Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

This is where it gets interesting - are you suggesting private companies shouldn’t be allowed to set terms of service(s)?

Would it be acceptable for the state to pass laws that severely limits private entities to do so?

There’s lot to think about here. Free speech is good and all, but is it not really about free speech in relation to the state? i.e you’ll not be thrown in jail or persecuted for saying things.

Btw, if you follow policy just a bit bellow the surface you’ll soon find that “we are always dependent on the good will of the companies without democratic control” since ways back.

they ban parler but are OK with hosting pornhub that literally has child porn content

I think that this is a really bad idea. I believe that this is selective enforcement because on Twitter there is a ton of incitement to violence. I think it's worse on Twitter because it happens all of the time, and Twitter seems fine with it when it's far left folks. During the George Floyd riots in Portland, at least a few Antifa groups were using Twitter to organize their "protests". If you think that Trump's tweets were incitement, then those tweets were just as bad or even worse. Those protests didn't result in any police/feds dying, but a ton of police/feds were injured, and a lot of antifa type people were trying to kill, they just weren't very good at it.

But in my view, I see this idea that people are being radicalized through social media (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook) will be the same as the video games are causing violence ideas. I think what we are going to find out in the future is that allowing people to vent their crazy on the internet was more likely to let people blow off steam and wind them down. The few people who do act violently and vent about it on places like Twitter, were people who were already prone to violence. Kind of like in the video game blame game when people who were violent, the news always said that they played violent video games. In that case, those people were already violent and liked violent video games. Even those people who are "radicalized" by social media are probably people who could be radicalized by watching cat videos.

Now that's not to say that some people who are on the fence might be radicalized by social media, but I think it's also possible that more people are being deradicalized by allowing them to see all the things, bad or good. Of course, illegal threats should still be removed, but if these social media sites came up with a set of rules and actually followed them even when they didn't like the person, I think that would also go a long way to calming things. Some people will still cry about getting punished unfairly, but I think it's more likely fewer people will agree when they claim they were being persecuted when the rules are followed to the letter.

The biggest worry I have is that all of these deplatforming actions are actually going to lead to violence as people feel like they no longer have any way to express themselves. I really fear that tensions are escalating and these companies are making worse, not better.

I would propose an expansion to your boundaries because even if someone wasn't born someway, I don't see why it's any more morally clear-headed to treat someone better or worse just because they're an atheist or like anime, neither of which are obviously biologically inherent.

So if Amazon decide that some company is a dangerous competitor to them, and that company uses AWS, then they could just immediately shut down their competitor, because they could find some "hate content" on their website. What about thousands of hate articles sold in Germany by Amazon? Amazon is even selling "Mein Kampf" - a nazi book that is forbidden in Germany. Yeah, a terrorist content is absolutely OK if it's sold by Amazon.