>I'm no fan of the content on Parler, but Twitter (who uses AWS) was used for far more organization of illegal activity than Parler was.

Parler outright refused to delete posts calling for the mass killing of politicians, even when those posts were specifically pointed out to Parler by AWS. This is all detailed in court documents. AWS very patiently tried to prod Parler into following AWS's terms of service, but Parler refused. This is a very clear-cut matter and those suggesting otherwise are either trying to deceive or being misled.

What specific posts did Parler refuse to delete, and what is the evidence that they refused to delete them? IIRC, Parler was deleting posts that AWS complained about as they reviewed them, but had a large backlog, and AWS decided they were moving too slowly. I haven't seen any sourced claims that Parler refused to remove "posts calling for the mass killing of politicians", only unsupported allegations. If it really is so very clear-cut, do you have a very good source for those claims?

To reiterate, AWS provided this evidence in its court filings when it was sued by Parler. Pages and pages of email records where AWS customer service reps sent Parler specific posts that violated AWS's ToS, and Parler's responded refusing to take them down.

This matches my understanding as well. The CEO (at the time) was on a podcast and specifically said they were moderating/deleting the posts. AWS just wanted it to be done faster (in an automated fashion).

> Twitter (who uses AWS)

Twitter also uses GCP, and Azure I’m sure. Their serving layer is not hosted by AWS though, and I’m reasonably certain AWS could not shut down Twitter immediately simply terminating their AWS account.

Parler was set up to harbour the exact sort of people that got banned from platforms like Twitter for being too unhinged and in some cases dangerous. It's not really comparable.