> more pressing reasons than the deplatforming of fascists

Hint: it's the identical problem to deplatforming BLM or Antifa or Occupy or the Proud Boys or pick anyone you agree with that annoys powerful people. "Having the better politics" will not protect you. "Oh they're just fascists" will not protect your peoples.

But they have been doing that since forever and nobody was complaining. Here's a link to when twitter deleted 125,000 ISIS accounts [1] (and they had been monitoring for islam extremist content for much longer already). So I ask why this uproar now that they are deplatforming fascists?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/05/twitter-d...

I suspect the difference is more about deplatforming americans than any political view.

Except you need to replace “annoys powerful people” with “storms the seat of our government with intent to overthrow a democratic election result” I’m fine with that being the line for companies to ban a political entity. Amazon and google aren’t randomly banning BLM for protesting in cities.

Essential Utilities are governed in many places by Universal Service Directives ensuring private companies can not willy nilly choose to deny them as they see fit for commercial or other reasons.

I am familiar with that concept. Good luck arguing that aws, google play, or the app store is an essential utility.

Not all that far from it, though, are they?