It would annoy me, but I can certainly adapt in the case. 

Also watch the double posting. 

And wouldn't complain? Seems just about what is being done in OP.

Don't you follow their holier than thou attitude and what not?

Sorry, sure all companies reason for exisiting is profit, but if a company isn't based on values and follow them, they go down.

People them aren't even reading OP.

A free and open internet means that there are very few things that cannot be put on the internet. The main thing that comes to mind are pirated media, and given the argument includes the question of if it is or isn't stolen that is a can of worms in of itself.

However that doesn't mean that everything on the internet needs to give everyone an audience. Vgchartz for example isn't forced to host movie reviews and Serebii doesn't need to include a Digimon section.

Youtube can say no to anything or anyone, as can facebook, apple, and the rest. Stop worrying about precedent.

Frankly with Alex off Youtube the people there might get some of the ads his ilk helped lose the site overall.

Free speech only matters when it aligns with your own personal view. That's what its become now basically.

Good, that guy is a nut job. Anything that incites violence, division, and hate content should be removed and banned.

Free speech isn't free of consequences. Here are the types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

That's a pretty intellectually lazy point of view. 

My problem with this is the size of said platforms. This isn't like VGChartz banning someone, this is the tech giants. They are like the public forums. If you are banned from them, you are essentially silenced.

The argument of "it is a private business and not government and thus not infringing upon the 1st amendment" sounds like an argument I hear when someone says they should be able to not have to serve gays at their restaurant, or similar. It is their private business, they should be able to serve who they want, right?

Also one that ironically impacts free speech itself?

After all what is Apple declaring that they don't want Alex Jones on their stuff but Free Speech. Does Alex Jones's Free Speech outway Apples?

(A rare time I'll thank Hobby Lobby for this)

He violated their TOS so he deserves the ban. Would be like me violating a VGC rule and deserving a ban.

they are private companies... so they can do whatever they want