[yorwba]

> tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike

Yes. If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there.

The alternative is bad companies providing the worst possible service they legally can to customers they don't really want because the law forces them to, which makes it more difficult for good companies to compete with them for market share.

But if the bad companies arbitrarily refuse to do business with anyone they dislike, the rejected customers will go to the good companies instead, which helps them grow and improve their service.

Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead.

[ttt0]

> If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there.

We are already here. Generally speaking this is most often true when the client is forced to use certain services, not the other way around. Like public healthcare or public institutions in general. On the other hand, in Europe my bank is legally obligated to provide me a basic service and they treated me very nicely whenever I had any problems, I can't complain. Also we can circle back to the Google example - they treat everyone like garbage precisely because they can arbitrarily shut down anyone, anytime, for no reason at all.

> Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead.

Almost everyone, if not everyone, does the same thing. Parler will either have to become just a second Twitter or they will be kicked off their new hosting too.

[yorwba]

> in Europe my bank is legally obligated to provide me a basic service and they treated me very nicely

Most likely you're not the kind of customer they'd rather not be doing business with.

> they treat everyone like garbage precisely because they can arbitrarily shut down anyone

Do you expect them to treat people they'd prefer to shut down better than garbage if they weren't allowed to shut them down?

> Parler will either have to become just a second Twitter or they will be kicked off their new hosting too.

Is there nobody among Parler's millions of users who'd be able and willing to host them so they don't have to worry about alignment of interests anymore?

[ttt0]

> Do you expect them to treat people they'd prefer to shut down better than garbage if they weren't allowed to shut them down?

Yes, because they would at least have to come up with a valid reason for refusing you a service. You won't just wake up one day to see everything completely gone, without any explanation.

> Is there nobody among Parler's millions of users who'd be able and willing to host them so they don't have to worry about alignment of interests anymore?

Maybe there is, I don't know. But it doesn't end on hosting. Even if you manage to successfully keep your hosting, someone else will come after you. Like the domain registrar, payment processor, DDOS protection and the final bosses - Visa and MasterCard.