3 is there's no way to use TLS. The standard solution for having TLS on sites hosted on S3 is to use CloudFront.
- cs02rm0 6y ago
  The standard solution for any issue on AWS is to add another service.
  - john-shaffer 6y ago
    Separation of concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns I, for one, greatly appreciate having CDN features cleanly separated from object storage. It makes sense, since they are completely different things.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    The standard solution for any issue on Unix is to pipe the output to another service but very few people complain about POSIX.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      Because they aren't incrementally charged for each one in according to an arcane and opaque costing schedule.

cft 6y ago

These are rules specifically written for selective enforcement on case by case basis.

cheez 6y ago
Thats it, move on

phren0logy 6y ago

Is there a reason to say "Fuck You AWS" other than to cause offense? It's certainly devoid of any meaningful criticism.

mirimir 6y ago
Well, he'd want to say that after they had nuked his page ;)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sascha_sl 6y ago

No, this will not be removed. Just like "we might kick you for any reason or without reason" is not a clause you can test-violate. This specifically sounds like the clause you'd use to kick sites like The Daily Stormer out that are just universally despised and put a large amount of political pressure on whoever enables them, no matter if they're just a "neutral transit provider" or not.

teh_klev 6y ago

I ultimately got booted off twitter for a tweet that said: "Dear @AmazonUK AI, please kill yourself now". This clearly wasn't aimed at a human but their Artificial Intelligence. Attached to the tweet (to provide the tweet with some context) was a screenshot of it recommending a whole bunch of those Hello and Chat type B-list celeb trash gossip mags. Items I swear I have never browsed for on Amazon, let alone a newspaper. I was reported, possibly by @AmazonUK, or detected by Twitter's own idiot AI for "promoting or encouraging suicide or self-harm". FFS. Despite my attempts to appeal I gave up. It counted towards my three strikes (one was a Frankie Boyle kinda joke about why no-one had had a pop at trump with a gun, buggered if I can remember the other, I think I may have used the "c" word). Turns out I need to tailor things I say, that wouldn't be considered offensive in a Scottish pub, to Twitter's puritanical view of the world. But it's their shitshow and @jack can go fuck himself. Edit: just to be clear, I've never encouraged anyone to kill themselves or "die in a fire". The Trump tweet was clearly a bad joke and in no way could be construed as encouraging anyone to try and assassinate the US President, nor anyone else. The "c" word was not aimed at anyone in particular other than the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, who're pretty much considered fair game in Scotland.

happytoexplain 6y ago
I was with you every step of the way until you lamented the puritanical rules. Your original example was indeed a dumb misunderstanding on their part. However, if you had addressed a real person that way, the reaction would not be puritanical. The other two cases sound potentially reasonable too.
VectorLock 6y ago
It might have been less self-harm promoting and more conceptually correct to tell the AI to delete itself, instead.
somishere 6y ago
to be fair, unless you're proletizing coe, there's not much considered offensive in a scottish pub
freehunter 6y ago

gioscarab 6y ago

I vote for pi hosting :)

paulpauper 6y ago

Amazon is pretty lenient. You have to screw up really badly to lose your AWS account . I have noticed this it be the case for almost all cloud-based hosting services except of of course dropbox.

jascii 6y ago

"If this post gets removed then I know I have not fully achieved my ownership goal and it might be time to just host on a pi." If the post does not get removed you do NOT know that you have fully achieved ownership. The simple fact that that clause exists means you do not have full ownership. Hosting on a pi might not make much difference as most ISP's have similar clauses in their EUP's. The only way to come close to "full ownership" I can think of would be by either owning the entire stack to the reader or maybe some encrypted p2p system. Does anyone have any practical suggestions?

swiley 6y ago
Yes, put it on TOR. Even non TOR users will be able to see it since there are multiple gateways and if those are blocked people can always use tor themselves. It’s pretty underrated, especially if you don’t have a public IP. Also using TOR helps people in dangerous situations.
- mirimir 6y ago
  Yes, Tor onion sites are indeed an excellent option. And as noted elsewhere, you don't even need a public IP address. However, using Tor2web proxies is very risky, because proxy operators can see and modify traffic.
  - swiley 6y ago
    If it’s something important you might consider signing your content with pgp before posting it.
    - captn3m0 6y ago
      Would the W3C signed exchange spec work for this?
    - mirimir 6y ago
      In my experience, that's harder to do than you might expect. Some years ago, I found some unmaintained software that worked for signing html. But I didn't find anything to verify signed pages. Just an old Firefox extension that no longer works. Please do share if I've missed useful apps.

CivBase 6y ago

All content is "objectionable" depending on the audience. We just have to trust our new Amazon overlords. I like AWS and the general concept of cloud computing, but I'm extremely concerned about how difficult it appears to be to transition from one solution to another. As someone working on an AWS app, I'm worried about the possible day where my employer announces that we're moving everything to Azure or some other platform. The lack of compatibility between cloud computing platforms makes it difficult to switch when issues like this come up. I suspect in most cases, it's just more economical to stick with the current provider and hope you aren't impacted in the future. Because of that, I doubt providers like Amazon see much immediate impact from things like this.

simple_phrases 6y ago
These are the reasons that I refuse to build any of my projects on some cloud provider's special snowflake solutions.
- tlrobinson 6y ago
  You mean this? https://aws.amazon.com/solutionspace/financial-services/solutions/snowflake-data-warehouse/ https://aws.amazon.com/solutionspace/financial-services/solu...
  - edoceo 6y ago
    I think they mean custom/managed+locked-in solution. EG: I can move HA PG to any provider but if I build around RDS specific tooling I'm boxed in and any migrations are OOM harder.
  - simple_phrases 6y ago
    Haha, no I didn't mean that service in particular. I was using 'special snowflake solution' as a derogatory term for the branded and managed services that cloud providers sell.
    - tlrobinson 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pnw_hazor 6y ago

Doesn't matter: "The examples described in this Policy are not exhaustive. We may modify this Policy at any time by posting a revised version on the AWS Site. By using the Services or accessing the AWS Site, you agree to the latest version of this Policy." Everyone uses AWS at the complete discretion of Amazon.

distrill 6y ago
> Everyone uses AWS at the complete discretion of Amazon Isn't this totally obvious? What might be more interesting to note, and what the author is testing for, is if/when these cloud providers change the rules of their discretion often or abruptly. But of course we're all at the mercy of these private companies when we run on their hardware.
- Animats 6y ago
  Which is an argument for "common carrier" type regulation. Railroads once had a similar monopoly position. They could refuse to carry items from one shipper to favor another. In the US they have an obligation to provide "reasonable service for a reasonable rate upon a reasonable request from a shipper".[1] There's long history around this, and it may be time to apply it to some Internet services. [1] https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/RailroadsCommonCarrierObligation.pdf https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Railroads...
- cryptonector 6y ago
  > Isn't this totally obvious? Without looking at contracts, no.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  There is no line that can be tested. There is no common law or due process here. Tech platforms operate by fiat. I take that back a bit, there is a line, but it is measured in money not principles.

mcs_ 6y ago

Half of the spam I'm receiving comes from Amazom web services. > I am Mark Ben John Bill. from FBI unit,i have been instructed by the FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, to inform you that out of our thorough investigation lately , we found out that one of the abandoned valid Packages such as ATM Cards And Consignment Boxes by diplomatic agents who complained that the beneficiaries failed to pay for the anti terrorist clearance certificate to guide and show that the fund is no way related to fraud or drug money,with the information we have here , we found out that one of the funds belongs to you and it worth the sum of $10.5 million US Dollars. So, IMO, Fuck you AWS, I'm rich now!

all_blue_chucks 6y ago
Why do you say this comes from AWS?
- teh_klev 6y ago
  Likely spam originating from AWS IP addresses.
  - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
    AWS IP addresses are blacklisted by most email providers...
    - teh_klev 6y ago
      I'm not sure that's true, I've successfully dispatched SMTP mail from their platform without it getting blocked or tagged as spam.
      - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
        You can send using SES or SNS but if you send from your own EC2 instance you are gonna have a bad time.
      - mcs_ 6y ago

tlrobinson 6y ago

This reminds me of Douglas Crockford's classic story about the JSLint license containing a "The software shall be used for Good, not Evil" clause: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA

aronpye 6y ago

Unless and until we start regulating cloud providers and social media companies as utilities then these issues will continue to present themselves.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago

Are there any hosting providers that claim the opposite? Who has a ToS that specifically allows the items in AWS prohibits?

atlgator 6y ago

Wear that on a t-shirt at AWS Reinvent and see what happens.

copperx 6y ago

The author should AB test two pages on different accounts: one insulting AWS and the other Bezos.

femto113 6y ago

There's certainly no shortage of "fucks" already on S3, so I'm guessing AWS doesn't give any about them. https://buckets.grayhatwarfare.com/results/fuck/ https://buckets.grayhatwarfare.com/results/fuck/

SamWhited 6y ago

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. My understanding is that when interpreting the law and legal documents like a ToS or EULA things within a list are interpreted to be related to one another. So objectionable" doesn't literally mean anything anyone finds objectionable ever in perpetuity throughout the universe, it means "this list is not comprehensive, other things like the things in this list count". If you added 'saying fuck AWS' to the rest of that list would it make sense in context? The answer is pretty clearly 'no', so that would not be covered. And before someone says "well some people probably thing swearing is as bad as the other things in that list", the law also frequently defines things like this in terms of what a "reasonable" person would think. There is wiggle room, but for things where it's easy to get general consensus, not a lot. Again, not a lawyer, grain of salt, all that.

dijit 6y ago

Well; speaking candidly: I once called one of our internal datacenters "trash" (for not meeting specifications, having no local support, overloaded switches and inconsistent hardware platforms) and I got a written warning for it. So, yes. I would say it constitutes offensive content.

gruez 6y ago
Isn't this totally unrelated? In your case it was your employer reprimanding you for your performance on the job. In OP's case it's him acting in his own capacity.
- dijit 6y ago
  You're right of course, but we're treating developers (and developer spaces) as being professional settings. Gone are the "underground hacker" days, as Antirez put it, so I think it applies.
mustardo 6y ago
Wow, did you quit? Id have

QuinnyPig 6y ago

I was wondering if they'd try something like that for https://www.lastweekinaws.com--it's https://www.lastweekinaws.com--it's critical of them, and they've had a few angles over the years to go after it (trademark, suspending the domain, etc). Years into the experiment I can safely say that their tolerance for criticism extends far beyond what I'm willing to test out, as I am not a human dumpster goblin.

jquast 6y ago

I made fourteen requests over sixteen days to delete my amazon.com account. I followed up and re-submitted almost every day. Each time I was told to wait 24-48 hrs and someone would contact me to complete the process, and I would follow up 24 hours later to repeat the process over again when nobody contacted me. When I finally gave up, Something like a week of 1+ hour/day chats, I deleted all of the information I had control over (address, CC’s, etc) to “anonymize” it at the very least. I then had a very juvenile idea to change my preferred first name to “FUCK” and lastname to “AMAZON” and made one last request. Customer support deleted my account within the hour, no multi-step process, no “customer support specialist will contact you in 24-48hrs”, just an immediate deletion. Finally!!! I’ve also learned a good lesson — delete any new online account after you create it, before conducting business. if it isn’t easy to do, then don’t use the service. Otherwise, create another. Most sites are just a button, or a chat request, but Amazon was very ridiculous, (equal to airbnb, which required me to send a photograph of myself and my DL, and then replied to say I have to wait another 90 days and do it again?!)

oliwarner 6y ago
I think what we've learned is that if you start a new support ticket about the same thing, the old one gets ignored.

einpoklum 6y ago

Of course it does, it mentions Amazon, and that's quite offensive.