If a platform has ANY illegal content what standard is then acceptable? If you moderate 99.999% of your content is it reasonable for you to be blacklisted for the 0.001%? If someone found 90 examples of calls to violence on Twitter would that make it OK to deplatform them too?
This sounds like you're trying to get us to pretend along that Parler had a moderation policy that was in any way effective, equally applied, or not just pandering to the crowd it was trying to entice.
For instance:
https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/how-facebook-is-complicit-in...
(IMHO both Facebook and Twitter should be shut down. Size matters.)
This argument is problematic. In any criminal endeavor, what most of the criminals do isn’t illegal or even unusual.
When HSBC was laundering cartel money, they also served regular customers. They processed credit cards, gave loans and so on. 99.9999% legal activities and yet they were fined billions of dollars for fascinating money laundering operation of few murderous warlords.
This is about money and power, nothing else. Facebook is “too big to fail” so clearly it will never face any consequences, while Parler is a random little site that’s easy to pick on.
IMHO social media needs to be regulated, companies should not be able to simply cut you off from the rest of the public and you shouldn't be unaccountable for your actions and there must be ways for harm reduction. (if you tell/share a something, them maybe people affected by it should have right to equal exposure to challenge it. i.e. their POV could be attached to your post and everyone who interacted with your post receives a notification that the post was challenged)
My understanding is that the law simply says that doing _some_ moderation doesn't make you the publisher.
They are getting kicked off AWS because of content that is absolutely criminal in nature, and their inability and inaction in moderating it.