Twitter banned some stuff temporarily the other day, now they upgrade those bans and add some more. Google removes parler from the Play Store today, a different action (not banning trump). Apple didn't ban anything, but is considering it.
These seem like different actions by different companies, responding to the same news.
Also, pedantic as it may be, it's not political action. These companies are not political entities. Just because groups of people communicate about politics on the platform doesn't make them political.
What we are seeing is major internet companies responding to and banning perpetrators of treason and sedition, of domestic terrorism.
This very subjective and probably different person to person especially given AI driven filters and the ability to choose who to follow or friend on these sites.
When I check one of the sites you mentioned, I see almost exclusively voices from the American right-wing. On the other one, it's significantly more moderate but with some opposing viewpoints from either extreme thrown in. It all depends on who someone friends or follows and what the filter chooses to show.
Of course, this ignores what "liberal bias" is, which is a subjective determination that varies according to the bias of whomever makes such a determination.
Although, this is a distraction from the question raised early in this thread. of whether some coordination happened behind the scenes or if these bans are a result of distinct actions in response to the same circumstances.
His own party is disowning him after years of playing along.
This is a bit beyond violating a TOS.
Unaligned politically or voters in the other side outnumbered Trump. Yet he clings to fantasy he can just steam roll over them.
This has to be taken into a context that’s a bit more than dictionary definition of censorship.