I've seen a lot of people say Parler was intentionally designed to host morally objectionable content and that they refused to moderate it. Many arguments supp

I've seen a lot of people say Parler was intentionally designed to host morally objectionable content and that they refused to moderate it. Many arguments supporting the de-platforming of Parler hinge on those assertions. I have not seen any evidence backing up those claims, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you're aware of any such evidence, could you please post it? I'd honestly just like to understand the situation better. In the absence of such evidence, I see two plausible explanations: 1.) Parler was a small-scale operation (30 employees from what I've heard) who built a social media platform intended to appeal to pro-Trump conservatives by tolerating a higher degree of free speech compared to the likes of established social media platforms. It became very popular very quickly and speech on the platform became increasingly violent. Parler's relatively small team was unable to keep up with moderating so much content, which enabled a lot of extremist calls for violence to propagate. Since they could not keep up with AWS's requests to moderate their platform and it was facing public scrutiy after events at the capitol, AWS pulled the plug. 2.) Parler was intended as a platform for violent, pro-Trump extremists and used "free speech" as a week justification to not moderate their platform. It became very popular very quickly and speech on the platform became increasingly violent. Parler still refused to moderate the platform even after events at the capitol, so AWS pulled the plug. AWS is not necessarily in the wrong in either case. However, the optics for Parler looks very different between the scenarios.