So it was OK to organize riots on social media 6-8 months ago. You are entirely missing the point. These service agreement rules they are citing have been broken many times in the past without repercussions. This is selective enforcement to silence people.

Actually, Twitter, Google, and Apple accept more than enough government money to satisfy a “arm of a the government” precedent, which already exists. I don’t know if the people would prevail in court, but the precedent certainly exists. I find some accounts of “the threat of more violence” to be absurdly overstated, too. I recently watched a compilation of MSM commentaries on the violence from last year, where the talking heads were waxing eloquently about how all of the “DEFUND” and BLM looting, burning, and killing was benefitting our nation. It’s a long-standing double standard, and far too many sheep in this country allow the he MSM to tell them what to think, without question. When this love affair with the left ends, a lot of the damage they’ve done won’t be reversed.

By that logic every company and every individual accepts money from the government. Ever taken a deduction? Ever gotten a stimulus check? Does that mean you are an arm of the government?

Yes, we are all extensions of the government via a vote, even illegal immigrant's.

Can't believe we are having this argument. I'm moving a long on this one.

Do we know how many warnings have been issued to others organizing violence? Do we know how many of them were taken down? I've got a pile of buddies who have been put in FB jail for various things. Millions of accounts are deleted or banned a month. Do we know how many warnings were issued to Paler? We don't. Maybe there weren't any. That would be fine as well.

It may not be cool JP, but it's perfectly legal. It's literally legal in most states for me to fire a guy for wearing a bears hat and not a guy wearing a packers hat. It's called at will employment. It should stay that way as well. Government should stay out of business as much as possible. Most conservatives agree with that.

I actually don't know a ton about it JP. I've never been on Parler. I'm only loosely aware it's some sort of conservative twitter. I do not know the types of things being said on there. If people are using the site to spread mass miss-information that could lead to a civil war in this country or violence that could harm people, then actually I don't blame big tech for distancing themselves. If I owned those companies I would probably do the same thing. Then I again, I'd have also done it earlier this year with folks organizing gatherings to burn cities down. If the argument is big tech leans left, I think we all know that is true. Is what it is.

So you think it's OK for them to decide who is right and who is wrong? And if you are not up to date with current events, why are you here debating them?

So you think it's OK for them to decide who is right and who is wrong? And if you are not up to date with current events, why are you here debating them?

I'm going to amplify this comment. Big Tech has had the shield of Section 230, which protects them for being a platform where OTHER PEOPLE publish stuff. But they're no longer mere platforms - companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have dominated the social media landscape in an oligopoly, and are using the oligopoly power to shut out anyone who disagrees with their politics. And of course, as JP said, FB etc are happy to let leftist groups use their platforms to coordinate riots and other violence, which is hypocrisy at best and probably could be considered criminal at some level (perhaps conspiracy, collusion, aiding & abetting).

The next logical step (I hope I'm wrong) is for Big Tech to force a choice on banks. Banks will be given a choice of continued membership and access to Big Tech services, or to keep citizens as customers, but not both. So if your Facebook page says that you're a Republican, the bank will shut your account down. Bought ammo with your credit card? Don't be surprised if your card get closed out. It might even extend to whether or not your cell phone gets cancelled. Would such actions still be private companies just conducting business, or is there some level at which they become public actors subject to the Constitution?

BTW - from now on, I'm saying "citizens" rather than "conservatives" because many moderate liberals still share the common values of freedom and liberty with conservatives. But the Big Tech people are way left past liberal.

There's a million porn sites that can find service providers

Yes I do JP. That's the law. I'm on here debating that the first amendment does not apply to private companies and their policies. As an example, you have every legal right to ban me from this site forever for this post even if it does not violate your policies. (I hope you don't, I love the TFF and most of the guys on here. I appreciate the community), but you certainly have that right and you should retain that right as a private business owner. That's all I'm arguing.

I'm going to amplify this comment. Big Tech has had the shield of Section 230, which protects them for being a platform where OTHER PEOPLE publish stuff. But they're no longer mere platforms - companies like Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter have dominated the social media landscape in an oligopoly, and are using the oligopoly power to shut out anyone who disagrees with their politics. And of course, as JP said, FB etc are happy to let leftist groups use their platforms to coordinate riots and other violence, which is hypocrisy at best and probably could be considered criminal at some level (perhaps conspiracy, collusion, aiding & abetting).

The next logical step (I hope I'm wrong) is for Big Tech to force a choice on banks. Banks will be given a choice of continued membership and access to Big Tech services, or to keep citizens as customers, but not both. So if your Facebook page says that you're a Republican, the bank will shut your account down. Bought ammo with your credit card? Don't be surprised if your card get closed out. It might even extend to whether or not your cell phone gets cancelled. Would such actions still be private companies just conducting business, or is there some level at which they become public actors subject to the Constitution?

BTW - from now on, I'm saying "citizens" rather than "conservatives" because many moderate liberals still share the common values of freedom and liberty with conservatives. But the Big Tech people are way left past liberal.