Why would he give up his right to make these decisions if the site got too popular?
Do you think that just because FR had 100 times more users than DU Jim would have to allow their posters on here to say what they want?
Apples and oranges difference.
The social media sites banning our voices are the ones where most of the younger generations are getting their information from. These are LARGE MAINSTREAM HUBS. Some could even call it mainstream media now.
Just today I had to try to plant seeds of knowledge in a young person who has NEVER HEARD of FAST and FURIOUS!!! He thought it was just a movie! HE was totally surprised when he started reading about it from my encouragement.
Before F&F was KNOWN what was going on, some was calling it a conspiracy theory! And the truth about it was being squashed. It is still being drowned out. And justice hasn’t even began yet. And we have to wonder if it ever will.
Anyways, we have to insist the new self-made news outlet giants (yes, these media sites) that so many use for news sources allow free journalism and opinion pieces. Alex Jones, Diamond and Silk, etc. tip of the iceberg for us.
If Jim controlled 98% of ALL INFORMATION SHARED IN THE WORLD, then yes, it would be virtual information UTILITY.
(Google/Youtube + FB + Twitter etc.)
If Jim controlled 98% of the DRINKING WATER IN THE WORLD, I would be against him charging $1,000 a gallon for his enemies and one cent a gallon for his friends.
Even though it was a “private business.”
Is this really a hard concept to understand, an information monopoly that is heavily slanted against conservatives?