"Not sure I follow. Do you think Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Jack Dorsey and other shareholders of FB/Alphabet/Twitter are a minority who need protection from being oppressed? "
All I am saying is that "the elected government did so" does not automatically make it OK or the right thing to do.
Personally I am not a fan of government intervention in private companies.
Many people in this discussion have made the point that for example Parler could simply move their servers elsewhere. Likewise, nothing forces people to use Google, Facebook or Twitter.
> Parler could simply move their servers elsewhere
They can, and they probably will. Gonna take time. Pretty sure they did not expect a coordinated attack from Amazon, Apple and Google at the same time.
> nothing forces people to use Google, Facebook or Twitter.
You’re commenting on hacker news. This means you’re using a PC, or maybe a phone or tablet. Some (likely private) company is selling you electricity you use to power these devices.
Would you be happy if that company cuts your electricity because they don’t like your political views?
If no, what do you think is the key difference from Google, Facebook or Twitter doing their censorship?
A key difference would be that it is easier to replace the services of Google, Facebook and Twitter than of power providers. But even that doesn't seem impossible.
All I am saying is that "the elected government did so" does not automatically make it OK or the right thing to do.
Personally I am not a fan of government intervention in private companies.
Many people in this discussion have made the point that for example Parler could simply move their servers elsewhere. Likewise, nothing forces people to use Google, Facebook or Twitter.