MV confirming what I just wrote. They will just keep pushing. Their worthless apologies to the odd one or two people "inadvertently" censored are a small price to pay.

Tarriff them. Break up their monopolies by forcing them to pay to support alternate platforms.

By the way, the word is dissent. Descent means moving downward. Journalists should be held to a higher standard of grammar.

I think they meant “decent,” Jeff.

Good one!

Targeting decent voices with their propagandist censorship...

EXACTLY. And google. And what else?

spelling Nazi!!!

Who is "they"? Again, these bans are all being instituted as a matter of policy by private corporations, not the government. It seems that what everyone is suggesting is that the Feds should step in and tell social-media giants that they WILL allow everyone to make use of their platform. Isn't that what upsets us about "religious baker" cases? Furthermore, could it not be argued that refusing service to users with whom they disagree is a form of political-speech, much like Corporate campaign contributions? Didn't the Citizens United decision rest on the premise that 1st amendment protections extended to corporations?

"We" may have footed the bill for the initial development of what would eventually be the internet, but it was investment and innovation by private corporations that created it in its current form. Isn't it a little dangerous to say that just because taxpayer dollars paid for the initial development, that everything downstream of that belongs to the collective?
I'm not an expert on the internet or anything, so I'm open to corrections, but as I understand it, the web doesn't just exist in the ether. It takes physical infrastructure to make it all work. The government doesn't build or maintain all of that, and in all likelihood it probably benefits from the expenditures of profit-driven private enterprise.
Your statements sound a lot like an Obama "you didn't build that" justification for government seizure of private assets....

No .

Wrong.

To expand on my comments after addressing your curve ball just outside the strike zone................

Companies monetized the internet, and feel that they can control what is essentially the modern version of free press.

The ability of the people to hear differing and dissenting opinions to engage their own critical thinking and thought processes to become informed as to the reality of the world they live in is severely constrained if corporate interests can arbitrarily determine legal content.

I said, there should be consequences for companies that arbitrarily stifled opinion that differed from their own to benefit a special interest group or to advance social engineering.

Essentially, the stifling of free press, or free speech, both cornerstones of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, should be met with severe consequences. .

Exactly!!!!!! F*** facebook twitter and all the others.

They want to be purely private enterprises with no benefits or perks from the government related to utilities or the net then fine, but let's drop them to that level of access and privilege right away if they're going to ban people they politically disagree with.

careful what you say or someone might say the same about you

I am not familiar with any of these social media thingies except for YouTube University.
Here comes opinions.
YouTube and other giantish media platforms are not the same thing as a local bakery, ie, that we as the consumer have the ability to take our business elsewhere. At least not at the present time.
The deliberate (and even coordinated) stifling of a dissenting opinion/position on national, even worldwide platforms is purely and simply a violation of their rights to free speech.
This opinion would be different if there were a conservative equivalent to Google et al, but honestly, I think that having opposing media platforms that are 90% biased towards opposite viewpoints would be terrible for humanity... Kind of like the MSM and Fox right now.

I believe that mega giantish media platforms aforementioned should acknowledge their market dominance and have a VERY limited set of things that can be banned. Political opinions should never be stifled as long as they don't openly advocate for violence or things along that line. Platforms that cater to all ages should be able to refuse content that isn't appropriate for their audience, ie porn.
YouTube's audience goes all the way from toddlers to people on their death beds, political views from ultra-libertarians to ultra-Controllists.
Don't stifle opinions or political positions. Let "the market" decide what they want to watch. IMHO.

Would you complain if your local newspaper refused to print something? This is no different,

Alarming, yes, but they're playing their cards, and it makes it easier for us to play ours.

Violating the 1A? Not even.

How strange! We can have different opinions?! haha

I tried to explain why my opinion is that giantish media platforms are vastly different than a local paper. In a way, the giantish media platforms ARE the new town square.
Keeping out dissenting opinions is akin to prohibiting a person who disagrees with the government from speaking in the old time town square.
IMHO.

Your local newspaper isn't affiliated with LFA-granted utility monopolies. Hell, in some areas Google itself is an ISP.

Analogy falls flat.