FR does not discriminate based on the opinion of a poster, the other members will explain / advise and handle the issue.
See humblegunner.
If someone breaks the very simple rules it will not matter if they are conservative or prog, the admin mods will handle the issue.
That is NOT No hiding behind "community guidelines" or "hate/harmful speech."
Posters here at FR post strong and sometimes harsh opinions all day long and exactly zero is said about it by the admin mods or Jim.
The back and forth leading up to the 2016 election was a slug-fest and the admin mods and Jim only enforced the rules.
They did not take sides and ban the Cruz supporters over the Trump supporters or the Ben Carson supporters over the Mike Huckabee supporters, etc.
That is what fakebook and twit do, hiding behind "community guidelines" and the disparity between FR is obvious due to the propensity of it’s occurrence.
To take a single sentence of my post out of context and compare it to to the flagrant abuse of Section 230 by fakebook/twit is disingenuous.
.
The point is, FR is Jim's private property and he can make the rules as convoluted and arbitrary as he likes.
Are there instances where you think the federal government should keep him from banning someone or removing a post?