Parler had the same "political ideology" the week before the violence. No one cared about their ideology. Once specific violent acts occured, and calls went un-addressed on Parler for more violence, people started to care.
As long as Parler is free to use any other provider, or to host their own servers, I see no problem. I was not popular when I said that bakers may refuse (gay) clients, I will not be popular when I say that Amazon may refuse to host Parler.
Please stop pretending this was motivated only by "political ideology".
The facts are pretty simple here. Parler had illegal content on their servers and refused to moderate it effectively. Companies asked them to fix their moderation issue and they refused, this is the consequence.
They aren't being kicked off because they said "I like Trump" they are being kicked off for inciting violence and hosting content that called for some truly horrendous acts.
Please stop pretending that every other major social media platform does not or has not hosted users calling for - or actually committing - truly horrendous acts. Parler is hardly the first social media company that has had violent users.
"Handing control over." Seriously, do you have a realistic alternative? If we are going to have social media, at scale, in a capitalist society, it's hard to see how there's much of an alternative to for-profit companies. Do you want the government to run Twitter?
In some ways, yes. For example, Parler could self-host instead of relying on cloud offerings. For something controversial that will likely face legal challenges, this seems like the only reasonable way to do things (see: wikileaks, sci-hub etc.)
We could rebuild social media on the same principles as the World Wide Web, where it's not run by any single group at all. (I'd argue that's actually what we had back in the days of the "blogosphere".)
Today it’s Parler, tomorrow it’s whatever political ideology Big Tech finds inconvenient.