[Ahithophel]

Alex Jones/infowars restrictions were in place on FR due to his 9/11 type conspiracy theories which we still do not want on FR.

Please explain how the effect of YouTube’s decision to ban Alex Jones and InfoWars due views/opinions/theories YouTube did not want on its website differs from that of FR’s decision to ban Alex Jones/InfoWars content from FR due to views/opinions/theories it did/does not want on FR?

Regardless of motivation or rationale, haven’t YouTube and FR, based on separate, independent objections to views/opinions/theories, each silenced Alex Jones/Infowars to the extent AJ/IW seek a voice on the YT and FR websites?

Or perhaps, motivation makes one permissible, the other criminal? Peace, A

[TheTimeOfMan]

The difference is that YouTube and facebook are defacto monopolies in their sectors.

[Hugh the Scot]

I would pray that FR become so powerful that this would be a valid comparison...

[Steve Van Doorn]

Alphabet inc (google/youtube) is running a natural monopoly and when taken to court will be under antitrust laws. Freerepublic is not.

[Jim Robinson]

I did not conspire with other corporations (or with deep staters) to ban him. Nor am I trying to remove him from the internet. I personally did not want to be associated with 9/11 conspiracies. And still do not want it on FR.

[grey_whiskers]

FR is a private, run-by-contributions website, not in general use by the wider public.

And, you know, you might read its mission statement.

Are you going to make like your namesake now that your oh-so-wise counsel has been repudiated?