I think that the conversation that needs to be had is "do these companies have reasonable and transparent rules?", and "are they enforcing them appropriately?", and "what are our options if either of these answers is no?" https://twitter.com/kurteichenwald/status/1348713387174342657

Which fits really nicely into the broader conversation we are already having about the relationship between state power and corporate power. Big banks, oil and tobacco companies, pharma... tech is part of that conversation too.

But one thing I haven't seen brought into the middle of this conversation is HOW FAR THIS WAS ALLOWED TO GO before anyone did anything. This episode proves they had this power and chose not to exercise it when they first learned it was growing.

The tech definition of "free speech" and "neutrality" seems very conveniently aligned with them not having to work very hard or do anything that would disrupt their money faucet.

It is not wholly without merit, but they repeatedly fail to address its flaws at all.

So yeah, I think two things can be true:

1 - Parler was the victim of its own lawlessness and hubris

2 - it is worth reflecting how big a flex this is

But I don't think either of those things even remotely suggests that Parler should have been allowed to continue festering

What it DOES tell us, I think, is that there are multiple ways to address the problem of hate groups online, and tech firms have largely chosen a bad one that inevitably leads to the need for drastic and high-profile steps like this

But this isn't a story about Big Brother and the moustache-twirling powers of Jack Dorsey to cancel free speech.

It's about what happens when you let your product rot in the sun because it's expensive to clean up. Eventually you'll have to do something about the vultures.