Yes, with caveats. Companies have a right to set the terms by which they provide service to others, unless those rights have been taken away for that class of c

Yes, with caveats. Companies have a right to set the terms by which they provide service to others, unless those rights have been taken away for that class of companies (say, public utilities) or those terms are otherwise illegal (say, discriminating against a "protected class"). Apple & Google I've no issue with, outside the generic issue with Apple being the only app distribution provider for iPhones. But that should (IMO) be handled through regular anti-trust law. AWS is more an infrastructure service. I don't necessarily think that they should be held to be a utility. But the logical continuation (if Parler build their own datacenter, will ISPs peer with them?) does lead to problems if the answer is "no". ISPs should be Title II common carriers, and peering should be non-discriminatory. Just like i wouldn't support an electric company turning off their power or a gas company turning off their heat, I don't think ISPs should be allowed to discriminate based on content (except in the case of protocol headers explicitly set by the client to allow such discrimination, such as the IPv4 Type Of Service field or the IPv6 Traffic Class field). So the real question for me is "is AWS big enough to be regulated as a utility/common carrier?" I lean towards "no" at this point, given that there are several alternatives.