So, if every store in the country got together and decided to sell all meat for 50.00 a lb you would...? Go to a farmer? Have you ever bough meat that way, get it butchered? Do you know a butcher? These people are in the same position, where they wer led by the nose to set up the system of communications used by 80-90% of Americans, and have their message to get out, and have been shut down because the company does not want that message out, in Germany WW2, that was called censorship. In the US in Vietnam it was called censorship, now you folks call it "business"? So, the media has a right to lie to you, not tell the facts, and still claim to be journalistic and you are ok with that? What a strange world...

"Private companies cannot prevent you from speaking: So when you are banned from the platform they are, what, helping your message, promoting you message, broadcasting your message? If the phone company cuts your line off, that is? Yet they keep every liberals phone working? That is called, uh, selective business? Really.....

From the Miriam-Webster Dictionary “The station censored her speech before broadcasting it”
EWV by station do they mean Government?
When I looked up station , Government was not mentioned.

ewv, go do your research and come back when you know facts, the connections between google, FB, twitter all their management and CIA are undeniable and have been posted. Keep those blinkers on, and your won't risk panic or running into the street.

Even as they deny yours.

Point 1. I will sit-on-the-fence again on this.
Point 2. 'no right to use '. Yes yes! My memory is that the agitator wanted a slogan on the cake, the baker accepted that customer but objected that he was required to write out the slogan thereby becoming a mouthpiece for ideas contrary to his own standards and purpose.

They still can, until challeneged by some liberal moron. Take "No shoes, no shirt, no service". A woman comes in topless, because she says it is her right to express her boobs freely. Does it become discrimination? The whole discrimination thing got hijacked so as to make it virtually impossible to have a standard. Where this all falls apart is we have not defined the difference between a corporate entity and an private business. Under the current structure the discrimination laws are used as tools against people who are expressing their right to run their business as they see fit, corporations are NOT individuals (this is where SCOTUS showed its true colors in the campaign finance law ruling that opened the doors to deep state control, big money has big leverage). The argument that corporations have the same right to discriminate is illogical, simply because You Tube was supposedly started to make an open platform that would allow people to speak and say as they wished, with no controls or restraint except that imposed by the FCC regulations. Section 230 is manipulated to say thet companies cannot be held accountable for their actions, yet so many tweaks to the law have made it impossible to do anything to any of them, unless they are found to be engaged in some specifically sanctioned criminal act (like the Backpage fiasco). So, You Tube, by claiming their rules are for the good of all to prevent "any one of a dozen bad acts like harrasment, violence, racisim, discrimination". has a free hand to kill off anyone they deem politically negative. Here is a good rundown on Section 230:

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...

It claims a change, but that change was not against them, it actually enhanced their ability to censor.

The key thing is to not think of them as just a corporate entity, but to think of them as having done a bait and switch: "we will let you create a life based on making money and speaking your mind, and presenting material, freely, and now we have you hooked, we will blackmail you by cutting off your money and livelihood if you say the wrong thing, or we don't like it". They started the service with rules in place, and now people who have NOT violated their rules, are found to be guilty of unspoken crimes, and turned off. That is not free speech, that is censorship.

Now, as afar as "Go somewhere else". How big is Google? How much control do they exert on search and information? So, you start a competing platform, and how much exposure will you get? Have you ever looked an any search engine besides Google? Do a search and look at the lower left corner as it goes through the 8000 little connections and cookies and trackers and what all and 80% will have "Google" in them. Google has expanded into everything, and controls probably 80% or more of the information you can find. They are the controllers of what you will get. So, go start up your new platform, no one will ever find it.

You don't get out much, do you? Or do you not ever watch the news? Remember the baker? Remember the states who passed laws saying you CANNOT discriminate against a person based on sex? In other words, Government discriminated against the businesses right to do business with who the want, they ARE REQUIRED by government to do business with EVERYONE. That is pretty discriminatory against the business owner.

Uh, forgive my ignorance here, but if YouTube "demonetizes" or even outright bans people because they "violated" the nebulous terms of of use, AND they happen to all be conservatives, that is called??? Uh, business as usual? Capitalism?

Exactly.
I can't up vote because the religious leftists that seem to be dominant on this Objectivist forum have down voted me so much.

There is no "flip flopping". Populists who are emotionally stampeded by some public spokesman find themselves unable to objectively discuss the issue, superficially grasping at pat slogans to toss out as they become increasingly personally belligerent in their feuding. Look at the quality of the posts they can't answer and subject to hit and run 'downvoting'.

Some of their posts sound less like an Ayn Rand forum than John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1960s and 70s. Such is the 'tradition' that has become ingrained.