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.

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.

It's clear that if a Satanic church wants to host a public rally with a blood sacrifice on the campus of private Christian schools like Bob Jones, BYU, Oral Roberts, or Liberty, they are legally entitled to do so, and the government must force Falwell to comply. Otherwise, their constitutional rights to freedom of speech are being violated.

See, I can use strawman arguments too!

Your arguments are that TOS reigns supreme, so then you by extension will support them banning black people if they so choose. I mean TOS is up to the platform owners right, it's what it is, you cant complain about it. FB, YT are enormous platforms that cover a huge chunk of the social marketplace. Individual churches do not.

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?

1. BLM is a response to violence, not the source of it.  That said, it's also not a centralized or individual group like Alex Jones/Info Wars.  BLM pages on Facebook are not directed by a larger organization.  It is localized and operated by individuals.  If one of them advocates unprovoked violence, report them.  But keep in mind that because of that decentralization, it opens up the opportunity for false flag operations.  The largest BLM community on Facebook was recently shut down because it was a scam from a white Australia guy and Russia bought thousands of pro-BLM ads.  Those BLM pages that advocate unprovoked violence may not even be BLM at all.  So yes, the left is subject to TOS violations too.

2. Your laws in Brazil are different and I don't know them enough to comment on what rights, laws and platform TOS policies apply. You may be thinking that what you see on Brazilian social media is the same as US social media, based on what you listed above (advocating the death of a political opponent, death to the middle class...) that isn't common.

A company deciding what content they provide is NOT the same as the government regulating prices.

It's supply AND demand.  Supply is every bit as important as demand.  A free market is not just about consumers, it's also about suppliers.  In a free market, suppliers have the freedom to decide what they supply.  Otherwise, it would be a regulated market.  You can't ignore half the equation.  

You're wrong on that point.

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. 

Look obviously hate speech is BS. My point is why do we need to regulate it? We can ignore it. Works well for me

And you can't differentiate that it is proprietary but not private, everyone have access to it and even politicians, political parties, government departments, cities, etc have pages over there.

Also no one really seem anyone bothered to reply on the speeches on universities from right wing figures that had violent left wing protests and where cancelled... and also most here wouldn't allow private companies to openly discriminate and refuse service. So it really is "free market" for them if it supports their side.

That's not how the law works. No matter how widespread and easily accessible Facebook and Youtube are, that still doesn't make them any less than private companies. 

It doesn't have to do with being widespread.

It have to do with PUBLIC access. It doesn't really jump from government owned to private ownership (like people confusing it with someone entering your house or pub to break it or bad mouth you)

It's like, on the company you work there are fences and you can't enter, but very unlikely an university campus even if private will be locked out. Or hospital, lock your door and forbid people from even entering the premises and see how it work.

This just seems like the confusion made in another thread were public meant free and private meant paid.

We're not in the EU, we're in the United States, so European law doesn't really apply beyond FB adapting its standards in accordance with EU law. EU regulations don't empower Congress, the President, or the courts to ignore the United States Constitution. The EU's constitutional protections differ from those of the US. In the US, there is no such thing as "hate speech", as the First Amendment does not define such, although private platform holders in the US may set the rules for their users. In many European countries, hate speech is a thing and it can have devastating legal consequences. European-style hate speech laws, as an example, would never survive a Constitutional challenge in the United States. I probably wouldn't use Europe in this argument.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not compel Facebook to give a platform to Alex Jones in any way, shape or form. It does protect the right of Facebook to have the speech they choose to have on their platform without government interference or retaliation, which includes the fact that they cannot compel FB to host Jones. The First Amendment protects you from being arrested by the government or having your property unlawfully searched and seized by the government because of something you said. It doesn't protect you from the rules of a private platform holder.

Unlike with Windows and Internet Explorer in 1996,  Facebook and Apple are not necessities, and they do not constitute a monopoly. There are many other competing social media platforms, and Jones can also hire someone to build him a social media platform where he is free to post whatever content he sees fit. Anybody that can log into a computer can log into his platform. The lack of advertising compared to FB is Jones's problem, not Zuckerberg's. If Jones so desires, he can even try to set up a competing platform to Facebook and Youtube geared towards conservatives.

Government regulation of free speech is not free speech. Getting banned from a social media platform owned and paid for by someone else is not a violation of your free speech.