Bitchute isn't the home of people posting Trump critiques. It's the home of people explaining why all criticisms of Trump must be dismissed as conspiracies initiated by the real enemy: Jewish New World Order reptilians https://www.bitchute.com/hashtag/trump/

What makes Twitter far worse than Gab is that Twitter actually took the time to have a human review it, and gave it the green light. Gab at least is not attempting to police its content. That makes Twitter much worse.

This is all hypocrisy. The "outrage" of Gab is completely fake. There is no legitimate argument against Gab that does not include Twitter.

[1]: https://www.ajc.com/news/national/twitter-won-suspend-louis-...

It's almost like what is being discussed has nothing to do with free speech. BitChute didn't have its free speech rights harmed in any way. No jack booted government thugs pointed their guns at the owners faces and told them to unplug from the internet.

All that happened is their current payment provider determined that their business relationship wasn't profitable and terminated the business relationship. BitChute is free to find another way to seek payment.

Jack booted thugs most certainly will point guns at anyone who tries setting up a payment processing system to compete with the company that blocked them.

> All that happened is their current payment provider determined that their business relationship wasn't profitable and terminated the business relationship. BitChute is free to find another way to seek payment.

BitChute is NOT free to find another way to seek payment, because of a state-enforced monopoly on the payment market.

It would be like if your water company decided to cut off water to your house, to compel you to stop speaking, at the behest of activists. Sure, you're "free" to carry buckets of fresh water to your house, I suppose.

No, this is not some business decision, this is systematic economic pressure intended to coerce someone into silence. And frankly I think it is good grounds for a RICO case.

It's also not about protecting any opinions (popular or unpopular) from private refusal to assist in propagating them.

Free speech is not the same as anyone else being obligate to provide assistance with distributing your speech, in fact, such an entitlement would violate freedom of speech for those compelled to participate in speech they disagree with.

Yes. If these platforms and payment processors want to continue to enjoy the state-enforced privileges they receive, then they must, within reason, offer their services to all.

As opposed to, you know, the New York Times or even the Supreme Court.