The _actions_ by a group of people are resulting in these bans. Not the group's affiliation. Am I missing something here?
As for Google + Apple + Amazon (+ probably every other cloud provider and virtually every other hosting company) cutting off Parler or refusing their business in the first place: Parler was accused of not moderating "enough". This in itself is not yet criminal, given section 230 (which in this context ironically Trump wanted gone so bad he tried to hold the military budget hostage over it), and the definition of "enough moderation" was kept vague enough by Apple and Google and Amazon that Parler couldn't possibly ever comply if they wanted to.
The same argument about under-moderation can be made against facebook, e.g. when they aided - or even enabled - the Rohingya genocide, which saw thousands of people killed and hundreds of thousands of people displaced. Even the UN directly pointed fingers at facebook. Facebook admitted to their role[1], but came up with a bunch of lame excuses like that they do not really have any content moderators that understand the language.
People dug up quite a number of screenshots (anecdotal evidence) of abhorrent things written on Parler to justify them getting punished. But I found that not really convincing to single out Parler like that. If I went digging on Twitter or Facebook, or could see what people tell each other in Whatapp of Telegram groups, I would find the exact same things. I have reported things on twitter in the past, like people making extremely thinly-veiled death threats or inciting violence, and twitter's response has been sluggish and often in favor of the people talking about "nooses" and "you'll get what's coming to you" in the same sentence.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
BLM may claim not to be responsible for the horrendous roiots and crime that has been committed in its name across America.
Trump may claim that he is not responsible for the tiny (in proportion) riots that happened in DC.
(IMO, they are both responsible, thus making BLM the one with more blood on its hands. But nobody asked me.)
BLM may claim that it is in their rights to fight law and order if it causes harm to individuals.
Trump may claim it is in his right to complain about law and order when (in his opinion) it was not lawful.
(IMO, this is a finer line. He certainly can legally complain. Riots are over the line for either right or left)
Stripe processes payments for BLM, and Twitter allows their posts, etc. So IMO the line they walk is fine and biased.
...or, conversely, we should compare damage and lives lost during Black Lives Matter protests to all damage and lives lost by Trump-supporting white supremacists.
But to more directly address your point, I ask you - what crime has Trump been convicted of?
But to give you a partial answer anyway: Many criminals are never convicted. Many _known_ criminals are never convicted, due to lack of undeniable proof. Some criminals are convicted on lesser crimes, just to get them off the streets. There's plenty of evidence to support the position that Trump is a criminal. He may never be convicted but not because he's innocent.
The discussion is whether they should be able to kick someone off their platform who has been convicted of no crime, because of how integral they have become to the political process.
If it was a power company shutting off electricity to Facebok, Twitter and AWS, because they disagree with their business practices, we would have an outrage right now about how undemocratic it is.
(And I say this with all my distaste for Trumpism)
After all, a free speech advocate and a neo-nazi would both support the publication of Mein Kampf - but the former might well want to be clear they're not the latter. (and of course, to complicate the situation further, the latter may want to disguise themselves as the former)
As to why you see so many posters affirming they don't support Trump - that's because HN readers aren't Trump's target demographics: Trump only got 12% of the vote in San Francisco in 2020. IMHO it's believable that on HN, free speech advocates simply outnumber Trump supporters.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/23/just-6-of-u-s-adults-on-tw...