For example, while I don't care for Milo's lifestyle, I liked following him on Twitter. His posts generated traffic to the site. I own some Twitter stock and I want more traffic on the site. By banning him there is less traffic on the site.
The likelihood of "conservative" social media sites (other than the best one, FREEREPUBLIC.COM) being created is slim. How can the existing social media sites be forced to be politically neutral?
It seems that stockholders could make the case that they have lower returns on their investments if users are denied services due to political views that may differ than those who make decisions that choose one political side over the other.
You can sue anyone for anything. Problem is getting either a deep-pockets person to sue or an attorney willing to finance it.
In this state of affairs, conservatives should sue anything that infringes on anything... go after the left like a dog on a bone!!!
A conservative alternative to Twitter already exists here http://gab.ai
all the stuff you know you can’t say without getting kicked off of Twitter and FB you is being discussed freely there
also there is no possible “conservative” alternative to FB as using FB is pretty much by definition a not conservative (highly immodest) activity
It's pretty misleading if the don't.
Unless these sites said in a contract that they wouldn’t, then these conservatives can stop wasting legal time, and DUMP THEIR SHARES.
Or donate to Dennis Prager’s PragerU to fund their lawsuit for their censorship by Google.
Answer: Yes.
They sacrifice stockholder value for political gain.
Yes to your question.
Lionel Nation (YouTube commentator), a very bright lawyer himself, calls for massive, massive, massive class action lawsuits against these liberal suckup social media goons.