Even before they had an agreement? I said they were banned from nearly every country simultaneously.
Why are they not fighting this in the courts then?
What law do you have in mind that stops registrars from kicking you off the internet?
Then Breitbart should go subscription-based then.
Are you like an Ayn Rand cultist or something? Your blind faith in a subcription service seems to fly against common sense consequences, such as a severe loss of revenue, increased advertising costs, and a loss of reach towards normal people.
So they were banned just like that? There had to be a valid reason or argument as to why Stormfront was banned.
What law do you have in mind that stops registrars from kicking you off the internet?
They can make their case in the courts, can they not? There's no Judge Dredd here controlling the Internet.
Are you like an Ayn Rand cultist or something?
Why yes, I am. If more people read Rand this country wouldn't have a fraction of the problems it's having today.
Your blind faith in a subcription service seems to fly against common sense consequences, such as a severe loss of revenue, increased advertising costs, and a loss of reach towards normal people.
How so? Breitbart has more page views than Huffington Post, NY Times, Washington Post. Obviously people are flocking there for a reason. If they went subscription-based, their page-view change would maybe decline slightly. But they would still be a powerhouse.
As I said - Look at the Sirius XM Patriot channel. It is one of Sirius XM's top channels.
Also, look what happened when the libs tried to boycott Rush. He GAINED advertisers and the ones who sold out to Brock LOST business. Breitbart would probably get more advertisers, which in turn they can lower or even eliminate their subscription cost.