Worse than that, it is an attempt at intimidation. Given today's climate, it would not surprise me if it works.
Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for their ... whats the word I heard used about Parler ... complicity?
I think this is a slippery slope fallacy. Asking a media outlet the size of their audience is a common figure, something they include in every ad sales presentation. Its relevant to understand the reach of these messages, especially when they have direct ties to foreign adversaries such as in the case of OANN: https://www.thedailybeast.com/oan-trumps-new-favorite-channe... This is not a censorship dragnet, its a wide-ranging set of inquiries to a diverse set of media (keep scrolling if you just saw the AT&T letter) in response to an attempted insurrection.
Facebook was regularly kicking people off for problematic comments (it certainly didn't get all of them).
That was many people's motivation for going to Parler in the first place - frustrated with what they believed being tagged as "false", frustrated with repeated bouts in Facebook Jail, etc.
There's a dichotomy that one of the major motivations for Parler uptick is because of something you imply never really ever happened on Facebook.
No, it really wasn't dis/mis information. You can't just label facts you don't like, that go against a narrative that you wish to be true, as disinformation. Twitter, Facebook, and many others do this. They specifically stifle discussion that runs counter to the narratives they wish to promote.
That's their choice as private companies. But holding them to account for this, when they claim they wish to be "fair" definitely begs the question of what their definition of "fair" is. It makes for a rather Clintonian discussion.
I don't see how we can recover and heal until the truth is admitted to. Everyone knows it to be true, but they can't admit it. Time to come clean, or continue to inflame the situation.
Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Parler are all bars. The gang members (insurrectionists) went to the Facebook, Twitter and Youtube bars and got into fights. The Methodist (non-insurrectionists) went to Parler and did not get into bar fights.
According to you the solution is not to ban the bars where the bar fights took place but the place where there were no bar fights. It really makes no sense.
It was a power play. One (ideologically uniform, and quite likely coordinating) group asserting raw power over another. Because it could. And in doing so, making sure this was public and messy. As a warning to others.
Look at it this way. The capital riot on 6-Jan was planned and discussed on Youtube, facebook, and twitter. Apparently, barely a mention on Parler. Yet Parler was excoriated and deplatformed for it, and for not policing its comment sections. Yet Youtube, facebook, and twitter have faced no consequences for their ... whats the word I heard used about Parler ... complicity?
This is a dystopian future.