[Blahah]

It really isn't a straw man.

If clients or customers bring bad publicity to a company they can refuse them service. They can in fact refuse service for any reason that isn't discriminatory in many jurisdictions.

Censorship has nothing to do with this. Any person can host a website from home, pay for a dedicated line, build their own datacenter, find a colo, host on a decentralised network, etc.

Amazon is under no obligation to provide service to Parler. They are not censored by Amazon refusing them as customers.

It's also not relevant to antitrust, literally at all.

A far more dangerous precedent would be compelling companies to provide service to hate groups and terrorists.

[h3cate]

I must of missed the section of the parler site that said it was a hate group or terrorist organisation..