> Bad actors who reduce the value of other customers should not be tolerated.
I don't agree with this argument.
"Bad" is subjective and changes based on political perspective. If Parler was instead a pro-abortion forum, and it was taken down by a conservative company citing that abortion is an 'act of violence' (I don't agree, but many pro-lifers do) I think we'd see very few of the same voices cheering.
Businesses should tolerate some higher-cost customers. Ex. If a restaurant wants to exceed regulatory accessibility requirements to make their business serve disabled clients better, that is a good thing. Similar examples: multilingual support, making female hygiene product freely available, parental leave. This does 'reduce value for other customers' but is a net societal good (and hopefully most customers get some amount of that reduced value back in feeling good about helping people). Some customers costing business more isn't necessarily a bad thing that should be avoided.
I don't agree with this argument.
"Bad" is subjective and changes based on political perspective. If Parler was instead a pro-abortion forum, and it was taken down by a conservative company citing that abortion is an 'act of violence' (I don't agree, but many pro-lifers do) I think we'd see very few of the same voices cheering.
Businesses should tolerate some higher-cost customers. Ex. If a restaurant wants to exceed regulatory accessibility requirements to make their business serve disabled clients better, that is a good thing. Similar examples: multilingual support, making female hygiene product freely available, parental leave. This does 'reduce value for other customers' but is a net societal good (and hopefully most customers get some amount of that reduced value back in feeling good about helping people). Some customers costing business more isn't necessarily a bad thing that should be avoided.