I generally support what you're saying, however there are two complicating factors with the Parler deplatforming that make me tolerate it. Not accept it, but to

I generally support what you're saying, however there are two complicating factors with the Parler deplatforming that make me tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it. 1. Parler was being used specifically to plan out acts of terrorism; and their moderation team took no action to stop it 2. Parler was not a free speech platform On that first bit: while I generally want big platforms to be regulated like common carriers, they definitely should not be prohibited from making judgment calls as to what is and isn't illegal to publish. If you're a web host and someone sends a tip that someone's operating a fake bank login page on your service, you shouldn't have to wait for someone who got scammed or phished to get a court order before you can shut down obviously illegal activity. For an example of why that's a problem: DMCA 512 has a case law loophole in which the moment any amount of human moderation happens to a website, the site loses it's copyright safe harbor. So if you have a recommendations algorithm or content ID bot, you have safe harbor. If you hire humans to curate content or search for infringing content, then you're liable for anything you miss to the tune of millions of dollars in damages. This creates a legal incentive to willful blindness. Parler isn't blind, though. The platform wasn't intending to be a neutral, free-speech content host. They were moderating the platform - just not for violence. Parler was a platform created for Trump extremists and them alone, and they had a history of removing left-leaning or left-wing users from their platform. So under any sort of "common carrier for social media" law they still lose.