2. The difference between Parler, Twitter, and Youtube is that the latter two moderate their content.
3. Parler was banned because it wouldn't moderate violent content.
Your interpretation of events is incorrect. Even Parler, in their legal filings, are not claiming that they were silenced because they were a platform for conservative speech.
Consequently sections of cities were burned, stores were looted, people were attacked and killed.
These riots, we were instructed to believe, were "mostly peaceful" and helped lessen the impact of covid19.
When is big tech and the mainstream media industry going to be held responsible?
Meanwhile, one 'stop the steal' capitol insurrection resulted in five deaths, the evacuation of congress, and the interruption of the peaceful transfer of power.
If every BLM protest killed five people, you might be able to draw some equivalence between the two. As is, the only equivalences you can draw are false ones.
And besides - this is an irrelevant tangent. The parler messages mentioned in the Amazon lawsuit were not something that would have been tolerated on Twitter, or YouTube, regardless of whether they had been posted by BLM protestors, or anyone else. People get banned from Twitter for posting things like that. People do not get banned from Parler for posting things like that. That's why Parler got booted off.
Given the other comment earlier in this subthread, I am not sure if you are legitimately professing a truly extreme form of cultural relativism, or are simply not arguing this in good faith.
But let's not guess. Let's look what actually happened to Mahathir Mohammad and Twitter. [1]
> Twitter took action against a message from the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, on Thursday that declared, “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
> The post violated Twitter's glorification of violence policy, which requires the violator to remove the tweet before they’re able to tweet from the account again.
Right. I'm going to go with 'probably not arguing this in good faith.'
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-takes-action-as-ex-mal...