There is way, way too much room for political manoeuvring here - we should all be scared. Facebook is used to coordinate literal genocide. [1] And so AWS everyone is cool with that? I get that Parler was being used to do something 'violent and bad in the US' and that there was arguably not enough oversight - so they are a 'problem case'. But the system is a little bit hypocritical, I don't feel it's backed by science…
What does it mean, concretely, to "wake up" to this realization? I certainly acknowledge that Amazon might make bad content moderation decisions in the future, and if they do I'll speak out against those decisions. I just don't follow why I'd need to do something about that today.
Jeff Bezos owns news publications, he has a worldview and likes to flaunt it to some extent, moreover, these systems are prone to the possibility of arbitrary, and often political decisions.
Note that historically, rich dudes bought newspapers to attack their political and business rivals. Though I don't think it's entirely like that today, we can't say there isn't some of that going on.
Literally Emamnuel Macron and Angela Merkel have spoken out about the arbitrary 'banning' of groups and individuals, and because there is an 'imminent consideration over here in the US' doesn't abnegate our broader concerns about arbitrary banning.
The EU will likely be acting on it.
Banning the KKK is not something anyone is worried about.
Banning some app because we don't like the extent to which they have moderated their discussions, is a much more slippery slope. Especially in light of other institutions that don't moderate very well either.
If the case could rationally be made that FB and Twitter are in the end, equally problematic in their moderation ... then it's likely they would not get banned from various places - they have money, power, influence and possibly friendly relations with other platforms.
It's a dangerous precedent and the EU leaders are essentially correct to speak out and even more so to act.