Let's deplatform all of the left leaning people from all mainstream social media and see if you make a similar asinine argument.

Social media has become the main method that everybody speaks and reaches out to others. If someone is deplatformed for their political opinions from them then that's a form of censorship. Deplatforming is a known tactic of censorship. The internet is not some place where your rights cease to exist as soon as you enter. The US should introduce a bill that protects freedom of speech on social media for everyone from authoritarian measures. I wouldn't be surprised if the right introduces it. The EU is already trying to regulate social media to crack down on dissenting opinions/offensive speech

Those are good points. More than likely, the left won't be on board until til it's being used against them though. 

Your rights to free speech end at my property line, or when you're on a server I paid for and own. While you're on my property or my server, you will abide by my rules, or you will be denied the use of my property. If you won't voluntarily leave my property, legal actions will be taken. In cyberspace, that will be a restraining order against you, and in the real world, criminal tresspassing charges will be filed. The same thing goes for Facebook. The platform is their private property, so they make the rules and they get to decide who uses it. Not you, not the government.

Privately owned social media platforms are a privilege, not a right.

There's nuisances to that. If you make a service that everyone uses and it's become vital in today's society, don't be surprised if you get regulated if you abuse it too much. Alot of businesses were regulated because they got too big or too intertwined into the function of society. It's the price of becoming that successful. Social media just incentivized the right to regulate them to protect their free speech (which extends to everyone). The EU already opened the door to regulation from the government side.

Wow. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and it's hilarious to see and hear the arguments you're trying to make. 

The Freedom of Speech gives you, as a citizen, the right to say whatever you want as long as it's not threatening or outright lying (Libel/Slander.) The first amendment simply states that a person is legally free to have and hold whatever opinion they want and they have the freedom from the government to express those opinions. 

From the government. 

Your statement is fundamentally flawed on multiple levels because you're assuming that me saying it's perfectly within Facebook's rights to not host someone's rants is the same as taking away their right to free speech. Facebook is not taking away anyone's right to free speech, because Alex Jones is still legally allowed to say what he wants in a public forum, but that doesn't mean that Facebook wants to allow him to say it on Facebook. 

You seem to be completely overlooking the difference between a public and private establishment, which is why your argument completely falls apart and why I laugh at you. Facebook is not a government-hosted website, and neither is Youtube. Sure, those companies are huge and you might be foolish enough to believe that just because so many people have access to it that it's a public place, but it's not. Facebook is a privately owned business, and therefore facebook can choose to do business or not do business with whomever they chose. If they chose not to do business with someone screaming conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, then they have every right to. Just like your local cafe has every right to not host you if you start making racial slurs in their stores or I have every right to boot you out of my house if you start trying to convince me that Gays are Satan's messengers or whatever. 

Your fundamental ignorance is that you can't differentiate between public and private, and while I'd love to educate you on that, your response thus far has convinced me you aren't willing to listen.

So in short, you are wrong. Educate yourself on the application of free speech in a public establishment vs a private establishment before you speak again. 

Did you really just ask this? Like, is this something that you deliberately thought out in your mind and willingly typed out on your keyboard with your fingers? Were you under duress when you wrote it? Is someone at your house with a gun to your head? If so, type "Bazinga" twice, once forwards and once backwards. Spelling and capitalization is key. 

All jokes aside, are you serious? Why are people against hate speech? Because it's HATE speech. It espouses nothing but negative emotions and does nothing good for anyone. Like a stab wound. Why are you against being stabbed?

Of all the posts in this thread, yours are the only ones that don't make me want to hire a woodpecker to gouge my eyes and ears out. 

There are plenty of low lifes out there who take those stuff as literal as it can be and could cause violent acts against certain parties who are being mentioned in those hate speeches. 

Volksverhetzung is a thing in germany.

My question was poorly worded. I meant why are you so against policing hate speech? See if I hear someone spewing hate speech I dont go out and start acting on it. I'm sure some people do, but thats because they're already hateful to begin with. I believe all speech should be allowed and you fight hate speech with more speech. But people seem to be arguing for shutting down speech, including on FB, YT etc. Forget about the argument regarding it being their TOS, what we have here is people that want to limit/hamper AJ's and others ability to reach people. Period.

OK, well at least it's clear that if Facebook bans all african americans from accessing it's website in a TOS update you're all for that. At least we know where you stand now.