Maybe you missed what AWS did to Parler?
What happens when the power company decides not to sell you electricity for your servers because they don't like what you are saying? What happens when your grocery store decides not to sell you food because they don't like your opinion?
There is a reason why companies providing a public service that can't be easily replaced are held to a different standard. You don't hash out political differences in a cancel culture environment. You can't even have political differences.
The techs aren't promoting anything by letting someone post, they are colluding to suppress political viewpoints by suddenly deciding what viewpoints are allowed and which aren't. Once again, they aren't just doing this to individuals, they have become a de facto part of the most radical wing of the democratic party oppressing anything remotely political they disagree with.
You have someone taking a flamethrower to your house, but because they are standing on the sidewalk you think they are within their rights to burn your house down.
No, I saw it. Parler's mistake was not negotiating a contract with AWS with the protections they wanted. It's quite possible AWS would have said no to those requests but Parler could then have gone to one of a dozen other hosting sites.
There is a reason why companies providing a public service that can't be easily replaced are held to a different standard.
That's the heart of our disagreement. None of the techs are public services. They're privately owned commercial information services. If you want the government to seize them for the public good, fine, but be prepared to pay their shareholders huge amounts of tax money for confiscating their private property.
The techs aren't promoting anything by letting someone post, they are colluding to suppress political viewpoints by suddenly deciding what viewpoints are allowed and which aren't.
If I invite someone into my home, restaurant or internet forum I retain the right to kick them out if they act in a way I don't like. A private company colluding to suppress political viewpoints may be cowardly but it's not illegal.
...they have become a de facto part of the most radical wing of the democratic party oppressing anything remotely political they disagree with.
As is their right.
You have someone taking a flamethrower to your house, but because they are standing on the sidewalk you think they are within their rights to burn your house down.
That may be the most off-point metaphor I've heard.
Are you saying FB is attacking you (taking a flamethrower to your house) because they have limits on what you can do on their free service?