To be fair, that does look more like a mistake--the HTML-to-PDF conversion appears to truncate a decent amount of text per page.
Ooh, just noticed, the contract also has this gem:
> Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify.
Which tosses out any claims of contract violation because you agreed to arbitrate it first!
As I just said to my wife, you'd have a better shot with a lawsuit against the sky because you got a sunburn than you would trying to sue AWS for booting you from their servers. At least the sun never got you to agree to a draconian ToS.
I also liked their idea that AWS is trying to protect their contract with Twitter because users are leaving Twitter(hosted by AWS) for Parler (which was hosted by AWS at the time). If I have a glass of beer in my left hand and switch to my right, have I lost my glass of beer? How would that possibly benefit AWS unless somehow Parler negotiated better terms than Twitter? If anything, the opposite seems likely.
To be fair, that does look more like a mistake--the HTML-to-PDF conversion appears to truncate a decent amount of text per page.
Ooh, just noticed, the contract also has this gem:
> Disputes will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify.
Which tosses out any claims of contract violation because you agreed to arbitrate it first!