Yes. Implicit in these "free speech" arguments is the idea that the government should be able to force private companies to publish user content that violates their policies. This is the sort of thing that the 1st Amendment is actually supposed to protect us from.
throwawayboise|5 years ago
When you rent space to someone, and they start using it in a way you don't like, maybe even specificially violating their lease, you can throw them out, but it becomes a legal process called eviction. You can't just put their stuff on the sidewalk and change the locks without going through that process. This is how the game is played when you get into that business.
Maybe that is the part that's missing with the AWS/Parler situation. AWS doesn't want them, but they leased space and services to them and there is a contract. Breach of contract is not something that either party to the contract can determine, because they both have conflicts of interest. If we had a judge review the contract, and approve the eviction, at least there would be a lot less basis to claim that are acting capriciously or out of bias.
eightysixfour|5 years ago
Maybe in the long-term we'll look at hosting more like real-estate and it will have more laws and regulations about what the providers can and cannot do, but I doubt it and I'm willing to bet the trade offs that come with that are truly terrible. Imagine how many things wouldn't get off the ground if hosting contracting was even 1/3 of the real estate process.
More importantly, hosting isn't a monopoly. There's no government provided moat that justifies that level of regulation. The way I see it there are only two things that are in utilities in the internet space, ISPs (both consumer facing and interconnects) and DNS, and DNS is arguable.