Latest Round of Censorship from the Left

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Saw this the other day, kinda skeery:

 

[hadit]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

Perhaps it would help if we put this into the context of public access demands such as faced by the infamous bakers, who did not want their business products used to celebrate an idea they found repugnant. When that happened, the usual suspects went completely bonkers, demanded that the business be punished severely, didn't care that there were many other businesses glad to work with the offended customers, and insisted that the business owners had better keep their private opinions completely separated from their business, or else. These sites are selling a product (a platform on which to express ideas), but want to pick and choose what ideas are expressed, much like the bakers wished to pick and choose how their products were used. Not a perfect analogy and not meant to be, but this is shaping up to be a classic case of how much control a business has over who uses their product and how it's used. The fact that the product in this case is a messaging platform and not baked goods is ultimately irrelevant.

It's kind of interesting to watch the flip flopping. Those who self righteously demanded that the bakers be forced to have their products used in ways they found repugnant now want a private business to be able to refuse service to those whose ideas offend the business owners. On the other side we have those who wanted the bakers protected now wanting the messaging platform owners forced to accommodate ideas they find repugnant.

It's funny because I was thinking of the baker as well, but in a different way. I am not sure you are making equivalent examples.

In example, it is how the product is eventually used.

In the other example, it is the product itself.

If a business serves the public, it can't discrimminate based on the customer.

But it also can't be forced to make something it does not ordinarily make.

So a baker can't discriminate based on the attributes of the customer for a product he ordinarily produces for other customers, but he can't be forced to make a cake a cake he does not ordinarily make. He needs to provide a wedding cake but he can't be forced to decorate it like a phallus.

Likewise, a social platform cant discrimminate against the attributes of it's customers, but it can refuse to allow certain types of content, as long as it is across the board. In other words, it cant discriminate because the customer is Antifa or White Supremacist, only if the content itself violates their ToS.

You cant force them to host porn, violence, etc. But they have no say in what person person ultimately chooses to do with the content.

Definitely not a perfect analogy, I agree. It does illuminate, though, the readiness of people to use the government to force businesses to do things to which the business owners may object, then immediately wish to protect businesses from government interference when they are being coerced into doing other things. IOW, basing their desire for freedom on the activities in question, not on freedom itself.

 

[Coyote]

Molyneux's statement on the silencing.


"This is Stefan Molyneux. As you may have heard, 14 years of my life, thousands of videos, billions of comments, hundreds of millions of views, and nearly a million subscribers have been destroyed, has been erased from |YouTube.

The accusation is the usual one, that I'm fermenting violence and hatred and so on, which is not true at all. I have consistently promulgated the non-aggression principle and called for reason and evidence as the methodology by which we can resolve social disputes and differences. It doesn't seem to have mattered, of course, the reality is that the book burning is underway. Myself and many other dissidents and anti-communist intellectuals and speakers have also had channels destroyed across a wide variety of platforms within the span of only one hour in what I assume is a highly coordinated effort to silence us. And it is a blow, don't get me wrong, it is a huge blow, it is a huge challenge, and the goal of course is to remove the middle, to remove those of us who are looking for peaceful solutions, rational solutions, philosophical solutions, to social differences. To take us out so that there is no center to society and everyone can gravitate to the extremes wherein the tinderbox of violence can be lit in a revolutionary conflagration of brutality.

And I'm going to strongly urge you, my friends, to resist that temptation, resist that temptation to go to the extremes, to go to hostility, to go to rage, to go to violence. It is not too late. There is still incredible technology that we can use to further the rational and philosophical discussion of issues within society and I'm begging you please stay in the conversation. It is my dedication and my foundational goal to maintain, and possibly even grow, this philosophical conversation despite the inevitable blowbacks that philosophers always receive from the powers that be, so please help me out.

It's going to be a pretty harsh winter and a pretty big reorientation. I'm going to beg you, please, my friends, go to freedomain.com. Help me out. I will come back stronger and better and we can avoid the escalation that could burn us all to the ground."

Yet he isn’t the only one to be banned for content, this left wing podcast was, and it seems for similar reasons, violating their rules: The Pied Pipers of the Dirtbag Left Want to Lead Everyone to Bernie Sanders. Unfair?

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them. Banning someone over his wrong opinion on a communications platform is not about speech? Give me a fucking break, you are not just dumb, you are INSANELY dumb.

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.

Google marks 14 years as a public company

Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.

searchengineland.com

Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT SPEECH DENYING MORON!

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.

Google marks 14 years as a public company

Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.

searchengineland.com

Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!

Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?

It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.

Google marks 14 years as a public company

Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.

searchengineland.com

Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!

Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?

It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.

You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.

Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.

Google marks 14 years as a public company

Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.

searchengineland.com

Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!

Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?

It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.

You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.

Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.

Are you trying to kick me out of this thread because my opinion is different than yours? That's ironic. I guess you hate free speech.

 

[colfax_m]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.

Google marks 14 years as a public company

Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.

searchengineland.com

Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!

Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?

It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.

You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.

Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.

And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.

 

[Norman]

This thread has had its low IQ interventions, but this one takes the cake for the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. People getting banned over their speech and a clueless moron responds that no one is getting banned.

Getting banned from a website does not mean the speech is banned.

Anyone kicked off YouTube is welcome to publish their videos on their own. You know why? Because the speech is not banned.

This sounds like semantics but it’s a huge difference.

The freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to speak anywhere you want.

"Getting banned does not mean you are banned."

These messages just keep getting more and more brilliant. Again, getting banned for the wrong opinion is anti free-speech. This thread is not about that, we already know that to be a fact. If you need help with your low IQ create your own thread.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to exercise speech anywhere you want.

You know this to be true but you will not admit it. You will refuse to acknowledge it.

No.

It does mean you don't ban someone for exercising speech on a platform designed for expressing speech.

It’s a business. The platform is designed to make money.

You can’t even the fundamental purpose of the website right.

Irrelevant already dealt with nonsense. They are anti freedom of speech plain and simple, none of what you post changes any of that.

It’s extremely relevant. Who do you think pays to keep YouTube running?

HINT: It’s none of the people complaining about being kicked off. They’re freeloaders who demand that others pay for them.

It is completely irrelevant who keeps the platforms running when it comes to the fact on whether they are, or are not against free speech.

Perhaps you should have taken some logic classes, you had the right not to. But that does not mean you aren't illogical and unreasonable.

Except you’re applying a standard to the platforms that makes no sense.

Supporting free speech does not obligate you to pay for that speech to be propagated.

I am applying the standard of "do you support free speech or not" on leftists.

It is pretty FUCKING simple, and makes PERFECT SENSE in a country whose first amendment is dedicated to free speech. No, they do not pass the standard.

Go away moronic troll.

Your standard of supporting free speech is ridiculous as I’ve been pointing out. Something you refuse to address.

Supporting free speech does not mean you are required to private it for anyone else.

Yes, my standard which is more or less the definition of free speech is ridiculous... I know I know...

Or perhaps it's that you are ridiculously anti-American and against free speech. Go away moron.

These people believe bakery should bake the cake, but speech platform does not need to host the speech. Ridiculous, ridiculous.... these people are fundamentally evil bad people.

What part of free speech requires others pay for that speech?

Are you saying that the banned people did not pay for the service just like others on the platform? There is no evidence that they refused paying any service fees that apply. They were not thrown out for their lack of payment, but because the content of their opinions.

Bake the cake, and HOST the speech.

It’s a comment about the platforms, not the users. Don’t switch the subject.

Running YouTube is expensive. You’re demanding that YouTube (or any other platform) to propagate all speech otherwise you’ll label them anti-free speech

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

Which fee did the users fail to pay? Name the fee or get the fuck out with your nonsense.

I read the statement, it said they were banned for wrong opinions and not because they failed to pay for the service.

There were no fees to pay which is why the users have no right to demand the use of the company’s resources.

But you’re dodging the question.

So I’ll ask you again, what part of freedom of speech requires someone pay to propagate someone else’s speech?

If you can’t answer this question, it’s because your position is fundamentally flawed.

If a company offers its product for free, that is on them, not on the user. In this case you are incorrect, they also offer premium memberships, and Stefan Molyneux contributed to youtube through superchats and other forms of payment.

You also still seem to not get that he was not banned for using their resources, but for having a wrong opinion. What in the HELL is so difficult about this? You seriously need to participate in one of those IQ rising services, because this level of stupidity is just painful for all to watch.

Your claim that the users refused to pay for the service as requested by the provider is bogus.

I never claimed users refused to pay for the service. That’s a lie.

Molyneux did not pay for the product so he has no claim to use it. As you can see; this isn’t about speech, it’s about ownership of property.

Which is why your position is so fundamentally flawed all you can really do is call me names.

You did claim that the users were not paying up for their service as they were supposed to. That they were free riders.

That is a lie, they paid exactly according to the contract. It is time to bake the cake for them.

They are free riders but I never said they weren’t paying something they were supposed to.

That’s a lie. Just like the premise of this thread.

Well if they paid for the service according to the rules, then it is time to start baking the cake.

Go make your own thread if you have trouble with elementary logical principles. You did not pay for the logic education so I am reluctant to provide it to you free of charge. Mods may have to ban you for free riding.

They didn’t pay for any service. They were allowed to use something at the discretion of the owners. If the owners decide to take away the use of something (which the rules specifically state they may), the users have no reason to complain. It was never theirs to demand in the first place.

If Molyneux wants to have his videos on the internet, no one is stopping him from making a website to do so.

Which is what free speech actually is.

No, banning someone from a public platform over his opinion is NOT free speech. It is a book burning. Stop trying to twist concepts to suit your agenda, it is disturbing and stupid. No one here buys the horseshit.

Your argument that these users somehow failed to comply with living up to their end of the contract is a crock of bullshit. Never happened. Again, that's not why they were banned, they were banned for having the wrong opinion. And that is why you are called book burners and far left anti-American radicals.

What’s public about it? It’s a privately owned website owned and operated by private individuals.

Absolutely nothing you state is correct. Google is a PUBLIC company.

Google marks 14 years as a public company

Today the search giant ranks as the world's third most valuable company.

searchengineland.com

Further, it is obviously a public platform, offering hosting services to customer. Now, the people lived up to their end of the contract. It is time to BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE YOU ANTI-AMERICAN FAR LEFT MORON!

Publicly traded, not publicly owned. Good lord, do you not even know the difference between the two?

It’s a website owned and operate by private citizens and exists to make money. It’s does not exist to propagate speech.

You asked me to tell you what is public about it, and that's what I did.

Now go THE FUCK away from my thread loser. Everyone knows that banning people from a platform over their opinion is an extremist anti free-speech far left position. There is no debate to be had here. Any debate that might potentially exist you can have (most likely alone) in your OWN FUCKING THREAD. If you post one more time regarding this issue you will be reported for off-topic, it is NOT the subject of the thread.

And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.

Which does not change the fact that they are against free speech, and ban users based on their opinions.

Or the fact that they are a public company.

You are reported.

 

[Shelzin]

And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.

Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.

 

[colfax_m]

And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.

Stop while you are ahead. You are about to prove something you won't like.

Try me.