So you think its the same thing when a private forum like Elitetrader bans or silences someone for a partisan reason and when the entire social media platform community - who have for all intents and purposes a monopoly - bands together to remove a prominent conservative activist from public view? I just want to hear you say this is what you believe.
I believe in facts, and the facts are there's no Monopoly on free speech on the internet as you claim
Nice dodge. Since you won't answer the first question, lets move to a different one. What percent of internet social media (not messaging aps) do you think - would you guess - is controlled by Facebook, Youtube and Twitter? I mean, since you believe in facts.
The first amendment does not guarantee me an audience. Where was the outrage when MSNBC and CNN distanced themselves from Avenatti?
You keep ignoring all my questions, while I answer yours. I wonder why this is? When a news organization does not cover an individual, this is not censorship. They probably do it because it means the person isn't news. They have to make a profit (we can argue whether news organizations should make profits...). This isn't the same thing as having a platform and restricting someone's use of that platform. What share do you think Facebook, Twitter and Youtube make up of the non-messenger social media platforms?
Because the questions you ask are irrelevant to the 1st amendment. The Avenatti example wasn't about news, he was usually a guest spouting his opinion. A private entity may choose to "censor" a guest and not give him an audience. That person is welcome to go on another show, platform, social media page, or even start their own platform, much like Avenatti has chosen to do... And to an extent Milo (by going on and complaining about Telegram).
Its absolutely relevant. You just don't like the answers. I don't think half of your questions are relevant, yet I do you the common courtesy of answering every single question you pose to me. You don't. When you say the following: You make a very relevant point, and I am trying to get to point in return (you know where this is going which is why you are so resistant to answering). If the three social media platforms restrict someone's ability to provide a voice, and they are in business to allow people to have a voice, and they represent a monopoly (you insinuated they did not) then one can make the point that someone is being silenced.
I can't see who you're arguing with, but I admire your will to continue it... This is the way these people go by... When they can't answer without contradicting themselves(which ALWAYS HAPPENS PRETTY QUICKLY), they either start with the ad hominems or they start to talk in circles avoiding the question by trying to sound smart or both... It is always the same thing... It is actually pathetic to see it... Not that I expect that the poor guy you cornered with logic and reason(something they seem to be allergic to) will change his mind, since what they want is not the pursuit of truth and solve problems, but rather push their agenda, regardless of its catastrophic consequences... But here is a video that illustrates your points: