Parler’s defenders kvetching about their failure to maintain business contracts with their partners is disingenuous, and can and should be recognized for the bad faith slime that it is.
In the context of “letter from a birmingham jail”, trump and co. are more robber than robbed.
It sounds like it's saying that Trump et al are okay, they're just exercising their right to speak, and if people are violent in return then we should punish those violent offenders.
But I suppose in reality you're saying the tech companies are okay, they're just exercising their right to police their own platforms, and if people are violent in return then we should punish those violent offenders.
In this case, justifying continuation of parler's services because "if not, the people that just shit in the rotunda are going to do something worse" is in fact a strong argument for doing the opposite and posting the national guard outside the capitol building for a week, which is what's actually happened.
In the long run, is it going to stop them? No. In the short term, is it going to really hamstring the potential for a reprise of this insanity on the 20th? Yep!
We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
MLK Jr., 1963
"don't refuse to do business with them because they're violent thugs! that'll make them act like violent thugs!" is a very stupid line of argument.