[fl0wenol]

The analogies for the digital town/community break down when we consider certain practical and physical barriers that exist in company towns that do not exist in the digital realm. For example, the travel expenses and time required to purchase goods. You could go outside the company town, but it requires much more resources to do so, which is doubly impacted by pay being docked accordingly to bundled company town services (utility, rent, etc.), which traps residents. This is why they have been looked upon unfavorably.

But digital communities do not trap individuals, there is no practical limit except of mental effort to the number of accounts or social media networks a person can simultaneously use. Instead, the costs are borne by the networks themselves, which scales with the number of users.

This is an inversion of the scenario as the public is a passive participant, nothing is forced upon them. This is why I think the argument is not a good fit.

Parler and AWS, as business entities, can only act in their own interests as there is no duty between a corporation and the general public, only their customers through either a uniform or contractual relationship. Wouldn't you agree? It would be dangerous to assume that a corporation has a specific duty to the general public beyond existing customers. That is, AWS only has to deal with Parler, not Parler's customers. That is on Parler.

And I don't think the state enters into this at all.