BLM have certainly caused a lot of violence and damage. Are they banned? I see more they going to TV and defend their point than they losing platforms.

Several of the pages from left wing in Brazil defend violence against police, death to a political oponent, kill middle class, etc. None of them were banned from these platforms. Or in this case you'll see they aren't really endangering anyone?

So are you against his banning and think these companies are acting backwards to what the propose as being public spaces with freedom of speech? From your posts I couldn't see that.

God forbid you discriminate some minority because that would be free market.

And some here think that free market is big conglomerates bending to SJW and some ruckus.

Explain to me what this has to do with a free and open internet? They had accounts on privately owned sites, of course the owners can shut their accounts down if they want to. This isn't even related to the issue of net Neutrality. 

So you mean private companies should be forced by the government to keep accounts of people that break the regulations the company have set up for having accounts? 

We should start reporting Quran videos uploaded on YouTube for violating hate speech rules. Let's see how that goes.

Where did you took that?

I'm complaining about those companies behavior, not asking for government intervention.

What I also said is that Brazilian law prevents political prosecution so they demanded explanation from FB for the behavior of multi ban on a single side of the spectrum.

Another funny part is that a woman had a fake account of her created to propagate bad things, she is suing FB because FB denies permission to remove her account because the creation of account doesn't violate their TOS and also that it would be against the law in Brazil (they are actually going two opposite side of law in the 2 cases).

You islamophobe.

In addition. "Net Neutrality" has nothing to do with what media platforms on the Internet do. It's about ISP infrastructure management. So, for example, an ISP doesn't have the right to block people from accessing youtube or Netflix or charging extra fees to unlock various services; basically, an ISP's job is to grant users access to the Internet as a whole, not pieces of the Internet. It has nothing to do with platforms banning users for posting content that breaks their terms of service, and it has nothing to do with law enforcement taking down illegal/copyrighted content.

Companies like Netflix and Youtube are perfectly within their rights to charge extra money for extra services or kick off whoever they want from their platforms. They have a terms of service agreement which, if followed, will not result in a ban. It is similar to the Forum Rules here - if you troll, you get banned. Alex Jones repeatedly violated the agreement, and for whatever reason, they kept him on; however, once people began complaining about the harassment the parents of murdered children got from his audience, these platforms finally decided to stop allowing his TOS violations and banned him. The reality is, they should have done it much sooner.

People are attempting to spin this into "He's right wing and that's why they banned him." because they want to play the right-wing victim card. If they were banning people for being right-wing, then all right-wing channels would be banned, not just those with repeated TOS violations. You can be right wing without violating the terms of service. To use these forums as an example, if someone decided to spout out a bunch of anti-Semitic hate speech and eventually got banned: that the user was banned for violating TOS, it would be ridiculous to suggest the user was banned because the moderators are part of a pro-Zionist Israeli conservative effort to control the media.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

First, I never said Alex Jones should be banned for saying Obama is a demon.  

This is the paragraph where I mentioned that:  "Honestly, the guy needs to reclassify as entertainment. It's just mind boggling that anyone takes him seriously. This is the guy that hinted Obama was actually a demon. A DEMON."  Do you see me calling for a ban over that anywhere in that paragraph?  Stop trying to twist that.  That's dishonest.

As for "freedom of speech," I don't really understand what you are trying to say.  Are you suggesting the government should decide what private sector businesses show as content via regulation?  If so, then I think that is a terrible idea.  No conservative should ever support that.

Regarding his ban, I don't know why he got banned.  If he violated their TOS then the ban was earned.  If he did not violate their TOS then I would not support their decision.  However, so far I haven't seen anyone defending him try to make a case that he did not violate TOS restrictions.  Are you claiming that he did not?

NO.

The free market is all 100% about market prices and how supply and demand dictate economy prices without government intervention in regulating the market.

I know you love to look up Wikipedia, so go ahead and do so. You will find that I am correct.

Thus as I said, the free market would put those people out business if what they did truly offended people. People would quit listening to Alex Jones and he would make no money talking online and thus no longer do it. The bakery would have no customers and thus make no money and go out of business. No one would watch rosseane and the company thus would make no advertising dollars and pull the show.

Again, all ECONOMICS related with no government regulations. That is the free market.

Just as the government coming and regulating how much a company can charge goes against the free market, a company firing someone or banning someone for their own single policy is against free market. Free market is solely determined by the consumers. If consumers want the product and consume, then the free market dictates what the price of said product is. If there is no demand, there is no more supply.

Nothing of importance was lost.

Doesn't matter if government is not involved or not. The whole point of Free market is that competition dictates how much something sells for.

It has absolutely nothing to do with a company able to ban anyone they want or fire anyone they want.