> Restricting company’s freedom to choose a business model is not the answer.

Only, that's not how it works in our (and pretty much any) society. We, as a society, choose what we think is acceptable. And then we make laws to enforce that people behave in a way consistent with that. A company is not free to deny service to someone that is gay, or black, or married; just because that is their chosen business model.

They are, however, free to stop you from pushing Nazi propaganda on their resources.

I’m quite discouraged by this thread not being taken down despite the very obvious brigade of alt-right Nazi sympathizers pretending that being gay is the same as yelling for the genocide of gay people.

Yes. But we saw how quickly censorship went from Alex Jones being banned from having a Twitter,Reddit, Twitch, Mailchimp, Shopify, YouTube/Google, Facebook/Instagram account, and being banned from all those platforms simultaneously. To having Donald Trump the Republican Nominee and at the time sitting duck President having his Twitter, Reddit, Twitch, Mailchimp, Shopify, YouTube/Google, Facebook/Instagram account being banned simultaneously. Starting off with "we want to stop Nazi propaganda" turning into banning Republicans is like saying "We want to stop Communist Propaganda" and Blacklisting Liberals

Were Jones and Trump banned for being Republicans or were they banned as a consequence of their own actions?

Trump represents Republicans. Literally. It's representative democracy. The point is not Alex Jones is a republican, just that it's a not many months between Alex Jones being deplatformed who was by all definitions fringe to the representative in our representative democracy being deplatformed and alienating half the country. Trump has over 90% approval rating among Republicans.

I mean, if you think that 90% of Republicans are traitors to US democracy, you've just made a great case for deplatforming them, irrespective of how many there are, but I think you were arguing against that?

If you treat 90% of Republicans like traitors, don't be surprised when they treat 90% of Democrats like traitors. Shoe's going to be on the other foot eventually.

You see, this is the problem, you think the solution to the rule of law not going your way is to… rip up the rule of law.

I don’t think your problem is with Democrats, or social media companies, really, it’s with objective reality.

And I didn’t say they were traitors, you did.

>Trump represents republicans

Maybe don’t have racist genocidal stances then?

Trump wasn’t banned for being a republican. He was banned, ultimately, for Jan 6.

In reality, Trump broke all those platforms rules on several occasions and was given a free pass till he tried to steal an election. He’s actually the poster boy for the fact that republicans get MORE leeway on social platforms, not less.

It's interesting how this went from "they're banning people for being Republicans!" to "no can be banned for anything if they're Republicans."

Sounds like you want special treatment for Republicans, yet are paranoid that others might do the same thing.

My own opinion is that the role of government should be mostly limited to common defense, ensuring essential infrastructure and enforcing/resolving legal disputes. Essential infrastructure should include banking and internet access at this point as it's nearly impossible to function in society without them.

Infrastructure providers should not be able to refuse customers engaging in lawful activity. Your phone company can't shut you off because you say, "I wish $POLITICIAN were dead." You don't have to like or agree with everything everyone says, but it's a very dangerous slippery slope.

Personal liberty should be maximalized so as not to infringe on the rights of others. You do not have the right to live a life without risk of being offended.