> It's the coordination that is terrifying. Imagine there's a number of farmers in a village who all stop working and go inside when a thunderstorm is imminent

> It's the coordination that is terrifying. Imagine there's a number of farmers in a village who all stop working and go inside when a thunderstorm is imminent. Did they all coordinate to stop working at around the same time or did they individually make a judgement of what's in their best self-interest? I think our disagreement may be that you don't believe there was a thunderstorm. You may think it was a perfectly clear day, hence their reasoning and timing are suspect, and there must have been some communication. I think there was a thunderstorm of regulatory pressure (imagine more people dying as attacks are planned on an app in the AppStore), employee pressure, reputation / brand damage that was brewing due to the actions in DC on 1/06. This tipped the calculations away from maintaining the status quo, and whatever revenue Parler may have generated (along with other factors, like outcries of bias vs. the right) was no longer enough. The case for companies further down the supply chain is even more clear: Imagine you're Twilio and are doing cost / benefit analysis on if you should continue your relationship with Parler. Outside of public outrage, employee calls for action, etc.., the other side of the equation is Parler brings in revenue. Your calculations became much simplified due to upstream actors like AWS. Parler has 0 users now and 0 revenue now after Apple, Google and Amazon's actions. Why in the world would you take the continued costs of maintaining your relationship with them in that case? There's still no coordination, only actors making the best decision as the values of underlying variables are updated.