AWS, Google, Apple, Twitter are private (sector) businesses, and it's fine for them to do what they want. That being said, there are two issues here.
One, is that even the staunchest free market advocates acknowledge that monopolies are constructs by which markets fail the public, and we designate trust busting as a necessary function of the state. This is yet another action in a series among many that demonstrates that not only are these companies beyond any reasonable threshold of what would historically constitute a monopoly, but that they repeatedly act in collusion with one another in service of specific objectives. These companies have the capability to effectively lock competitors out of even getting their footing. "If a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, what's wrong with this?" Well, Twitter is already an effective monopoly in its space, but Parler is created as a miniscule competitor. It has virtually no chance, but it carves out a space for itself. Well Apple and Google remove it from their marketplaces, and the apk is removed from major hosts. So now Parler needs to build its own smartphones, OSes, and marketplaces. Well now AWS says they won't host their servers, so Parler needs to build and maintain their own server infrastructure. What's next, credit cards refuse to process their transactions, banks refuse to serve them? You're okay with this?
Secondly, do we approve of the existing monopolies doing this? Over the last few months, militant leftists have caused an estimated 5 billion in damages, taken over police stations, burned down the Minneapolis police station, attempted to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, set up two anarchist insurrection zones which resulted in multiple murders and rapes, as well as racially segregated spaces and speaking areas, taken down century old statues of Lincoln and Grant, among others, have beat multiple business owners to within inches of their lives, destroyed countless businesses, many of which have no insurance. But this is where the buck stops? A free speech platform that hosted some of the conversations that led to a single (completely unacceptable) act by a group? I observe a group of radical leftists on Facebook, that, in regards to the storming of the Capitol building, have said "do not question their tactics, just their motives." This is a group on Facebook that doesn't think there's a problem with storming the Capitol or threatening the lives of the Congress, just that they disagree with the motives. That's apparently the case for Facebook as well, as well as the rest of these platforms.
AWS, Google, Apple, Twitter are private (sector) businesses, and it's fine for them to do what they want. That being said, there are two issues here.
One, is that even the staunchest free market advocates acknowledge that monopolies are constructs by which markets fail the public, and we designate trust busting as a necessary function of the state. This is yet another action in a series among many that demonstrates that not only are these companies beyond any reasonable threshold of what would historically constitute a monopoly, but that they repeatedly act in collusion with one another in service of specific objectives. These companies have the capability to effectively lock competitors out of even getting their footing. "If a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, what's wrong with this?" Well, Twitter is already an effective monopoly in its space, but Parler is created as a miniscule competitor. It has virtually no chance, but it carves out a space for itself. Well Apple and Google remove it from their marketplaces, and the apk is removed from major hosts. So now Parler needs to build its own smartphones, OSes, and marketplaces. Well now AWS says they won't host their servers, so Parler needs to build and maintain their own server infrastructure. What's next, credit cards refuse to process their transactions, banks refuse to serve them? You're okay with this?
Secondly, do we approve of the existing monopolies doing this? Over the last few months, militant leftists have caused an estimated 5 billion in damages, taken over police stations, burned down the Minneapolis police station, attempted to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, set up two anarchist insurrection zones which resulted in multiple murders and rapes, as well as racially segregated spaces and speaking areas, taken down century old statues of Lincoln and Grant, among others, have beat multiple business owners to within inches of their lives, destroyed countless businesses, many of which have no insurance. But this is where the buck stops? A free speech platform that hosted some of the conversations that led to a single (completely unacceptable) act by a group? I observe a group of radical leftists on Facebook, that, in regards to the storming of the Capitol building, have said "do not question their tactics, just their motives." This is a group on Facebook that doesn't think there's a problem with storming the Capitol or threatening the lives of the Congress, just that they disagree with the motives. That's apparently the case for Facebook as well, as well as the rest of these platforms.