Like....?

No one has to provide you with a platform. Free speech isn't an issue here.

Alex's free speech was not infringed upon, he was not denied the right to have these opinions, only denied the platform to get his voice heard by many. 

I love you; can I have your babies? 

I think you're a bit confused, so grab a chair and sit down because:

This is not a First Amendment issue. The 1st Amendment protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations, individuals, and businesses from restricting speech. So if, Apple, Youtube etc decides to ban you because your content incites violence, division, and hate then they have every right to block you. So not only you can't make a First Amendment claim in court, the 1st Amendment also doesn't protect you from those kind of speeches anyways.

Thanks to that, Bitchute, Gab and other alternative social media platforms are growing. Keep doing that big tech, ban every people you don't agree with, they and their followers will just migrate to alternative platforms. Hopefully it will help to hurt the almost monopoly these giants currently have,

yeah i mean if we were to use the standard that we have to dismiss sources simply because they were caught pushing false narratives then the mainstream media like CNN would be at the top of the list

how many lies did CNN spread about weapons of mass destruction in iraq? leading to millions of people dead

most recently this issue of child in cages where its now been discovered that the pictures were from the obama administration

 what i say is that you should be skeptical of all of them and compare the stories and ultimately come to your own conclusion through that process of comparison

Those are private companies, they can refuse users and content, don´t they? I think everyone understands that but...

... are the premises for such act legitimate? Or are they being banned for highly subjective matters (which seems the case here)?

There´s no shortage of communities spreading 'fake news" and "hate speech". Even big, traditional media conglomerates do that. So.. why was the action simultaneously taken towards a single, small group when there are bigger and even more influential groups doing the same for even longer ?.....

I feel that this action will just make InforWars and its members more famous and will make people´s interest on their content increases, by a lot ..... 

The WMD lies were originally spread by the government to justify their invasion of Iraq. CNN and other news outlets were the messengers. Guilty of not doing due diligence in holding the administation's feet to the fire and doing fact checking, maybe, but I'd also bet that if CNN had spoken out against the war, Republicans would have done to CNN what they did to the Dixie Chicks. Back then, it was "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists." And the war would still have happened, and millions would still have been dead.  CNN was not the core problem in this, and the government did plenty of selling the public on WMDs through its own channels.

In all the revisionism of Bush's legacy in the Trump era, people forget that there was a lot of emotional and political blackmail being done by the government and supporters of the Bush Administration. People disliking Trump didn't magically make Bush's administration not suck.

how much time do you have man... i'm just getting started