Says who? Surely this is entirely up to Amazon?
Some say it was in their contract or agreement that 30 days was to be given
But it is likely that 30 day period is not applicable if the site is used to break the law. If, say, there was child pornography on a site they hosted, I am sure Amazon would shut it down immediately. So if it is inciting a riot, I would guess the same applies, and Amazon had the right (and indeed the duty) to shut it down fast.
Yeah, maybe that was a poor choice of words. How about they felt the bad publicity that would ensure a court case accusing them of inciting a riot would be bad for business. The end result is the same.
But written words don't incite riots. There is nothing you can write that would make me riot. EDIT Do Not instigate /troll other posters
It didn't incite you to riot?
Those are two different statements. I do not doubt for a minute that nothing I write would incite you to riot. But it does not necessarily follow that what other people wrote could incite others to riot. You make the same mistake in your response to Whateverman. The fact that it did not incite Whateverman does not necessarily imply that it will not incite others to riot.
Incorrect. If words have the power to make people riot then they can make people riot. Words don't have power in one place but not another. They either have the power to incite riots or they don't . The listener decides to riot not the writer.
I suspect that there are clauses in the Amazon contract which let them terminate the contract quickly if the other party behaves in certain ways. The legal argument will likely come down to whether or not Parler behaved that way.
Sorry, but wrong. Words can incite one person and fail to move another person, depending on the person. Just because what someone says does not or would not incite you to riot does not mean that they would not incite others to do so.