> While it does feel reactionary (if that's the right word) that the services are only now revoking doing business with Parler, they are within their rights to stop the contract one-sidedly. I'm actually fairly sure that in the contract they don't even have to state a reason, but don't quote me on that.

Yeah most of these services are doing that to avoid being associated with Parler and these Trump movements. But it has an anti-democratic feel to it.

You think that, democratically speaking, the majority of Americans are in favor of Parler conducting business? You think there should have been a vote or something?

Amazon, Apple, etc don't work democratically though so it doesn't matter.

We just had elections, see how that went.

Yep, there are no good choices here. Parler is an organizing venue for Trump supporters attempting to overturn a democratic election and/or storm the capitol, which also has a rather anti-democratic feel to it, no? So you can think of it as a trolley problem with "democracy" strapped to both sets of tracks. Since democracy will be a casualty, to one extent or another, in both the "do nothing" and "do something" options, the service providers must ask themselves: which scenario will hurt democracy worse?

> the service providers must ask themselves: which scenario will hurt democracy worse?

As I mentioned above, what they are likely asking themselves is pragmatic instead of moral, i.e. "which option exposes us as a company to the most legal problems? What hurts profits?"

That explains why service providers changed their thinking so suddenly and dramatically after, you know, a whole lot of serious crimes against the state happened on the 6th, and the evidence trail runs through those service providers.

> the service providers must ask themselves: which scenario will hurt democracy worse

Adendum: why _must_ they ask themselves that? Do you think Facebook ever has acted in that way? Do you think that Fox News does?

It would be nice, but recognise that none of these are entities dedicated to maximising democracy. They have been behaving otherwise for decades. They won't spontaneously change of their own accord.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...

that would be cool if they also implemented the same policy towards other violent/inciteful players and terror organizations

They should, and many do. Once you start peddling in calls to violence against people, no just ideas, then you should lose access to your platform and well deserve to be investigated.

Being complacent with these things gets people killed. You can have free speech all you want but are also responsible for what you say.

Free speech doesn't mean you get a free pass without consequences.

except their efforts are largely focused and selective

switch to arabic language and you will see things that could be easily identified as violent propaganda,yet they stay up because FB censorship system is not interested in enforcing rules in that sector

from what i hear its pretty much the same for India