Big Tech Banning Conservatives and Trump does Nothing

[lonewolfinoregon]

I can imagine the outcry by MSM if all of a suddenly a conservative billionaire creates a social network only for conservative , MSM would scream/meltdown and democats would immediately sue in court FIRST AMENDMENT violation and win..

[Lenno]

I also have no problem with this. I don't particularly care for the guy, hes a bit 'spitty' for me, but that is beside the point. These companies are private companies, they can choose which content to host or not host. Likewise, we can choose to patronize them or not. Its pretty simple for conservatives actually, make the next 'facebook' and run it however you like. Dont like the internet? Make a better one. This is what an industrious people have always done...the next big thing. They didn't turn to mama government to make the people they dont like do the work for them. When the time is right for the next big thing, it will be there.

Are you a BOT? Because your sure talking like one. As the vid above makes clear none of the internet giants were started w/private money, all of them used tax dollars and many STILL receive tax dollar support which means they must comply with Federal laws which they violate on a daily basis. This "Private business" trope is a Canard!
A

[dissimulo]

Are you a BOT? Because your sure talking like one. As the vid above makes clear none of the internet giants were started w/private money, all of them used tax dollars and many STILL receive tax dollar support which means they must comply with Federal laws which they violate on a daily basis. This "Private business" trope is a Canard!
A

Which laws are they breaking?

[Hoppalong]

Which laws are they breaking?

None according to this. Free Speech ONLY goes so far. If you are so out of this world on things then your speech is not protected but can harm many.

He also faces multiple defamation claims, and well before Monday’s moves, several scholars of free speech had already concluded that many of the things he has said online were not in fact protected by the First Amendment.
In a recent court filing, four law professors who specialize in free-speech issues said that Mr. Jones’s oeuvre was riddled with “absurd conspiracy theories” and urged a federal judge considering a lawsuit against him not to let him hide behind the First Amendment while publishing his rhetoric.
“False speech does not serve the public interest the way that true speech does,” the scholars wrote. “And indeed, there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.”
The filing — an amicus, or friend of the court, brief — was submitted in June in the case of Brennan Gilmore, a former State Department official and Democratic Party activist who attended last summer’s violent far-right rally in Charlottesville, Va. Mr. Gilmore, 39, was on the street on Aug. 12 when James Alex Fields Jr. drove his car into a crowd of protesters, killing a woman, Heather Heyer, and injuring several others.