[tablespoon]

>> More right-wing personalities than I can even remember have been banned from various media, not least being a sitting President of the United States. The same platforms also have policies against certain "disinformation" that target anyone discussing some issues or events like the Hunter Biden laptop which were later determined not to be disinformation at all. As for it being Democratic policy, there was (briefly) a White House office under a Democratic president to coordinate these policies.

> Meanwhile, right-wing people aren't being deplatformed because they are right-wing. It's because of other things they say and do.

I'm no fan of that right-wing nonsense (e.g. Hunter Biden, etc.), but your apologia isn't really compelling. The impermissible "other things they say and do" can be defined in slanted ways to deliver an ideological result that can be described in faux "neutral" terms. To flip things around, for instance, how would you feel if (hypothetically) some social media company de-platformed pro-choice advocates under a rule that bans advocacy of violence (because they're interpreted as advocating violence against "the unborn")? You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."

[a_shovel]

> You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."

I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."

Cancel culture types don't seem to understand that refusing a platform to other people based on their beliefs is a right, which comes along with the right to free speech. I'd prefer if pro-choice positions weren't banned, but if a website wants to ban pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay, or non-QAnon positions, then they have the right to become a cesspit by doing so. Likewise and in exchange, other websites retain the right to ban anti-choice, pro-gun, anti-gay, and QAnon/neo-nazi views.

[tablespoon]

>> You probably wouldn't be satisfied with a "nothing to see here, they're just enforcing their policies against advocating violence."

> I kinda would, though, but I'd phrase it more along the lines of "Nothing to see here, just a garbage website doing its trashy thing."

Even if it was major one with influence; like Twitter, Youtube, or Facebook/Instagram?

I should have been more clear, but I was specifically thinking of major social media sites like those when I wrote that sentence, not some marginal social media site like thedonald.win that's easy to ignore.

Also the main thing I was commenting on was defining things in such a way that describes a slanted result with faux-neutral language (e.g. "when it happens to us it's censorship, when it happens to you it's just enforcing the rules").