The typically suggested counterproposal is state control of what is functionally a utility.

And while the First Amendment definitely applies to political speech, it does not apply to threats, which are a large part of Parler's stock in trade.

So what's your alternative?

That's an answer to a different question. You and I might agree there, but that's not an answer to the question I asked.

AWS is hardly a single vertebra in the entire backbone of the internet. I’ll start worrying when Tier 1 carriers start blocking traffic. Until then, Parler is free to find another hosting solution.

Exactly, Centurylink demonstrated a couple months ago they alone could take down and disrupt IPV4 traffic worldwide. I'm starting to wonder if that was a simple configuration mistake or a pre-run.

So, the only content that a company should be able to remove should be illegal content?

Think through that a bit. There is tons of content that we remove from services constantly that isn't illegal.

If you want this to be the case, you're going to need to push for laws to be changed. AWS is absolutely _not_ forced to host code it doesn't want to host.