Nazi Punch - Youtube bans inherently discriminatory videos

[The spartan]

I don't know why you're insisting that the US's conflict motivations in the 1940's were the same as the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq in 2003. If they were - which they clearly weren't - then you'd be forced into conceding either that the Iraq War was justified or that the US's involvement in WWII wasn't.

I mean, it's similar I guess if you want to call both Liberal Internationalism. Fortunately, that is a really broad rationale and I am not cornered into approving of every interventionist war just because I approved of some, regardless of your little "trap" there.

The US didn't intervene in the Second World War, it was intervened against. Whether American citizens/politicians wanted to get involved or not is largely irrelevant: the fascist powers forced Washington's hand. I've already been clear on this point previously.

Oh yeah? You know about the Roosevelt administration and what it was doing? I thought I was clear on this point: they were preparing for war. Mobilization had already started. American sailors had already lost their lives to the Kriegsmarine. The US was planning on war with or without a Japanese sneak attack, that just moved up the schedule. It can even be argued that we were already intervening with our aggressive supplying of Britain since 1940. You know, when Roosevelt was rolling out his plans to intervene in Europe.

Amen. I don't know why it took you so long to conclude that the Iraq War wasn't predicated on the same rationale as WWII.

Wait, you can't support one instance of intervention without supporting every single other one? Even without the real life instance of WW2 (I guess you could use Korean War as another real life example), we could just have some hypothetical instance in which intervention is the obvious right choice. That's invalidated by bad instances of intervention? You are realllly stretching here.

In the scheme of global politics, American neo-conservatism isn't particularly right wing. Even the Tea Party was further to the right than Bush. More importantly, significant numbers of Europeans vote for nationalist parties like the AfD, the Rassemblement national or the Lega Nord - all of which are further to the right than the Bush administration and, unlike the libertarian wing of the GOP, are actually electorally relevant. So you really don't have to look far to find consequential voting blocs in the West which view American neo-conservatism as being leftist.

I mean, I guess they are only conservatives in a literal and true sense, it depends on which policies you want to focus on. Apparently supporting an intervention means you aren't Right Wing anymore? Forget about one's stance on abortion, law enforcement, religion, or culture; those are all nothing compared to having *huck* global interests. I could barely even say that without vomiting. Neo Cons were more moderate than, uh, whatever the Republican party is now, because they actually cared about keeping the institutions of US federal government intact. Only a completely partisan hack could actually consider them to be "Left Wing"; take your snake oil elsewhere.

Criticizing Anglo-American 21st century foreign policy in the Middle East is neither a "smear tactic" nor an invitation to fascism. I tried to offer you the theoretical liberal basis for interventionism (democratization, humanitarianism, secularism and collective security) but you just ignored it and insisted that it was all just a neo-conservative plot which had nothing to do with liberalism. This was despite the fact that I linked you to the intellectual case (as made by Hitchens) and the political case (as made by Blair).

Because it was literally a Neo Conservative plot, I didn't think that was even up to debate. Not a plot in a conspiracy way, they wanted to bring democracy and Saddam was bad and all that jazz, but it was Neo Cons who pushed for the war. Many other people, who were also Liberals, didn't think the Neo Cons provided good enough justification. Weird how some Liberals were against it and other Liberals were for it, huh? It's almost as if being a Liberal (all of the US) doesn't actually give you enough information on if someone supports a bad intervention war or not.

The point being made was a general commentary on liberal interventionism in the Middle East: it was not intended to be party political. You interjected party politics and my "personal affiliations" into the conversation.

Maybe you don't read HH's other posts? He is partisan as all hell, of course there was partisan aim to his "commentary".

I'm talking about the institutional favouritism that multinational social media companies like Facebook and YouTube show toward established political movements, advertisers and media outlets. I lament the fact that a space which used to empower independent thinkers is, by virtue of collusion and strong arming, being increasingly monopolized by the same corporate dross which dominates television and radio. Furthermore, I oppose the lies about "extremism" and "terrorism" which are used as an excuse to justify the marginalization of free lance critics.

Oh, so you don't have anything other than your perception of the goals of Facebook and Youtube. I don't really care about your accusations of political conspiracy on the part of social media. Given they are both publicly traded companies, I am already pretty confident that their main motive is to increase profit margins rather than risk those margins by pushing a vague political agenda. Come to me when you have something other than conservatives shooting themselves in the foot by promoting corporate self-policing or anti-antitrust mentality (such as oppressive legislation or policy). Conservatives aren't calling for more regulation on Monsanto or Disney.

The political pragmatism of what situation?

Hyper partisanship and anti-SJW reactionism. If you are pretty far right-wing, which you probably are if you consider Neo Cons "Left Wing", hyper partisanship allows you to propose political theories and doctrines that would not usually be considered in less partisan circumstances but the partisans who remotely agree with you will stand with you no matter what. This is how rich conservatives got a huge tax cut for themselves while having poorer conservatives support them in getting it. It's the basis of this "postmodern conservative" movement.

You're once again implying that linguistics trump contextual relevance. As I've clarified, whether or not you choose to classify the Civil Rights movement and/or the sexual revolution as "identity politics" isn't relevant to my criticisms of contemporary liberalism: it's the specific form that the politics has adopted over the past twenty years that I oppose, not just anything that could conceivably be classified as identitarianism. According to the partial definition you provided, for instance, medieval peasant rebellions and the Bolshevik revolution could be included under the title of "identity politics", but the context should make it clear that my critique doesn't include them either.

I don't know what to tell you dude:

The term identity politics has been used in political discourse since at least the 1970s.

Identity politics, as a mode of categorizing, are closely connected to the ascription that some social groups are oppressed (such as women, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities); that is, the claim that individuals belonging to those groups are, by virtue of their identity, more vulnerable to forms of oppression such as cultural imperialism, violence, exploitation of labour, marginalization, or powerlessness.[3] Therefore, these lines of social difference can be seen as ways to gain empowerment or avenues through which to work towards a more equal society.

Sounds pretty relevant to what people are talking about today. If you were back in the 1970s, you would be talking about "Identity politics" in the same way. It's cute that you tried to compare the literal formation of the concept of Identity Politics you are talking about with way older and irrelevant things. Keep claiming that snake oil is a panacea.

It's just a fact.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cope]

I mean, it's similar I guess if you want to call both Liberal Internationalism.

You "guess"? Conflating the liberalism of the 40's with the liberalism of the Bush era has been one of your objectives for the last three or four posts.

Fortunately, that is a really broad rationale and I am not cornered into approving of every interventionist war just because I approved of some, regardless of your little "trap" there.

We were discussing conflict rationale, not simply the act of intervening. Whether the latter occurs is contingent upon the former. You've been trying to argue that Bush's conflict rationale matched matched Roosevelt's whilst at the same time trying to maintain that American involvement in WWII was justified but its intervention in Iraq was not. That's not me "trapping" you, or demanding that you take an inflexible standard on interventionism - its just you contradicting yourself. I tried explaining to you that the evolution of liberalism since 1945 made the comparison between the Roosevelt and Bush administrations functionally irrelevant in the context of this debate, but you just ignored me.

Oh yeah? You know about the Roosevelt administration and what it was doing? I thought I was clear on this point: they were preparing for war. Mobilization had already started. American sailors had already lost their lives to the Kriegsmarine. The US was planning on war with or without a Japanese sneak attack, that just moved up the schedule. It can even be argued that we were already intervening with our aggressive supplying of Britain since 1940. You know, when Roosevelt was rolling out his plans to intervene in Europe.

I've already shown, on multiple occasions, why this isn't relevant to the discussion. There's no particular need for me to repeat myself.

Wait, you can't support one instance of intervention without supporting every single other one? Even without the real life instance of WW2 (I guess you could use Korean War as another real life example), we could just have some hypothetical instance in which intervention is the obvious right choice. That's invalidated by bad instances of intervention? You are realllly stretching here.

At no point have I argued that all interventions are incorrect: the discussion was centered on the motivation behind interventions, not the act of intervening itself.

I mean, I guess they are only conservatives in a literal and true sense. Apparently supporting an intervention means you aren't Right Wing anymore? Forget about one's stance on abortion, law enforcement, religion, or culture; those are all nothing compared to having *huck* global interests. I could barely even say that without vomiting. Neo Cons were more moderate than, uh, whatever the Republican party is now, because they actually cared about keeping the institutions of US federal government intact. Only a completely partisan hack could actually consider them to be "Left Wing"; take your snake oil elsewhere.

Most of this is too incoherent and/or unrelated to the conversation for me to respond to. The final point, where you accuse me of selling "snake oil" simply for pointing out that there are significant voter blocs in the Western world which view mainstream conservative movements as being leftist, is particularly unhinged and ridiculous. I'm actually beginning to wonder whether you're actually reading the exchange at this point or if you're simply arguing against your own caricatures.

Because it was literally a Neo Conservative plot, I didn't think that was even up to debate. Not a plot in a conspiracy way, they wanted to bring democracy and Saddam was bad and all that jazz, but it was Neo Cons who pushed for the war. Many other people, who were also Liberals, didn't think the Neo Cons provided good enough justification. Weird how some Liberals were against it and other Liberals were for it, huh? It's almost as if being a Liberal (all of the US) doesn't actually give you enough information on if someone supports a bad intervention war or not.

No one has said that "all liberals" supported the War in Iraq. That doesn't mean that the conflict rationale for the intervention wasn't determined by liberal theories or that the war didn't receive widespread support from institutional liberals.

Maybe you don't read HH's other posts? He is partisan as all hell, of course there was partisan aim to his "commentary".

What does his general partisanship toward anti establishment positions have to do with you interjecting party political points into the conversation?

Oh, so you don't have anything other than your perception of the goals of Facebook and Youtube. I don't really care about your accusations of political conspiracy on the part of social media. Given they are both publicly traded companies, I am already pretty confident that their main motive is to increase profit margins rather than risk those margins by pushing a vague political agenda. Come to me when you have something other than conservatives shooting themselves in the foot by promoting corporate self-policing or anti-antitrust mentality (such as oppressive legislation or policy). Conservatives aren't calling for more regulation on Monsanto or Disney.

Whether or not conservatives are calling for more regulation on Monsanto or Disney is irrelevant. As I have explained repeatedly, I'm not even an American conservative much less a spokesman for it. At no point did I accuse Facebook or YouTube of being driven by a political agenda; that's yet another false inference on your part. Social media conglomerates don't need to be politically motivated to show institutional favouritism toward establishment politicians, advertisers and news media. Large corporations have a history of colluding with one another to effectively ring fence sections of the market without needing any sort of ideological motivation. Now tell me again that I can't have that opinion because you think I'm Paul Ryan or something.

Hyper partisanship and anti-SJW reactionism. If you are pretty far right-wing, which you probably are if you consider Neo Cons "Left Wing", hyper partisanship allows you to propose political theories and doctrines that would not usually be considered in less partisan circumstances but the partisans who remotely agree with you will stand with you no matter what. This is how rich conservatives got a huge tax cut for themselves while having poorer conservatives support them in getting it. It's the basis of this "postmodern conservative" movement.

No idea what any of this has to do either with my position or this conversation more generally. It increasingly sounds like you just want to get angry.

Sounds pretty relevant to what people are talking about today. If you were back in the 1970s, you would be talking about "Identity politics" in the same way. It's cute that you tried to compare the literal formation of the concept of Identity Politics you are talking about with way older and irrelevant things. Keep claiming that snake oil is a panacea.

So when I claim that there are significant contextual differences between the identity politics of the 21st century and the identity politics of the 1960's you dismiss it, but when I expose the knavery of that dismissal by taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion by noting that a person can conflate peasant uprisings with modern identity politics if they're willing to ignore context, you revert to the "snake oil" accusation.

[The spartan]

You "guess"? Conflating the liberalism of the 40's with the liberalism of the Bush era has been one of your objectives for the last three or four posts.

Conflating? The only similarity I was trying to draw between them is you could view them both as Liberal internationalism: the idea of promoting other Liberal governments overseas. That is a broad association; promoting Liberal governments may or may not be worth it given the circumstances. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it's a bad idea dependent on much more nuanced factors. Korean war was worth it, imo. Iraq war, not so much.

We were discussing conflict rationale, not simply the act of intervening. Whether the latter occurs is contingent upon the former. You've been trying to argue that Bush's conflict rationale matched matched Roosevelt's whilst at the same time trying to maintain that American involvement in WWII was justified but its intervention in Iraq was not.

What? The rational between the two was only ever the broadest sense of "promoting Democracy" overseas, getting anymore specific reveals massive differences in FDR's policy and the Bush Doctrine. Idk why you have gotten on this tirade about me trying to make the two events seem the same; probably because you want to make Liberal Internationalism seem like a narrow concept more specific to your definitions.

That's not me "trapping" you, or demanding that you take an inflexible standard on interventionism - its just you contradicting yourself. I tried explaining to you that the evolution of liberalism since 1945 made the comparison between the Roosevelt and Bush administrations functionally irrelevant in the context of this debate, but you just ignored me.

Right, you want your definitions of what Liberalism is to reign supreme: "Liberalism=bad, can't say WW2 bad, therefor WW2=nothing to do with Liberalism". It's actually a really broad concept, and while you can say exact tenets of Liberalism have shifted over the past 70 years, it is still very much recognizable; the major points are still there. Any political historian would call them Liberal governments. More importantly to what we are speaking about, Liberal Internationalism existed as a concept well before 1940, so it is weird to go in a round about way to say that FDR isn't engaging with the concept. Was he just accidentally doing a Liberal Internationalist would do?

I've already shown, on multiple occasions, why this isn't relevant to the discussion. There's no particular need for me to repeat myself.

It's irrelevant because you don't want it to be relevant? I mean, do you know of any historians who say that Liberalism is a completely different thing with no connections to the Liberal concepts of the 40s and 50s? Why should I accept your arbitrary cut off dates.

At no point have I argued that all interventions are incorrect: the discussion was centered on the motivation behind interventions, not the act of intervening itself.

Right, and I am saying the motivations are nuances, not so broad as to just slap blame on "Liberal Interventionism". You sure seem to be trying to say that any Liberal intervention motivation is bad or often leads to bad outcomes. It can be bad, but it can also be a good motivation. If Communist China starts invading Liberal Democratic governments, that could be a good motivation for intervening on behalf of a Liberal government. Wanting to go in and overthrow an already existing government to install a brand new Liberal one is less of a good idea, not because Liberal intervention is inherently a bad idea but because nation building like that is almost always a bad idea.

Most of this is too incoherent and/or unrelated to the conversation for me to respond to. The final point, where you accuse me of selling "snake oil" simply for pointing out that there are significant voter blocs in the Western world which view mainstream conservative movements as being leftist, is particularly unhinged and ridiculous. I'm actually beginning to wonder whether you're actually reading the exchange at this point or if you're simply arguing against your own caricatures.

Oh that's a good quote, I am going to save this one. If you have anyone with formal knowledge or authority issue who actually considers Neo Conservatism to be a Left Wing ideology, let me know.

No one has said that "all liberals" supported the War in Iraq. That doesn't mean that the conflict rationale for the intervention wasn't determined by liberal theories or that the war didn't receive widespread support from institutional liberals.

It was determined by war hawkish attitudes and doctrines, a particular pillar of Neo Conservatism that didn't apply to other, broadly Liberal ideologies. You are broadly attributing fault to other ideologies who didn't agree with the war. If only a particular subgroup is advocating for the thing, why are you attributing to the others that didn't? I don't think Libertarians appreciate being lumped in with the Neo Cons on the topic of war.

What does his general partisanship toward anti establishment positions have to do with you interjecting party political points into the conversation?

Partisanship isn't just between political parties, that's why I frequently referred to the actions of "Conservatives" or "Right" rather than "Republican". HH's partisanship is just context to the rest of what he says.

Whether or not conservatives are calling for more regulation on Monsanto or Disney is irrelevant. As I have explained repeatedly, I'm not even an American conservative much less a spokesman for it. At no point did I accuse Facebook or YouTube of being driven by a political agenda; that's yet another false inference on your part. Social media conglomerates don't need to be politically motivated to show institutional favouritism toward establishment politicians, advertisers and news media. Large corporations have a history of colluding with one another to effectively ring fence sections of the market without needing any sort of ideological motivation. Now tell me again that I can't have that opinion because you think I'm Paul Ryan or something.

Oh hey, quote time:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm actually beginning to wonder whether you're actually reading the exchange at this point or if you're simply arguing against your own caricatures.

I sure called you Paul Ryan and said you couldn't have opinions, huh? I never even called you a Neo Con. I did say that the idea that Conservatives were interested in bipartisan regulation on corporations is ridiculous. They are still in favor of corporate self-policing unless they think a certain corporation or industry is "against them", but I don't know what they would even want to do with that because they never offer any legislation or policy ideas, they just complain about "being oppressed" by policies they supported (corporate self-policing).

No idea what any of this has to do either with my position or this conversation more generally. It increasingly sounds like you just want to get angry.

TLDR; you are riding the Anti-SJW reaction wave.

So when I claim that there are significant contextual differences between the identity politics of the 21st century and the identity politics of the 1960's you dismiss it, but when I expose the knavery of that dismissal by taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion by noting that a person can conflate peasant uprisings with modern identity politics if they're willing to ignore context, you revert to the "snake oil" accusation.

Oh hey:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm actually beginning to wonder whether you're actually reading the exchange at this point or if you're simply arguing against your own caricatures.

Getting close to bingo here. See, you are trying to compare the irrelevancy of medieval peasant rebellions to the concept of Identity Politics with the irrelevancy of Identity Politics in the 70s with Identity Politics today. But, you seem to ignore the fact they are defined as exactly the same thing. Let's quote wiki again:

Identity politics, as a mode of categorizing, are closely connected to the ascription that some social groups are oppressed (such as women, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities); that is, the claim that individuals belonging to those groups are, by virtue of their identity, more vulnerable to forms of oppression such as cultural imperialism, violence, exploitation of labour, marginalization, or powerlessness.[3] Therefore, these lines of social difference can be seen as ways to gain empowerment or avenues through which to work towards a more equal society.

You are saying that that is as relevant to "modern Identity Politics" as medieval peasant rebellions. Oh yeah, completely different concepts. Political action based on ethnic and sexual minority groups has nothing to do with today's Identity politics... which is based on ethnic and sexual minority groups.

[GeneralAman]

Good to see liberals supporting trillion dollar corporations as they take away first amendment rights from Americans.

The truth does not fear inspection.

[mongrel]

Good to see liberals supporting trillion dollar corporations as they take away first amendment rights from Americans.

The truth does not fear inspection.

Adding the unecessary word 'liberals' is a flag that suggests the post is likely to be rubbish. You did not disappoint.


'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'.




Where in those words does it give the right for men to dictate what is published in a private publication? Youtube and Twitter are not part of the US government, nor do they publish laws. They are free to do what they like with their property. I presume the US has laws protecting property rights.

[Heathen Hammer]

Major corporations may exert influence on society comparable to that of the government. No apocalypse will happen if Google doesn't have a right to determine what can be said on the Internet anymore. Life will go on. You guys need better arguments.

[The spartan]

Major corporations may exert influence on society comparable to that of the government.

Practically all corporations exert political influence comparable to that of the government. Look at all the backflips a local government will do to keep a steel mill from closing down in their town.

No apocalypse will happen if Google doesn't have a right to determine what can be said on the Internet anymore. Life will go on. You guys need better arguments.

Name me one concept or idea that can't be discussed on the internet because google doesn't want it to? You wanna go read the Daily Stormer? Google "search engine" on google and use any one of the plethora of choices to search for "Daily Stormer" and it will be your top hit. It's right there, you can go discuss any crazy thing on that still active, accessible site.

[mongrel]

Major corporations may exert influence on society comparable to that of the government. No apocalypse will happen if Google doesn't have a right to determine what can be said on the Internet anymore. Life will go on. You guys need better arguments.

It says Congress on that parchment, not Google. The only argument that matters.

[Heathen Hammer]

It saying congress doesn't prevent legislation that guides actions of corporations from existing. Corporations can't dump toxic wastes into lakes or rivers at random, they can't fire people for being brown, and at some point they won't be able to refuse someone platform based on some inane vapid notion such as "spreading hate" (15 pages and and our resident liberals are yet to explain what "hate" even is). Another necessary legislation would be to ban corporations from giving information of users to foreign countries - that would be rather helpful for people who live in UK or Germany, so they won't have to worry about thoughtpolice arresting them over a social media post and would be great in spreading democracy and human rights in these authoritarian countries.

[mongrel]

It saying congress doesn't prevent legislation that guides actions of corporations from existing. Corporations can't dump toxic wastes into lakes or rivers at random, they can't fire people for being brown, and at some point they won't be able to refuse someone platform based on some inane vapid notion such as "spreading hate" (15 pages and and our resident liberals are yet to explain what "hate" even is). Another necessary legislation would be to ban corporations from giving information of users to foreign countries - that would be rather helpful for people who live in UK or Germany, so they won't have to worry about thoughtpolice arresting them over a social media post and would be great in spreading democracy and human rights in these authoritarian countries.

The first amendment does not mention any entity other than Congress. End of.

[GeneralAman]

Adding the unecessary word 'liberals' is a flag that suggests the post is likely to be rubbish. You did not disappoint.


'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'.




Where in those words does it give the right for men to dictate what is published in a private publication? Youtube and Twitter are not part of the US government, nor do they publish laws. They are free to do what they like with their property. I presume the US has laws protecting property rights.

Watch how the leftist suddenly becomes a hard-core libertarian as soon as it's time to defend massive international monopolies.

Comcast and AT&T are not the federal government either, yet they are required by law to serve you. There is no reason why the telecommunications act should not cover social media, considering the massive market share of these companies, and the tendency for natural monopolies to form. Of course, what they are doing isn't illegal, that's not what I'm arguing, but it should be.

The first amendment does not mention any entity other than Congress. End of.

There's something called the spirit of the law. It is the governments duty to protect freedom of speech, and there are court cases that affirm that private property can be considered the public square.

Practically all corporations exert political influence comparable to that of the government. Look at all the backflips a local government will do to keep a steel mill from closing down in their town.


Name me one concept or idea that can't be discussed on the internet because google doesn't want it to? You wanna go read the Daily Stormer? Google "search engine" on google and use any one of the plethora of choices to search for "Daily Stormer" and it will be your top hit. It's right there, you can go discuss any crazy thing on that still active, accessible site.

The still active site that had its .com illegally stolen by google. Excellent example.

[mongrel]

Watch how the leftist suddenly becomes a hard-core libertarian as soon as it's time to defend massive international monopolies.

Comcast and AT&T are not the federal government either, yet they are required by law to serve you. There is no reason why the telecommunications act should not cover social media, considering the massive market share of these companies, and the tendency for natural monopolies to form. Of course, what they are doing isn't illegal, that's not what I'm arguing, but it should be.



There's something called the spirit of the law. It is the governments duty to protect freedom of speech, and there are court cases that affirm that private property can be considered the public square.

What is this Chairman Mao's little red book rubbish?

I simply pointed out the wording of the US constitution, 1st amendment. It is clear from the wording that it only refers to the government or state actors. That's what we old and wise people call real life. Only the government can make laws, social media simply have t&cs. Just admit your error and move on.

[The spartan]

The still active site that had its .com illegally stolen by google. Excellent example.

Who cares about the suffix of the domain? You can still find it by searching easily. If this is information suppression, it is super weak.

[Heathen Hammer]

Plenty of laws aside from Constitution guide corporations from labor laws to environmental regulations. Comprehensive legislation that doesn't allow little creeps like Zuckerberg or that guy who owns Twitter to play politics is just going to be another legislation, among multiple others. They would just have to give platform to everyone, these outlets would still be private, no socialist apocalypse will happen, life will go on.

[Vanoi]

Banning people isn't politics though.

[Heathen Hammer]

Banning people isn't politics though.

It is politics if it is being done for political reasons, which it is (since such action is not bipartisan).

[Vanoi]

It is politics if it is being done for political reasons, which it is (since such action is not bipartisan).

Oh you must finally have proof then right? I've asked you to prove this before.

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh you must finally have proof then right? I've asked you to prove this before.

You quoted the proof - this censorship is done out of partisan bias, to silence opposition to leftists, with who big tech does sympathize ideologically and financially.

[Vanoi]

You quoted the proof - this censorship is done out of partisan bias, to silence opposition to leftists, with who big tech does sympathize ideologically and financially.

So you have no proof? Cause i haven't quoted a source or any evidence from you.

[BenKenobi]

You quoted the proof - this censorship is done out of partisan bias, to silence opposition to leftists, with who big tech does sympathize ideologically and financially.

This is a rather bold claim. And it would be appropriate to support it with something.