It is funny that you quoted that the arguments are not being made in good faith and then proceeded to make a bad faith argument.

Lets go through some quick fire bullet points, 93% of the summer protests where peaceful, most of the damage was on insured property with no loss of life, the cause of the riots was the unashamed and unlawful treatment of minorities in America. It was a grassroots movement.

Now lets compare that to, a mob that straight away turned to violence, caused loss of life (and bashed the head of a police man with a fire extinguisher), mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president, pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene, and it all started from a conspiracy theory that 51 different judges have considered meritless, our congress has considered meritless and the vice president of his own administration considered debunked.

I wonder who is the one with a double standard here?

>no loss of life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur...

>most of the damage was on insured property

Government property is insured by taxpayers

>93% of the summer protests where peaceful

I'm not sure how to confirm/disprove that statement. I'd posit that most protestors at the capitol were peaceful, but I'm not sure how to confirm/deny that either.

>mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president

Where I live "ACAB" is a trendy chant used to devil-ify police

EDIT: Also, is this not the same thing? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3217754/Black-Lives... - not sure how trustworthy this is

> molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene,

I have seen molotovs used at BLM protest

All this to say - it's not black and white; I also feel there clearly is some double standard going on here. I disagree with (what i think is) the premise of the capitol protests, but it does not strike me as that much worse than what people were supporting a few months ago.

None of these companies severing ties with Parler or other far-right presences are making political decisions. These are all business decisions, because they are businesses. I've explained this elsewhere, but what if a boycott were to start because the company refused to cut ties with Parler? They should just eat the loss? No, in any market, people vote with their dollars, and the vast majority of tech customers just happen to also be politically liberal. This is what we signed up for when we decided to operate in a free market system.

Everything a company does is a business decision. But it can also be a political decision.