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?!)
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.
Before I moved reddit from a datacenter to AWS, I was "locked in" to my datacenter. It took weeks to get all the data out and into AWS.
Working around their special services isn't all that hard. Nothing AWS offers is that hard to replicate outside of AWS if you want to. The hard part is getting your data out.
So if you're going to put all your data into AWS anyway, you might as well use their services and save yourself some time and effort reinventing what they've already done. If you really need to move out later, then make the investment in rebuilding the tools they offer.
And for not-infrastructure cloud services, aren't they pretty interchangeable? I recently evaluated four different cloud speech-to-text services. Sure the APIs differed, but you know, it's an API call. I see nothing to complain about.
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?
It’s pretty underrated, especially if you don’t have a public IP. Also using TOR helps people in dangerous situations.
However, using Tor2web proxies is very risky, because proxy operators can see and modify traffic.
I realize there is some political opinion in there and feel your point warrants a more thoughtful response. Let me think about this...
In that context, I read their desire for "full ownership" to mean "I can use these resources for any lawful purpose, unencumbered by additional contractual constraints made at the whim of my provider."
"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.
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.
[1] https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Railroads...
I take that back a bit, there is a line, but it is measured in money not principles.
Without looking at contracts, no.
So, yes. I would say it constitutes offensive content.
Gone are the "underground hacker" days, as Antirez put it, so I think it applies.
"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.
That's basically a list of the three most offensive things you could possibly say in America. Of course you were banned for it.
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.
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.
> 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
