[Spooky23]

> Most of it actually wasn't FWIW, hateful extremist content is generally perfectly legal free speech. "Incitement" gets used way, way too often on the internet, almost nothing that gets posted online is legal incitement. But neither "Big Tech" (such a dumb term) nor Hacker News nor a random forum on birds needs any violation of law or anything else to moderate what gets posted on their sites. It doesn't have to be "negative" or whatever at all even. There is nothing illegal or objectionable about someone who likes discussing trains for example. But if you post lots just about trains on a birder forum they may delete all your posts and ask you to stop because they want to focus on birds, and if you continue to do so they can delete everything and ban you. Why would there be anything wrong with that?

I don't think anything is wrong with that.

What I don't understand is why AWS is justified to shut them down; but Google or Facebook is not justified in preventing their platforms from being propaganda distribution channels?

Specifically here on HN, people were outraged about Google's actions, but at the time I posted my original comment, nobody seemed to be upset about AWS's actions against NSO, at all.