I would offer two counter examples: 1. It is individuals and individual companies making these decisions, it is not federally required. (And if it was federall

I would offer two counter examples: 1. It is individuals and individual companies making these decisions, it is not federally required. (And if it was federally mandated, I’m sure impropriety could be handled by the courts.) 2. Companies are censoring the president, one of the main actors of the federal government. This is hugely different from the Chinese model, where the Chinese government restricts things which are negative towards the government among other things. At any rate, I’m sure many of the technical reasons are legitimate. For example, does AWS permit you to host bounty-hunting sites, where you could be paid to kill others? I doubt it, and I imagine many people support that stance, even if they do not support kicking Parler. So we admit that some censorship is ok and even beneficial. Therefore, what’s the line? Is it content which is promoting literal illegal activity? Content that likely will lead to illegal actions? If that’s the case, then perhaps we should be advocating that these rules ought to be applied more evenly to even more types of sites and content. Or, perhaps the rules are applied evenly, and there have simply not been many other similar cases regarding AWS which have gained popularity. Or, maybe AWS should enforce no rules whatsoever. Then they could become a haven for criminal sites, thus loosing their brand. At any rate, this seems very different from China, and I’m yet to be convinced that we have started some sort of slippery slope.