Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), Amazon AWS is a "platform" provider (infrastructure provider, not a "publisher"). For the same reason, Parler is also a "platform" provider (software provider, not a publisher).

It's turtles all the way down.

Twitter is also hosted by Amazon AWS. Twitter users also post content that goes against Amazon AWS terms and condtions and acceptable use policies (but they are large enough to avoid sanctions).

All Parler has to say is:

Under Section 230 of the CDA we're not liable for the content of our users.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." So how does the DMCA fit into this?

Well, a DMCA Takedown Notice for copyright infringement needs the "platform" to be notified that the content is in violation of copyright law (this provides transparency). This can be then disputed, assessed, and a decision made (all transparently).

This isnt true for any other form of content, including allegations of defamation or other illegal activity. It's all wrapped up in terms of "violating community standards" (which are arbitrary and undefined).

In response to this, all Parler needs to say is:

Please notify us of specific infringements (such as is done under DMCA Takedown Notices).

Taking the whole site down based on the actions of a minority is unreasonable.

We just want to held to the same standards as Twitter or other AWS clients that provide user provided content.

Expecting us to pre-moderate user generated content, or review everything before it's posted is ridiculous. You don't require this from anyone else hosted on your platform, why should we be treated any differently?