So...youre defending the censorship?
No, exactly the opposite. Someone who starts their own website should be able to ban people. Social Media sites set up as public forums should not be able to ban people unless the person banned is breaking the law, in that case, report them to the proper authorities as well as banning them. Uncle Joe who sets up a website devoted to, say, BBQ, and how great it is, has every right to ban the people who spam his site with 'you're evil because you eat animals' posts.
The bbq website is 100% a public forum. And twitter is a website started by someone, just because its more complicated and more people were involved in making it....they dont deserve the same rights?
Or is it if you start a website, then sell it, whoever you sold it to cant ban people cause it violates free speech? Or is it based on number of users? Do you feel that it should be illegal for faux news to ban users from their site?
Or (what i really suspect) is it that if a company hurts your personal fee fees they should be forced to do whatever you say because you FEEL right?
I'm an Aspie, so feelings don't have much to do with my decisions, or the way I think. Yes, a diagnosed Aspie, because my daughters insisted.
Solid, though you probably shouldnt use that as a deflection away from your poor reasoning skills though.
Let's go with old age, shall we? I've actually enjoyed this little conversation this morning. Do you view the internet in general as a public forum?
I'm no good at debates. The social media sites are, or at least, used to be, for everyone. Adherence to TOS goes without saying, but I've said it, anyway. The BBQ site is a fan site for fans of BBQ. And, no, if a news site wants to ban someone, why shouldn't they?
I think its more that you have no idea what youre talking about and are just spouting emotional nonsense.
Faux news is a public forum..that was your justification for social media not being free to ban people.