It is also important to remember that they receive liability protection from what is posted on their services due to being a neutral platform. Yet, they are no longer neutral. They are now choosing who they will permit to speak, which narratives are permitted, etc. That liability protection it seems should be gone. You either are neutral and open and you qualify for the liability protection, or you are not neutral and thus do not qualify for such protection.

Simply stating they are a private company does not change this. That is a detail a lot of people seem to forget.

They also attracted and built these platforms on the concept of freedom and neutrality at the same time they were offered those protections. Then they suddenly change their policies and yank the proverbial rug out from people they suckered into using their product based upon what ultimately turns out to be a lie. At least these days.

If you want to advertise you are open and for the people then with that comes free speech. If you the private corporation can dictate what someone is allowed to think and then give voice to then that is not an open platform, and it isn't for the people. It is for those that control the private corporation to use as a tool to collude, and meddle with the minds of people after decades of making so much of society reliant upon their services under apparently false pretenses.

Finally we have many tech giants all deciding to ban Jones within hours of each other in what can only be seen as a coordinated attack. Yet they didn't even stop there. They also attacked the people that supplied any services to Alex Jones own private websites. So they didn't limit their attack to just their private sites. They've attacked him anywhere they could.

This is collusion of the highest form. In a criminal endeavor it goes by the label CARTEL. It is also what the famous Rico Act was designed to fight.

Not to mention it is clear election meddling of the highest order. It could easily be considered IN KIND donations to those few politicians they agree with that they are giving a platform to. Just like the owner of a billboard would be responsible for allowing the politicians they like to use it for free. That is a large criminal violation.

In a neutral setting they cannot be charged with these things. Yet clearly they are no longer neutral are they...