[matthewmacleod]

“Freedom of speech” does not include the right to demand that third parties are partners in your activities.

Infowars is and should remain free to publish content independently of these providers, which they can easily do.

[cm2187]

But where does "partner" start? Is your cloud provider a partner to what you put online? Is Comcast partner to what you do online with your internet connection? Is your electricity company partner to what you do with your energy?

[undseg]

This is such an under-discussed argument.

Of course a private entity can disregard morality for the good of the public in their decisions (they're after profits), but what happens when that private entity becomes the town square? Or when it has monopoly over something that has become a basic utility for everyone?

At this time I'm starting to cringe at opinions defending these actions with "it's a private entity".

[onecooldev24]

We are living in a state of monopoly and EU laws agree with that. How can you then throw away freedom of speech! Just cause the goons on this forum are pissed, doesn't mean that guy should be banned. 48% of population voted for trump!

[JumpCrisscross]

> We are living in a state of monopoly

In what sense? Apple has a minority of the market. And podcasts are decentralised.

> 48% of population voted for trump

My friends who voted for Trump would find it insulting for anyone to assume they are therefore InfoWars nutters.

[matthewmacleod]

Apple does not have a monopoly on podcast distribution. Infowars is not being kicked off because “Trump”.