With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in support of taking the app down. But that same process can be easily used to silence apps like these.
That seems different (and significantly easier to justify) than blanket bans based on some algorithmic analysis of an app’s name.
Sort the difference between banning one person from your store for being loud and disruptive and banning all people that meet a certain criteria.
I’m not saying google is or isn’t within their rights in either case, but they do seem different to me.
It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...).
And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation.
Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.
That's not what happened and you know it. AOC wasn't a singular voice, there were lots of people calling for Parler to be shut down.
I'm not going to engage with the rest of it, but this point is important because it's being used to demonize another human being. You're repeating a narrative without scrutinizing it, please be more critical.
That exactly my point, the original comment points her out as the only or the main voice. That is just not true, it paints a skewed picture. She was either joining the choir of voices or preaching to it.
The goal of that characterisation is to demonize this one person into the source of this action. (ironically often combined with an irrational faceless "the left" to dehumanize further)
We can talk about what the influence is of a person in that position and whether it's ethical to join in such a call but that is a completely different can of worms and not what I was commenting on.
Stacking "this person did it" with "this person abused their power" is irresponsible without examining each statement.
In my country, even if the party agrees, usually who makes the comments more visibly (usually on TV) gets the 'blame' or ire of people. This is pretty normal and part of their duties as government representatives (otherwise they don't go to the media when they don't want the scrutiny of their words)
edit: Suppose the entire democrats are for doing something, but she tweets to her millions of followers about it, which creates social pressure from her followers for a company to do something, even if the entire democratic wing agrees, she as the 'inciter' shouldn't she also get the brunt of the ire? Or it is only for the good things you get credit (AOC defends better minimum wage, or student debt cancelation) but the bad ones no (democrats want to shut down parlour) ?
This is something I saw on US and European news. If 'America' did something 'bad', headlines would say 'Trump did this', if it was 'good', headlines would say 'America did this'. You can see this today, now a bit reversed, on cnn politics website. There are two positive headlines, both mention Harris and Biden by name, while the negative uses White House.