> This is about the fact that social media platforms just censored the President of the United States of America for no other reason than their own political views.

Pretty sure it's because they think his usage of his platform contributed to a violent insurrection on the US capitol building that killed 5 people and, had it not been managed, likely included assaults on US representatives.

But they said, in not so many words, that if the platforms are going to hold normal users to a standard, they should hold public figures to an equal (or IMO, greater) standard instead of letting them have more privileges. I don’t really see a problem with that, except for how deadpan the delivery is.

They don’t because pandering pays the bills. But if pandering doesn’t bother you, there are more lucrative forms and you can just do away with the pretense and get to the pandering.

You seem to be taking the stance that they're a left leaning organization, but criticizing them for framing their point of view in politically neutral terms.

What if the apparent political leanings of their thinking is a second order effect of the EFF's goal and not the root cause?

Did their political views change over the last day or so? Did the President's? No? Then perhaps you should consider that there may be other possible reasons that they have banned these accounts.

Are you really comparing the actions of East German secret police with being banned from social media? This is ridiculous.

The left used to defend free speech in the public square. Such as when neo-nazis marched in Skokie where many Jewish Holocaust survivors lived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am...

There's nothing wrong with the opinion of being against free speech, it's just quite sad how far we've fallen. Only allowing the speech you agree with is not free speech.

Free Speech has to do with the government hauling you off for saying something, it has nothing to do with being able to incite riots, or convey viewpoints of fascism on the property of a 3rd party.

Do you understand the difference between free speech and conspiracy? Between opinions and inciting?

If not these are all just words you found that when strung together elicit an emotional response from yourself, and from others. A strong reaction doesn’t mean something is true, or makes sense. It just means your monkey brain reacted to it. Wisdom is separating the two.

I can't tell if you're spreading misinformation on purpose. You're referring to the American Nazi party as "the left".

From your link: "his Neo-Nazi group, the NSPA, would regularly hold demonstrations in Marquette Park".

Firstly: you're mislabeling the radical right wing. Secondly: they they're right wing goes against your point.

Are you confused because "national socialist" (which is what nazi stands for) has the word socialist?

The example was that the American Nazi Party wanted to march through a neighborhood with several Holocaust survivors. Many non-Nazis, including groups like the ACLU, defended the Nazis’ right to hold the march.

Thanks for the clarification.

Well, their political views and his attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government by inciting a mob to storm the Capitol building.

> This is about the fact that social media platforms just censored the President of the United States of America for no other reason than their own political views.

First they came for the most powerful person on the planet, and I said nothing...

Trump’s “political views” include inciting violence to overturn the election.