I agree, it's probably wishful thinking. My hope would be that "we don't ban anything that's not explicitly illegal" would be a profitable stance for at least one of the competing app stores.

If that's what the majority of their users want, why shouldn't they ban those services? What better proxy is there for what they should do? Aren't they beholden to their users and shareholders? Is the suggestion that all platforms have to cater to the most vocal minority? That doesn't seem like a good strategy.

> Is the suggestion that all platforms have to cater to the most vocal minority?

I think this is what they're doing right now. I'd imagine the average voter doesn't care whether Trump is on Twitter or Parler is on the App Store.

I think you're wrong. These companies are very aware of what their customers/users think (think of all the data!). It's asinine to think that these companies, with corporate boards and a legal mandate to produce profit, would just out some amount of users and reduce revenue. They clearly don't think the amount of users they are affecting with these actions are significant enough to damage them, especially compared to the costs of enabling these domestic terrorists.

These groups are not some good ol boys looking to have measured debate about monetary policy. They are literally trying to kill elected officials and undermine democracy.

More directly, the average voter very clearly seems to care, when you're looking at these actions in an economic light.