Amazon, Apple and Google Cut Off Parler

> Why did Twitter allow “Hang Mike Pence” to trend last night?

I happened to look at that trend. Nobody that I saw were actually suggesting people do it - they were quoting (or referring to) what was being said by those at the Capitol, and then commenting on it.

I don’t see a double standard for those cases, although they did subsequently remove it the trend. Possibly because some people might have been calling for it in the “latest” tab - not a fun place looking at tweets outside the featured tab...

Today the infrastructure for serving information over the internet is privately owned, and liberals say that it’s ok for private companies to censor people on their platforms, and they are right. Tomorrow, the internet will be a public utility, the infrastructure will be publicly owned and conveying information over the internet will be universally appreciated as the way that communication between people is done — to be cut off from it would be like having your tongue cut out. The only difference between today and tomorrow is a few strokes of legislative pens — nothing, basically. The argument that this is ok because it’s private companies is a cop out.

Freedom of Association: An individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

There is clear conflict with how our society views the roles of private companies vs. individuals, the technology driven communication platforms they provide, and how individuals and groups use those platforms.

However, it is not a forgone conclusion that censorship by private organizations and individuals via platforms they control is a violation of freedom of speech.

No one has the right to forcibly silence someone else, with governments being only one of many traditional perpetrators with means and motives to do so. But individuals and groups cannot forcibly enlist others to help spread their message. My local church can't force me to espouse my love for their god, nor am I forced to listen to a random passerby on the street.

These 2 principals can be easily agreed with in theory, as requirements for a well functioning society. But with technology, comes the ability to convert capital into speech, and those 2 principals come into natural conflict. The written language, the printing press, the internet, etc. are all tools that can be used in conjunction with capital to amplify speech, and drown out the speech of others via shear volume. It isn't necessary to silence someone else, if yelling over them achieves the same effect.

Thus continues the ever-lasting compromise and conflict between our rights as individuals. There is no free lunch, no easy solution.

Internet infrastructure was actually built with a lot of public money and the internet is already accepted as the way that communication between people is done. You’re a little late with this comment, I’m afraid.

If the internet were publicly owned, wouldn’t it actually be _considerably harder_ to cut someone off from it because of the government’s responsibility to ensure equitable access to utilities (like you propose the internet will become)?

As pointed out by fang's pinned comment. Sites, companies and services have rules of engagement which if broken even in the flimsiest sense (e.g snark, I've been snarky here and have been rightfully warned). Break those rules of engagement and expect the consequences. I think for those who have issues with this latest outcasting of Parker by the big three, you will have to encourage your government to treat them as utilities and support anti trust cases against them. I predict that suggestion to clash with the libertarian nature of those concerned.