Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
Posts: 34264
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Good said: 
 

Spatial is right about the censorship and it's all in the name of feefees. The dislike button is an example.

We are creating a generation of weak spoiled brats that will ruin everything and I will enjoy it as it burns. There is still room for it to go well, but I won't enjoy that nearly as much.

I don't see it as being all that different from where we were before, albeit over different subject matter. 

Same problem, different labels. 

 Who exactly is being censored tho?

Alex Jones is a prime example that signaled that this could happen to anyone, but largely the 'Hate Speech' types and those who'd push for more regressionist values of intolerance. Whether I agree with the content itself that's being taken down or not though is independent of if I think it ought to be taken down, as while I don't necessarily like people learning those things I do see it as otherwise opening the conversation. We even see people who aren't pushing intolerant ideas being flagged over corporate concerns over the website's image, like some of Contra's older videos. 

Usually they'll take videos down over matters of race, but over matters of gender they have more room to get away with it for some reason. Even Seinfeld doesn't quite translate the same now as it used to. Netflix even took down the episode 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' from the show Community over how it has Chang wearing Black Face (as a Drow), and their use of black face was meant to mock the concept of it rather than anything related to IRL races beyond a tongue-in-cheek referential. 

 Alex Jones isn't being censored. There are still plenty of platforms to use.

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't count either. 

Facebook though, while it was once more centralized... that's mostly boom-tube now with the occasional free upload of something like Buffy. 

You as a content creator that monetizes videos must read through all terms of service if you want to continue to use the service/platform. Alex Jones still has the ability to whine and honk about his conspiracy theories elsewhere he's just mad that he no longer has the YouTube algorithm working for him and that he no longer receives that google paycheck. These people aren't being censored. 

This is censorship, even when it's over 'whining and honking' it's policing what they feel can and can't be shown on their centralized, google-syndicated platform. How they respond to problems has ripples in how other websites feel they should respond to things as well, showing where levels of present and future practices are liable to go if corporate keeps sinking it's claws in while too concerned over it's viewers sensibilities. 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

It's still censorship just as much as it'd be from a cable television platform. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Posts: 2835
1 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

 they're going to potentially be held financially liable if they allow people to incite violence or hatred on their platforms. i don't get the confusion over that

i'm not talking about the robinson guy or people like him, if he did what you said. i'm talking more the stuff like banning project veritas from twitter or lil girl soph from youtube. they say hate isn't allowed, but that's politically arbitrary. there's plenty of anti white stuff big on all the major tech platforms, but it flies because there's a narrative that there can't be racism against a majority group. imagine if netflix put out a "dear black people" as a counterpart to "dear white people"

 There used to be Minstrel Shows, tryp. There was plenty of racist movies with white leading actors. Some in black face. Don't worry, i don't think white people are suddenly going to be made slaves or suffer through any of the systematic racial oppression that people of color have had to suffer through. 

Posts: 2835
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Good said: 
 

Spatial is right about the censorship and it's all in the name of feefees. The dislike button is an example.

We are creating a generation of weak spoiled brats that will ruin everything and I will enjoy it as it burns. There is still room for it to go well, but I won't enjoy that nearly as much.

I don't see it as being all that different from where we were before, albeit over different subject matter. 

Same problem, different labels. 

 Who exactly is being censored tho?

Alex Jones is a prime example that signaled that this could happen to anyone, but largely the 'Hate Speech' types and those who'd push for more regressionist values of intolerance. Whether I agree with the content itself that's being taken down or not though is independent of if I think it ought to be taken down, as while I don't necessarily like people learning those things I do see it as otherwise opening the conversation. We even see people who aren't pushing intolerant ideas being flagged over corporate concerns over the website's image, like some of Contra's older videos. 

Usually they'll take videos down over matters of race, but over matters of gender they have more room to get away with it for some reason. Even Seinfeld doesn't quite translate the same now as it used to. Netflix even took down the episode 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' from the show Community over how it has Chang wearing Black Face (as a Drow), and their use of black face was meant to mock the concept of it rather than anything related to IRL races beyond a tongue-in-cheek referential. 

 Alex Jones isn't being censored. There are still plenty of platforms to use.

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't count either. 

Facebook though, while it was once more centralized... that's mostly boom-tube now with the occasional free upload of something like Buffy. 

You as a content creator that monetizes videos must read through all terms of service if you want to continue to use the service/platform. Alex Jones still has the ability to whine and honk about his conspiracy theories elsewhere he's just mad that he no longer has the YouTube algorithm working for him and that he no longer receives that google paycheck. These people aren't being censored. 

This is censorship, even when it's over 'whining and honking' it's policing what they feel can and can't be shown on their centralized, google-syndicated platform. How they respond to problems has ripples in how other websites feel they should respond to things as well, showing where levels of present and future practices are liable to go if corporate keeps sinking it's claws in while too concerned over it's viewers sensibilities. 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

It's still censorship just as much as it'd be from a cable television platform. 

 Waaah waaah, cry about it.

Posts: 34264
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
 

I don't see it as being all that different from where we were before, albeit over different subject matter. 

Same problem, different labels. 

 Who exactly is being censored tho?

Alex Jones is a prime example that signaled that this could happen to anyone, but largely the 'Hate Speech' types and those who'd push for more regressionist values of intolerance. Whether I agree with the content itself that's being taken down or not though is independent of if I think it ought to be taken down, as while I don't necessarily like people learning those things I do see it as otherwise opening the conversation. We even see people who aren't pushing intolerant ideas being flagged over corporate concerns over the website's image, like some of Contra's older videos. 

Usually they'll take videos down over matters of race, but over matters of gender they have more room to get away with it for some reason. Even Seinfeld doesn't quite translate the same now as it used to. Netflix even took down the episode 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' from the show Community over how it has Chang wearing Black Face (as a Drow), and their use of black face was meant to mock the concept of it rather than anything related to IRL races beyond a tongue-in-cheek referential. 

 Alex Jones isn't being censored. There are still plenty of platforms to use.

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't count either. 

Facebook though, while it was once more centralized... that's mostly boom-tube now with the occasional free upload of something like Buffy. 

You as a content creator that monetizes videos must read through all terms of service if you want to continue to use the service/platform. Alex Jones still has the ability to whine and honk about his conspiracy theories elsewhere he's just mad that he no longer has the YouTube algorithm working for him and that he no longer receives that google paycheck. These people aren't being censored. 

This is censorship, even when it's over 'whining and honking' it's policing what they feel can and can't be shown on their centralized, google-syndicated platform. How they respond to problems has ripples in how other websites feel they should respond to things as well, showing where levels of present and future practices are liable to go if corporate keeps sinking it's claws in while too concerned over it's viewers sensibilities. 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

It's still censorship just as much as it'd be from a cable television platform. 

 Waaah waaah, cry about it.

Why cry about winning a debate? 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Posts: 34264
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

 they're going to potentially be held financially liable if they allow people to incite violence or hatred on their platforms. i don't get the confusion over that

i'm not talking about the robinson guy or people like him, if he did what you said. i'm talking more the stuff like banning project veritas from twitter or lil girl soph from youtube. they say hate isn't allowed, but that's politically arbitrary. there's plenty of anti white stuff big on all the major tech platforms, but it flies because there's a narrative that there can't be racism against a majority group. imagine if netflix put out a "dear black people" as a counterpart to "dear white people"

 There used to be Minstrel Shows, tryp. There was plenty of racist movies with white leading actors. Some in black face. Don't worry, i don't think white people are suddenly going to be made slaves or suffer through any of the systematic racial oppression that people of color have had to suffer through. 

It does have me wonder what it'd take for that to come to pass. 

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
Posts: 4653
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said:

 There used to be Minstrel Shows, tryp. There was plenty of racist movies with white leading actors. Some in black face. Don't worry, i don't think white people are suddenly going to be made slaves or suffer through any of the systematic racial oppression that people of color have had to suffer through. 

point is the rules are inconsistent and go with

a) whatever political leanings the people who can make the rules have

b) whatever looks good for the brand

last edit on 12/28/2021 2:03:48 AM
Posts: 2835
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
 

I don't see it as being all that different from where we were before, albeit over different subject matter. 

Same problem, different labels. 

 Who exactly is being censored tho?

Alex Jones is a prime example that signaled that this could happen to anyone, but largely the 'Hate Speech' types and those who'd push for more regressionist values of intolerance. Whether I agree with the content itself that's being taken down or not though is independent of if I think it ought to be taken down, as while I don't necessarily like people learning those things I do see it as otherwise opening the conversation. We even see people who aren't pushing intolerant ideas being flagged over corporate concerns over the website's image, like some of Contra's older videos. 

Usually they'll take videos down over matters of race, but over matters of gender they have more room to get away with it for some reason. Even Seinfeld doesn't quite translate the same now as it used to. Netflix even took down the episode 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' from the show Community over how it has Chang wearing Black Face (as a Drow), and their use of black face was meant to mock the concept of it rather than anything related to IRL races beyond a tongue-in-cheek referential. 

 Alex Jones isn't being censored. There are still plenty of platforms to use.

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't count either. 

Facebook though, while it was once more centralized... that's mostly boom-tube now with the occasional free upload of something like Buffy. 

You as a content creator that monetizes videos must read through all terms of service if you want to continue to use the service/platform. Alex Jones still has the ability to whine and honk about his conspiracy theories elsewhere he's just mad that he no longer has the YouTube algorithm working for him and that he no longer receives that google paycheck. These people aren't being censored. 

This is censorship, even when it's over 'whining and honking' it's policing what they feel can and can't be shown on their centralized, google-syndicated platform. How they respond to problems has ripples in how other websites feel they should respond to things as well, showing where levels of present and future practices are liable to go if corporate keeps sinking it's claws in while too concerned over it's viewers sensibilities. 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

It's still censorship just as much as it'd be from a cable television platform. 

 Waaah waaah, cry about it.

Why cry about winning a debate? 

 You didn't win, that's not censorship. 

Posts: 2835
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said:

 There used to be Minstrel Shows, tryp. There was plenty of racist movies with white leading actors. Some in black face. Don't worry, i don't think white people are suddenly going to be made slaves or suffer through any of the systematic racial oppression that people of color have had to suffer through. 

point is the rules are inconsistent and go with

a) whatever political leanings the people who can make the rules have

b) whatever looks good for the brand

 Its always always going to be what looks good for the brand. That will never change. 

Posts: 34264
0 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 
 

Alex Jones is a prime example that signaled that this could happen to anyone, but largely the 'Hate Speech' types and those who'd push for more regressionist values of intolerance. Whether I agree with the content itself that's being taken down or not though is independent of if I think it ought to be taken down, as while I don't necessarily like people learning those things I do see it as otherwise opening the conversation. We even see people who aren't pushing intolerant ideas being flagged over corporate concerns over the website's image, like some of Contra's older videos. 

Usually they'll take videos down over matters of race, but over matters of gender they have more room to get away with it for some reason. Even Seinfeld doesn't quite translate the same now as it used to. Netflix even took down the episode 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' from the show Community over how it has Chang wearing Black Face (as a Drow), and their use of black face was meant to mock the concept of it rather than anything related to IRL races beyond a tongue-in-cheek referential. 

 Alex Jones isn't being censored. There are still plenty of platforms to use.

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't count either. 

Facebook though, while it was once more centralized... that's mostly boom-tube now with the occasional free upload of something like Buffy. 

You as a content creator that monetizes videos must read through all terms of service if you want to continue to use the service/platform. Alex Jones still has the ability to whine and honk about his conspiracy theories elsewhere he's just mad that he no longer has the YouTube algorithm working for him and that he no longer receives that google paycheck. These people aren't being censored. 

This is censorship, even when it's over 'whining and honking' it's policing what they feel can and can't be shown on their centralized, google-syndicated platform. How they respond to problems has ripples in how other websites feel they should respond to things as well, showing where levels of present and future practices are liable to go if corporate keeps sinking it's claws in while too concerned over it's viewers sensibilities. 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

It's still censorship just as much as it'd be from a cable television platform. 

 Waaah waaah, cry about it.

Why cry about winning a debate? 

 You didn't win, that's not censorship. 

If you can't even recognize what they've done on Cable in the past as censorship, I'm not sure where to go from here. 

Edit: Maybe a definition? 

Posted Image

Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on 12/28/2021 2:32:58 AM
Posts: 2835
1 votes RE: can we all talk about our favorite luna memories?
Lenalee said: 
Lenalee said: 

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

It's still censorship just as much as it'd be from a cable television platform. 

 Waaah waaah, cry about it.

Why cry about winning a debate? 

 You didn't win, that's not censorship. 

If you can't even recognize what they've done on Cable in the past as censorship, I'm not sure where to go from here. 

Edit: Maybe a definition? 

Posted Image

 Being banned from platforms for violating terms of service isn't censorship. They haven't prohibited you from finding his stuff and listening to it on other platforms. It is not censorship. The 1st amendment protects the typical person against restrictions on their speech from government not from platforms like Twitter or Facebook. 

Google, Facebook and Twitter all got stocks and so this makes them all public companies and if users start going off and inciting violence and that harms them financially then obviously they will enforce their rules.

This is not censorship.

 

This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.