> The narrative of "it's a free business decision for them to deny service" is unfortunately faulty.
Why?
Because companies like Paypal, Facebook, Google (and the algorythm which the alternative often use), Twitter, Youtube - those are NATURAL MONOPOLIES. Essentially they are comparable to one local supermarket in your remote village that by sheer luck has been created first or was just marginally better than the other competitors. The village does not support 2 local supermarkets just as 2 Twitters and 2 Youtubes of identical power do not exist. Google even tried to create their own Youtube, but it did not reach any level even remotely similar to Youtube despite all their strength. Why is that?
Because the internet works in a way of creating natural monopolies just as utilities like power, water and train communication create natural monopolies that only make sense to be offered by one company - best a public one even in this case.
Twitter and Youtube are comparable to the local supermarket in your remote Alaskan village who suddenly decides to NOT SELL YOU ANYTHING, TO BAN YOU FROM THEIR STORE because it does not like you anymore due to your conservative views. You have not done anything illegal, you do not steal from them or stink - they just arbitrarily decide to not like you. That is 95% of all Twitter and Youtube bans.
Paypal deplatforming Roosh was such a supermarket decision. The globalists of course know that the internet has created natural monopolies and that is why some politicians correctly said that they should be re-defined as utilities - aka you force them to be politically un-biased and that throwing out the alt-right is tantamount to McDonald's implementing "a-no-black-customer-served" policy while all the other major restaurant chains do exactly the same. These are all private businesses, right? So they should be able to do it? No - that is discrimination - real one in this case and not the new Orwellian definition of it.
You already see how Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are banning or demonetizing content creators for a multitude of reasons - because they are anti-feminist, they are anti-Hillary, they are supposedly racist (even when all you do is spout peer-reviewed studies on races) - does not matter - you get banned.
So no - those big internet businesses are natural monopolies and must be treated differently. Go-daddy is another matter, but what happens when they refuse to give you any platform? They can ban anyone off the internet permanently similar to Andrew Anglin. You may not disagree with him and that is fine, but so long as not actually calling out for violence, then what is the problem? Islam spawns countless groups, sites and videos who all call for the annihilation of the Jews and conquest of all unbelievers. By that definition you should ban Islam off the internet completely, but that won't happen until after WWIII, so it's good for now.
Why?
Because companies like Paypal, Facebook, Google (and the algorythm which the alternative often use), Twitter, Youtube - those are NATURAL MONOPOLIES. Essentially they are comparable to one local supermarket in your remote village that by sheer luck has been created first or was just marginally better than the other competitors. The village does not support 2 local supermarkets just as 2 Twitters and 2 Youtubes of identical power do not exist. Google even tried to create their own Youtube, but it did not reach any level even remotely similar to Youtube despite all their strength. Why is that?
Because the internet works in a way of creating natural monopolies just as utilities like power, water and train communication create natural monopolies that only make sense to be offered by one company - best a public one even in this case.
Twitter and Youtube are comparable to the local supermarket in your remote Alaskan village who suddenly decides to NOT SELL YOU ANYTHING, TO BAN YOU FROM THEIR STORE because it does not like you anymore due to your conservative views. You have not done anything illegal, you do not steal from them or stink - they just arbitrarily decide to not like you. That is 95% of all Twitter and Youtube bans.
Paypal deplatforming Roosh was such a supermarket decision. The globalists of course know that the internet has created natural monopolies and that is why some politicians correctly said that they should be re-defined as utilities - aka you force them to be politically un-biased and that throwing out the alt-right is tantamount to McDonald's implementing "a-no-black-customer-served" policy while all the other major restaurant chains do exactly the same. These are all private businesses, right? So they should be able to do it? No - that is discrimination - real one in this case and not the new Orwellian definition of it.
You already see how Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are banning or demonetizing content creators for a multitude of reasons - because they are anti-feminist, they are anti-Hillary, they are supposedly racist (even when all you do is spout peer-reviewed studies on races) - does not matter - you get banned.
So no - those big internet businesses are natural monopolies and must be treated differently. Go-daddy is another matter, but what happens when they refuse to give you any platform? They can ban anyone off the internet permanently similar to Andrew Anglin. You may not disagree with him and that is fine, but so long as not actually calling out for violence, then what is the problem? Islam spawns countless groups, sites and videos who all call for the annihilation of the Jews and conquest of all unbelievers. By that definition you should ban Islam off the internet completely, but that won't happen until after WWIII, so it's good for now.