[DJPocari]

The problem with the whole "free market" argument is that these companies don't abide by the same forces as traditional companies. If all my friends are on Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, then I am forced to use those. Social media companies have quasi-monopolies and using alternatives is both difficult and impractical. Perhaps more decentralized communication networks will come about, but the government might use situations like this to shut them down or limit the legality of their use (as people cheer it on).

[margaretdouglas]

Convince your friends to change platform. If they won't, and it is such a foundational issue to you then perhaps you should either not worry about your social interactions being censored or find different friends. If my friends frequent a bowling alley I find questionable am I "forced" to partake because that is where my friends frequent? Your argument carries little weight to coerce such lax regulation.

Tangentially, not terminating business with Parler could be construed as not operating in their shareholders best interest, a breach of their fiduciary duty, as it could potentially harm future business opportunities if they become associated with the platform. In this case AWS is not a utility that holds a monopoly on some resource. There is market competition, and hosting your own service is an option. If a telcom prevented the latter I'd agree with your argument, as there aren't necessarily alternate options. Even then the law outlines a framework where some content is illegal that any lawyer working for the firm could green flag for client/contract termination.

[supertrope]

Big businesses will always have massive influence. Walmart refuses to stock AO rated computer games and NC17 movies. Advertisers don't want their ads running next to pornography. Corporate America supports gay rights (less some holdouts like Exxon). Some medium size cities in America only have have one newspaper left.

I'm not concerned about social media network effects. MySpace and AOL used to be dominant services.

[ip26]

Social media companies have quasi-monopolies and using alternatives is both difficult and impractical.

So did the press, and yet they were expressly granted this freedom. Buying a printing press and starting your own paper wasn't easy either, but the 1st amendment never said it was supposed to be.

[ativzzz]

> If all my friends are on Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, then I am forced to use those.

You are not forced to use those, nor any social media platform. Nor are you entitled to the use of any social media platform, legally anyway.

You WANT to use them, but that's much different from being forced. Being forced would mean everyone who gets a US drivers license also gets a facebook account.

[yazaddaruvala]

I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, I’m not smart enough to know yet, but what you describe isn’t new.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(person)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

Acting/speaking on specific ideas have caused people to be outcast, “social pariahs”, and excommunicated for millennia.

What is new today is the scale that people can reach, and the ability to excommunicate a person’s scale without excommunicating them.