He is not banned from the internet. No one is stopping him from posting whatever he wants on his own site.

Curious why these "platforms" consistently shadow ban and demonetize conservative channels, yet no eyes batted at someone like Farrakhan.
Oh who am I kidding, we all know why.

Too bad for Alex. I quite enjoyed laughing at the crazy shirtless vitamin salesman.

The hyperbole in the first sentence you quoted went over your head.

Of course he can post fresh content on his site. That, however, does not explain his near SIMULTANEOUS banning off four major platforms.

He was responding to this quote

Companies don't need to provide a platform for his content. The State isn't preventing him from putting his own shit on his own site.

As for why liberal minded companies are not blocking liberal bullshitters... I mean do you have to ask?

Why is this even a debate? If any conservative-controlled websites were actually popular, they would be banning crazy libs too... I mean who wants to listen to the extremes of either side? They’re both fucked in the head.

no kidding... if conservatives want a platform, make your own youtube or facebook.. the reason that wouldn't be popular is because most of the world doesn't share in extreme conservative values, and the userbase would always sort of stay in the 10s of millions, not the billions.

not so sure about that. conservatives are generally pretty heavy proponents to free speech. it's kinda one of the values.

and maybe these companies shouldn't claim to be impartial. they're obviously not

This is not a free speech issue. You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to use my bullhorn that I paid for to do it.

I didn't see you getting you getting upset when they took down isis videos.

Also, many conservatives are against net neutrality.

never said it was.
and alex jones is a nut bag. but he's not comparable to isis

But your talking about free speech. If all speech is not free is it really free speech?

I think the point is that Youtube and Facebook aren't 'liberal platforms'. They aren't CNN or a platform identifying as a left platform pushing a liberal agenda. They are world wide social media content platform. That is like Google showing skewed results based on an agenda to only show you the information they want you to see. White technically they can, ideologically they shouldn't.

Google absolutely shows you the results they want you to see. They've been doing it more and more over the last 10 years, and their search engine usefulness has suffered as a result (and smaller sites have suffered as well)

:suspicious: They've been doing that for years though...

I know they have. Its not correct and they shouldn't be tho.

There could be a good argument made that certain mega platforms on the internet with a billion users like Facebook, Google, Youtube, Twitter etc should be considered infrastructure parts of the internet. They should provide unbiased content from the world's population. They aren't content creators, they are avenues for content to be distributed to society.

We are talking about the US even the actual infrastructure is not protected. They just got rid of net net neutrality laws in the US.

The Libertarian in me totally disagrees. There's always Bing or DuckDuckGo or something else if you don't like Google. None of these services will be "free" but there is definitely a choice. You don't HAVE to use Facebook.

Unless the government puts up a non-biased search engine, you just have to choose which one fits your needs the best. This is a service provided by a company. It just happens to be REALLY useful, so a lot of people use it.

I think the word you're looking for is publisher. Which these companies technically are not. Though they are acting like it when they censor content, especially with clear bias, and without detail.

They know if they provide clear detail it would prove their bias and open a can of worms, since they're not censoring similarly offending content from other channels/sites.
So the question is, are they publishers? Or platforms? they have to be one or the other. There are different laws and regulations for each.

I do not think you understand how the first amendment works. The first amendment simply states that within reason the govt cannot infringe upon your right to free speech

However youtube et al are not the government. They are private companies with terms of conditions that you must agree upon to use their platform. If you violate those terms they have every right to remove you.

I dont know why its so difficult to discern between "censorship" and "violating a private companies service agreements" but it seems like many people are struggling with the distinction

Platform ban people all the time. A business is within its rights and a discretion to ban people that they don't want their products to associate with. This is nothing new.

Have nothing to do with MSM conspiracy BS whatsoever. Propaganda is "fake news" that your man keep spouting. This is also as old as the hill.

So which video(s) exactly did they ban him for? What was the exact content?

It could be literally any of his videos. I'm surprised they didn't ban him after the Sandy Hook thing

Specifically though

I dunno pick one? Who cares? If you really care you could ask them I guess.

they don't typically ban you for one video, they'd remove that video instead, and warn you. if you're regularly offending their TOS, then it's grounds to get your whole channel removed.

It is an interesting situation, which can make people seem inconsistent in their views depending on how they feel about other issues like Net Neutrality, government, capitalism, taking a knee, free speech, hate speech, fake news, and so on.

For me, while it doesn't meet the definition of free speech on paper, I do see it as censorship, and deeply troubling. This is big business silencing the little guy, using the same tools meant to protect individuals from governments.

Corporate Personhood gives big business the same basic rights as individuals - speech, religion, and so on. They have gamed the system: offshore tax havens, Temporary Foreign Worker programs, market collusion (Rogers/Bell/Telus/Shaw), deregulation, etc. They get all the benefits, without any of the responsibility. When you couple those protections with the massive wealth and influence to make governments do their bidding, the rest of us have little chance to improve.

"It's their business, they can run it how they please" is exactly the attitude which has allowed them to shirk their societal responsibilities and created the rapidly widening wealth gap. I would add "It's their government, they can run it how they please."