If you're really going to go down this line of argument - do you think it's incorrect to say that AWS banned Parler because the Parler team can still 'use' AWS through twitter?
I'm not sure what the point of this nitpicking is. The context of this conversation is someone asking for an example of ISIS using AWS, in a conversation about the capitol hill rioters "using" AWS. And my response is that they indeed use it in the same way. Now, if you want to argue that this doesn't in fact constitute "using", then the capitol hill rioters didn't use AWS either, and AWS isn't responsible for them.
I think we have different reads of the root comment of this thread. Yoav[1] was talking about the contract between AWS and Parler as corporate entities. I'm not sure how you made the leap from organizational relationships to individuals using services implemented on AWS.
That's why I asked about members of Parler still being able to "use" AWS through other AWS-hosted services. I don't get what you're driving at.
> AWS isn't responsible for them.
Again, I'm not sure I understand what point this is responding to. No one is claiming AWS is responsible for the capital hill folks. They are claiming that Parler bears some responsibility and did so in such a way that violated AWS' policies. So AWS banned them.
