Part of capitalist theory is that if there is a free market, the natural profit motivators will motivate you to try to utilize a variety of diverse talents, thereby naturally disincentivizing bigotry and discrimination. If one company discriminates against a certain group, they will illogically deny themselves access to that group's talents, thereby reducing their own profit potential. Conversely, open-minded companies that don't discriminate would be able to hire the victims of bigotry, grow in profitability, and eventually outcompete the bigoted companies.
Sounds great to have a natural way to punish discrimination. Yet, the question is - do we really have free markets? If there are monopolistic/oligopolistic forces in play that create unfair barriers to entry for open-minded companies, the bigoted monopolies could maintain their position of power. The fact that a series of tech companies were able to organize a coordinated shutdown of Parler and key Republicans seems to show that a free market it is not.
I recognize the danger of ideas. There is a strong utilitarian argument for shutting down dangerous speech. But that is a slippery argument that can grow to totalitarian levels if there is no limiting principle. The line between unacceptable speech and acceptable speech needs to be articulated in much clearer fashion with measurable precision and standards need to be applied equally so that political bias, bigotry, and discrimination don't corrupt our nation.
Perhaps we need some anti-trust law action to break up the tech and media monopolies/oligopolies so that unreasonably bigotry has a better chance to be punished by market forces.