[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").