Here's my take on Parler. Bottom line: AWS and Twitter must be in cahoots because..... reasons.

And not for, you know, taking down content that encourages and incites violence at the same time as, basically, everyone else.

But seriously, the complaint is clearly baseless, and I don't just say that because it relies on AWS' knowledge of "public speculation." It also cites to articles outlining Parler's open violation of AWS' TOS, which AWS has brought to Parler's attention for at least 30 days.

Seems Parler has misinterpreted the 30-day notice clause as requiring notice before termination, rather than notice of breach. What was the breach? Continually ignoring dangerous and inciteful content. Clearly, Parler couldn't have cared less. At least, before it was suspended.

All of that to say, the tortious interference of contract claim is laughable, because Parlor is actually arguing that even though it breached the contract, AWS should continue to perform because Parler's users won't be able to spread dangerous and inciteful content on Parlor.