Originally Posted by kenmm
It doesnt matter who owns them - if you are the type of person who likes to buy <Insert homophobic products> here, then Google will do their best within the parameters of the law to match you up with those paying to advertise the sort of <Inserted homophobic product> that you want to buy.
I was more referring to the social media aspects, as I assumed that's what the previous poster was getting at. I'm firmly of the belief that people who are "deplatformed" have zero right to expect that they be allowed to use a company's products or services. you don't have a god given right to be allowed spout what you want on FB or twitter, and the owners can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Their website, their rules. If they don't want you on, then tough.
What Will I am Not is saying (I hope) is that this is a handy excuse by the left to discriminate against the opposite points of view. They're hinting that, if the shoe was on the other foot, and say Infowars bought twitter and Ben Shapiro / Alex Jones became the frontmen and started banning anyone with a rainbow flag in their profile pic......then all those saying "Their website, their rules" would be up in arms screaming "that's discrimination, you can't censor my views because they're diametrically opposed to yours...."
I'm refuting that point. I reckon if that actually happened and people were being banned for their views (which is what is being claimed) instead of being banned for breaching the Ts&Cs (which is what's really going on) then people would leave FB or Twitter because that's patently unfair.
That's not what's happening now, because it's not patently unfair. People are being banned for acting the maggot, not because they're anti-liberal or whatever.