- Oct 2014
First, if they are free platforms, then as long as they aren't posting crimes, there's no reason why they should be blocked. If they are publishers of content as implied by "privately owned", then they can block what they want, however that also comes with them taking ownership of all illegal content they publish.Yes, I have. Are you arguing that anti-vaxxers, Sandy Hook Hoax promoters and others who actually harm people are ENTITLED to free and full use of privately owned platforms?
Why would you even WANT to include such horrible people in a group of "conservative voices"? Amazon has pulled self-published books that promote drinking bleach to cure autism in children. Are you also complaining about that?
Next, YOU INSERTED THOSE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES AS THOUGH I WAS SPEAKING FOR THEM. I expect better from you, Madeline. I expect that type of disingenuous claims from some of the plebeians around. Or are you simply THAT disconnected to what people who hold other beliefs actually believe?
The issue is not these types of content that, let's call grey area, but rather the content where the left view is completely accepted but the right view cannot be monetized, won't appear in search algorithms without directly and explicitly searching, or will see the video or sometimes the whole channel removed.
In some cases; it's literally where commenting on a statement made by say, Bill Maher, will see the video demonetized or removed... Where the original video of the person maybe saying something appalling will itself still have ads on their channel... Even though the offending comment is in the referenced words.