He's using hyperbole to make the argument an emotional one rather than using reason. I'm not sure if he even knows he's doing it or not, the tactic of hyperbole has become so prevalent in today's political discussions.
This is about morality, not legality (which is often perverted anyway).
Hate speech translates into hateful actions, case in point was on display in the US Capitol last week.
This is challenging territory but to frame this as a free speech issue without acknowledging that there are limits to such is not being entirely honest about the matter.
You do need a better argument, because you're changing the entire point of the platform.
One is speech - maybe hate, maybe political, maybe both - and one is distribution of illegal products of child abuse. They're not the same thing. They're not "equally odious" and honestly it's pretty gross you'd even pretend they are.
I think this is generally right. We tend to focus on the one side of the slippery slope which is "descent into an Orwellian dystopia", but the other side of the logical extreme is what, that no matter what private companies aren't allowed to remove and censor certain things on their forums?
Like you said, if there were an app where 90% of the conversation was about child pornography, no one would cry "1984" if it's removed by Apple. So we're just having a conversation about where the line should be and if hate speech and planning insurrection should meet that standard, not beginning a rapid descent into thought control.
>So we're just having a conversation about where the line should be and if hate speech and planning insurrection should meet that standard, not beginning a rapid descent into thought control.
It obviously is. It started with child pornography which most everyone can agree on banning, now you are suggesting we apply the same ban to political discussion. That's the definition of a slippery slope in action.
> The market decided they wanted nothing to do with it.
I don't think this means what you think it means, because it doesn't appear true.
The market usually means 'the free market' i.e. raw consumer demand - 'are people buying it?', 'vote with your wallet' e.t.c., By all accounts it looked like the market did want it - because they had a rapidly growing user base. Left to the free market, Parler would have continued.
The market does not mean the CEO's of other tech companies want nothing to do with it. It also does not mean that popular opinion is that it's bad.
Imagine that Parler was a site dedicated to child pornography. Would anybody be complaining about it being shut down them?
Hopefully not. My point is that what Parler represented was equally odious. It's a hate speech platform and hate speech should not be tolerated.