system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: It is hypocritical and absolutely against liberal ethos to cheer banning of apps like Parler. These actions only strengthen the fear of censorship among conservatives.

Here me out : Yes, violence is bad. Yes, there should be a way to stop planning of riots and terrorist activities but banning apps and platforms of communication is absplutely against basic Freedom of speech.

Why? One word, Monopoly and lack of proper procedure being followed to remove these apps.

For example : Why is Parler being banned? Because they dont have policy to moderate content being posted. No one is monitoring content on Whatsapp. Then why is that platform still not taken down by Apple or Google? This is just double standard 

One might argue that Parler is responsible for a terrorist activity and hence justified. But so are twitter, facebook and others. Now don't all others have to be taken down as well?

**Edit** : Thank you for the replies. I admit that some of my views are unclear and also agree that Whatsapp is more of a messenger than a social media (however, whatsapp groups do severe damage in Asia albeit a bad example in hindsight). 

One of the replies that brought better clarity is where they explained what liberals actually stand for and the freedom of speech is more of a libertarian issue than a liberal one. Liberals have generally been pro regulation on such issues of hate speech content to an extent. 

Here are some clarifications and takeaways :
1. I agree Google, Apple, Amazon are free to do what they want to and who they want to host or ban. But given the business is monopolistic, may be a government intervention to lay down a policy is needed? Need to think about it.

2. My biggest take away is, I was of the opinion that both sides (liberal and conservative) are being hypocritical with regard to their stand on this issue. This is to an extent true but not entirely. Let me explain : 

a) Liberals have been pro regulations and stand by it. Hence they are allowed to cheer this step. Although they need to remember that this censorship is by private platform and it is dangerous because they have been against the private companies denying service based on identity or belief. There is a tinge of hypocrisy here but not entirely because they are not asking for discrimination based on belief but based on hateful violence(hence might be excused but not entirely convinced yet). 

b) Conservative standards though has been unclear or double sided to me here. They are against any regulation of companies but want to dictate Google and Apple to host Parler against their will. I do understand their problem of having their voice censured which is fair. 

At the end of the day, this will only push these violent mobs into deeper and darker corners of internet but hardly solves the core problem. 

In the end I think the standard of discourse on internet or real world can be corrected when the world comes back to trusting, believing and agreeing on basic facts.
gpt
It is definitely against "libertarian" or laissez faire market ethos to allow the government to control the decisions of private corporations. But "libertarian" and "liberal" (in the current U.S. political sense) only share a Latin root, but not actual meaning in political culture.

Unfettered "freedom" of anything is more commonly linked to the "hands-off" policies of the right than to the "state power" views of the left. The deregulation of government controls over corporate practices is a GOP platform since Reagan. Freedom to exercise 2A rights with whatever type of weapon one can get is a conservative/GOP/libertarian view. U.S. liberals are for gun control. The ethos of control of other dangers, like potential for incitement to violence, is actually 100% the ethos of U.S. liberalism.

U.S. "liberalism" of the AOC and Bernie variety is actually focused on how deregulation and the "freedom" for private industries to manage themselves without oversight has been the cause of multiple catastrophes; from the economic meltdown of 2008 to the climate change crisis and need for a "green new deal". The ethos of U.S. liberalism is actually very much aligned with asserting control over private interests when their operation in the market creates a harm (negative externality) to the common interest/public good.

If there is hypocrisy in this situation, it would be wherever conservatives/GOP are calling for government to regulate a tech company's ability to decide how to run their business.