ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — It has been a hectic few days for Parler.

The so-called alternative social media platform that became a popular online forum for President Donald Trump's supporters and an echo chamber for conservative and far-right views is now virtually homeless.

Over the weekend, major tech companies such as Google and Apple removed the Parler app from their application stores. On Sunday, Amazon web services followed suit, shutting down Parler's website.

The big tech companies removed Parler for what they say was the lack of oversight and removal of objectionable content spread by users. Many have blamed the alternative social media site for allowing users to continue spreading disinformation about the election and planning and fueling the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol building that resulted in five deaths. Parler's removal also comes on the heels of Twitter and Facebook deactivating President Trump's social media accounts.

With Parler booted by the Big Tech titans, further questions are being asked about the future of one of the fastest-growing conservative social media sites, Big Tech's role in overseeing violent content, and the impact on free speech in the country.

On Monday, Parler hit back, filing a lawsuit against Amazon Web Services claiming antitrust violations, according to court records. But as Parler looks for a new home on the web, many experts wonder where its millions of users will end up.

"This is not going to end the demand," said Pete Simi, associate professor of Sociology at Chapman University. Simi specializes in studying political extremism and wrote a book called American Swastikas, which has chapters on how the far-right has used social media to fuel extremist views.

"A lot of this is uncharted territory to a large extent legally and politically," Simi said of big tech shunning Parler. "There's a big debate on whether de-platforming is going to make things better or worse."

Founded in 2018 in Henderson, Nev., by computer scientists John Matze and Jared Thomson, and funded by well-heeled and well-known conservative donor Rebekah Mercer, Parler was seen as an alternative social media site, rivaling Twitter and Facebook. Fox News contributor Don Bongino is also an investor.

The Parler interface looks like a combination of Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook. Parler allows people to create a profile, write posts, share or echo other people's posts, make comments, upvote, and follow certain news and groups.

The site dubbed itself as "an unbiased social media focused on real user experiences and engagement. Free expression without violence and no censorship."

Republicans, conservatives, and ultimately the far-right, conspiracy theorists, nationalists, and extremists began flocking to the site for its lack of censorship, unmoderated content, and promotion of free speech. Trump did not have an account. But his campaign and some family members had accounts as well as many of his Republican colleagues and ardent supporters such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Devin Nunes, Bongino, and former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

Matze told CNBC last June that it was never his intention for Parler to become a hub for conservatives.

"The whole company was never intended to be a pro-Trump thing," Matze said. "A lot of the audience is pro-Trump. I don't care. I'm not judging them either way."

Matze said his goal was to create a platform with diverse voices. However, given the sizeable conservative base, he didn't think that would happen.

For years, many Parler users had railed that Big Tech had unfairly censored their posts or, in some cases, banned them. Parler was their new social media home, experts said.

"There was a perception among Parler builders as well as users that Facebook and Twitter were against conservatism, Republicanism, or right-wing perspectives," said Mike Ananny, associate professor of journalism and communications at USC. "Parler was meant to be the new and open space invested in the marketplace model of free speech."

Experts say that a lack of or light touch moderation allowed users on Parler free reign to post and incite violence and led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

"Parler became one of these places where the seeds were planted for the kind of violence and attempted coup and uprising that we saw on Wednesday," Ananny said. "That is what led to the shutdown."

Parler didn't choose to shut down, Ananny said.

"It's having its footing taken away underneath them," he said. "This is a really powerful moment because we see how any one social media platform or website is not only about that website. It's about the infrastructure that the website sits on top of. What led to Parler's demise is when Apple and Google said, 'We think you're a hotbed of fomenting violence and government overthrow. Therefore, we won't let you in the app store.' That's not about Parler. That's about Google and Apple saying that they are gatekeepers of where apps come from."

The same thing happened with Amazon pulling Parler's website from Amazon's cloud-based web services, Ananny said.

"The shutdown stems from its hosting of right-wing extremist and government content insurrectionists," Ananny said.

Since Parler's shutdown, many have questioned whether these tech companies have a right to close Parler down and censor their users' free speech.

Craig Smith, a director center for First Amendment studies at the California University system based in Long Beach, said these companies are not the government.

They have every right to shut Parler down, Smith said.

"They are a private company," Smith said. "They are free to censor anyone they want. They are not the government."

Smith said the first line in the First Amendment reads, "'Congress shall make no law... (prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech).' That means the government shall make no law. The First Amendment only applies to the government, not the private company."

Smith also added that the Communications Decency Act section 230 gives platforms the ability to moderate and decide what to put on their platform. It also shields them from liability from the contents that users post.

Tech companies get the advantage both ways.

"They are like telephone companies," Smith said. "You can't sue the telephone company if I libel you during a phone conversation. You can sue me but not the telephone company."

President Trump has attempted to redefine Section 230. But those efforts were tabled last year.

"In my opinion, when you are a company as big as Facebook and as rich as Facebook, you can afford to [hire] people online looking for violations of the First Amendment," Smith said.

Ananny, the professor at USC, said there are further implications of tech companies removing sites such as Parler and the conversations held in it.

While there is a legal definition of free speech grounded on the First Amendment, there's also a cultural and social understanding of free speech baked in the United States and Western countries, Ananny said.

"The idea is that we govern ourselves with the largely unfettered free exchange of ideas, and if there's something wrong, the right way to fix that is to say the right things," Ananny said. "That's the marketplace of ideas of freedom of speech and ideas."

"This incident shows how a small number of technology companies gets to say who gets to be visible or invisible. Whose speech gets to be heard or not heard," Ananny said.  "That question of who gets to be heard is a free speech issue. It's not a constitutional one, but it is a cultural and social one."

With Parler now offline, the big question is where will their millions of members turn to now. Bongino, the Fox News contributor and investor, believes they'll be back online by the end of this week. Parler has already filed the first of what could be many lawsuits to get back online.

Still, some wonder if Parler will meet the same fate as 8Chan, another controversial message board type of website with connections in several mass shootings. 8Chan, which was rebranded as 8Kun, is currently offline and unable to find a webserver to host it.

"When you deplatform, some will say it's sort of like whack-a-mole," Simi, the Chapman professor, said. "All you're doing is displacing the problem, and you're pushing people more underground and it'll be harder to monitor them and make it more likely for them to engage and plan violence."

But the counter-argument, Simi said, is you can't allow this type of broadband access where disinformation and propaganda are spread to large segments of the population.

"That is really harmful," Simi said.

One thing is clear: These users will go somewhere else, whether it's Telegram or another site.

"This is not going to end the demand," he said. "You have a large number of folks on the far-right who are looking for spaces where they can discuss their views of the world."