I want to throw this out here as an example of what could go terribly wrong having someone like AJ ( intentional saboteur of truth movements ) Becoming this big of a target by tech companies. He could potentially sue for the censorship like Prager U is, provide weak argument, lose the case on purpose, take it to SC and lose, setting precedent for all. We should only want /ourguys/ engaging the legal system n something we are the target of. This shows a coordinated attack against him by a very large sector of the internet. I wonder what percentage of the internet usage all of these together would make up. My theory of how to tackle this would be to sue the internet service provider or file a complaint with the FCC for charging the same price as everyone else has to pay but providing only a percentage of access compared to what liberals receive. Internet as a utility was upheld in Federal Courts so they could not allow these tech companies to utilize their service if it was restricted on a random discriminatory basis. If hate speech is the problem then anyone saying anything hateful would have to be prevented, if disinformation was the problem then anyone being wrong would have to be restricted. People cannot be charged a set price for a utility service and some receive more for the same amount of money than someone else due to thought police. ISP's would then have to break down the rates they charge to give discounts for lack of access or charge more for using those sites.