> Suppose you're right.
Easy to verify, why suppose anything?
> censorship?
On a privately owned site? Try again.
Easy to verify, why suppose anything?
> censorship?
On a privately owned site? Try again.
Yes, censorship is not exclusive to the government.
It's pretty cut and dry that it's exclusive to government
It's not:
> Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
I presume that this is from the US constitution. How does this have anything to do with what I said? I did not mention the US nor its constitution anywhere in my post.
Now, Youtube closes your channel, again, without warning or explanation. You don't have the money for a lawyer to sue and contract laws continue to trend Youtube's favor to control creators - esp. if those that go against political narratives that are officially "untrue." Alphabet Inc censors results for China, you don't think they do it for the US?
Does that sound fair and just? Look at what happened to Alex Jones. Was he a nut - yea, but he was shut down across every platform at once. Which is censorship - good or bad.
There is a media cartel and they have grown to control the internet by waiting for good products and companys to come about and either killing them or corrupting them. Think Snapchat, Vine, Google, Youtube, Reddit, Ring, etc, etc.