No, I don't agree that "this speech" ought to be banned, and also not in this particular manner. First of all, were %%ge of Parler posts contained incitement? I honestly have no idea, but I suspect it's by far not the majority. More importantly, Brandenburg case is a pretty good standard for banning speech as far as I'm concerned, and it's a pretty high bar. What %%ge of Parler posts met THAT standard?

> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account

Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that direction shortly.

I think it's very clear you can harm a person by cutting them off from the world / loved ones, news, etc. Especially in communities that have no outside access other than internet based.

Maybe not Parler specifically, but certainly internet access. And if the vast majority of the world and people around you are getting news and info and social life from <website>, it could be argued that denying access to <website> will harm a person.

>> There is no similar human rights mandate for a Parler account

>Canada considers internet access a basic human right, and it's pretty clear the rest of the world will move in that direction shortly.

Having a Parler account and having access to the internet are two different things.

Funny that you mention Canada. Parler would likely have trouble existing as a Canadian entity due to Canada’s hate speech laws and the courts’ propensity to leave carriers exposed to liability for hosting content that violates those laws.

Also, the Canadian government has a broad power to restrict speech in times of crisis through the War Measures Act. They could easily have switched a site like Parler off if a similar event occurred.

Getting banned from a social media site doesn't remove one's access to the internet.

What about banning the actual social media site from the internet?

That also doesn't remove your access to the Internet.

They also weren't banned. Their hosting provider refused to continue hosting them. There are thousands of competing companies out there they can take their business to.

This is like all the grocery stores choosing not to carry brand of product in their grocery stores. You didn't lose access to the grocery store. That brand can start their own grocery store and host their own product if they want to.

Tons of companies host their own infrastructure.

Human rights are not the same thing as corporate rights.

And similarly: likening the banning of one site that was a hotbed of rhetoric akin to (or directly related to) a serious incident of political violence to the "vast majority of people around you" losing all internet access is senselessly hyperbolic and unhelpful.

If we grant that the reason we're currently in this crisis of democracy is that people are addicted to an outrage machine (stop the steal, #resistance, whatever), then maybe it's our job to get us off the train.

Why can't banning Parler just be about banning Parler and not an assault on democracy or whatever? I mean, we all agree that the kind of speech banned should be banned somehow, right?