The guy/girl above talks about it being routine, why are you citing AUP? You'd have to show they have done this before, frequently.

Is putting something like "otherwise objectionable" as a reason to terminate contract legal? Can AWS terminate contract with a website owner who supports, say, gay marriages, because there is someone in Amazon who considers this to be "objectionable"?

'Otherwise objectionable' is meant to be a catchall, but isn't really the one Amazon is relying on, since much of the content Parler stated it didn't want to remove is also unambiguously abusive and defamatory. The words itself are the same as Section 230, except in this instance Amazon is saying it is willing to consider its clients responsible for their user generated content.

There are religious web hosts that will terminate you for not following their Statement of Faith, so I don't think Amazon would have any issues in requiring its customers to have a particular stance on gay marriage in the very unlikely event it wanted to.

Suppose a group of passengers started a violent revolution against the pilot, and killed a flight attendant. Would you say that the pilot was being reasonable to throw them off the flight?

It’s a simple question about stats. How often does Amazon kick off services because of weak moderation and not because of illegal content? It’s not like these posts were not called out by government officials as illegal needing takedown that Parler refused to comply with.

Your analogy is shitty because there was no violent revolution conducted by Parler against Amazon.

The correct Analogy is the airline pilot kicking off any Parler employees traveling for business. That’s it.

That analogy makes very little sense, because an airline carrying Parler employees is in no meaningful sense an operational part of Parler's business, while AWS clearly is. I think you're reaching.

It doesn't much matter; this case is dead in the water.

It wasn’t my analogy to begin with. I was illustrating how stupid the analogy was to a passenger threatening the pilot. Parler didn’t threaten Amazon.

If you want to argue that travel isn’t essential to a business’s employees, that’s fine. My original question still stands though. How often does Amazon kick off tenants when they haven’t broken laws or abused technology (e.g. spammers)?

What does "abused technology" mean? The answer is that it means approximately what Amazon and its customers agree it means, as expressed in their contracts. Your personal norms about what abuse is and isn't aren't relevant, because Amazon made theirs clear in their contracts.

Technologists on message boards who are shocked and offended at Amazon's decision are generally tipping their hands that they don't ever have contracts reviewed, or really even think about them in their day-to-day work. A plain reading of Amazon's terms --- not to mention having paid attention to how cloud providers handled Gab --- made it clear that Parler's position was untenable.