AWS is more interesting in that case, though, since it's usually transparent to end users. AWS not doing business with Parler is a little like a craft store not selling posterboard and markers to a klansman, or a gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection.
From the letter AWS sent, a better analogy would be:
Craft store noticed their brand logo was on a poster board with messages calling for rape and execution of named individuals (a clearly illegal act). Craft store said in their sale recipt that the reserve the right to stop serving customers that promote illegal conduct.
First, however, the craft store asked the organizer to stop providing their poster boards to people organizing mass rape and execution event planning. "Please moderate, and you can continue to use our service"
The organizer days "go bleep yourself", to the store, followed by "if my members want to organize a mass execution of people, that's their protected speech!”
Store says "okay, your not welcome here anymore, see our terms of service"
AWS gave them a chance.. but at the end of the day, those messages calling for illegal acts are stored on AWS servers.. and Parler wanted to promote that kind of content to continue and amplify (it's good for business), but every day AWS is probably getting 50 warrants for information tied to having Parler as a customer. AWS service mark up doesn't cover 20 full time lawyers
I'll say if you're making this argument, then aws should be responsible for all content on aws servers. No hosting protections, direct responsibility. After all, the illegal data was on their servers, thus they should be directly responsible.
They are? They cooperate with law enforcement for illegal material takedowns on a regular basis. You might have heard of raids for botnet hosting, or if not those, the ones for child porn or movie piracy. AWS is absolutely committed to having no illegal activity on their servers.
>gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection
Yes, imagine a small town, and there's a guy known for always ranting about the coming insurrection, pedophile conspiracies, how "The Great Awakening" is near... then one day he walks into the town gun store and asks to buy a bunch of AR-15s and a ton of ammo, and the owner of the store says: "Hmm... no."
To elaborate on your point here, gun store owners choosing not to sell firearms to particular customers because they suspect those customers are a danger to themselves or others for any reason (including just the owners' hunch) is very commonplace, and not generally controversial.
> ...or a gun store not selling rounds to the guy who keeps talking about insurrection.
If he follows that up with "Allahu Akbar," do you expect the gun store to complete the sale, or call the feds? Is that a limit on "freedom of religion"?
Or if you go to buy a ton of fertilizer, and as they're loading it into your truck, you talk about blowing up the white house -- what do you think is gonna happen?
