No, I've never heard of that, and just a suggestion, but you should think twice before assuming what someone might be implying, especially if it can any way be

No, I've never heard of that, and just a suggestion, but you should think twice before assuming what someone might be implying, especially if it can any way be insinuated as a defense of "literal Nazis". (versus, what, figurative nazis?) My point is that it logically follows that people being banned from YouTube is fundamentally the same thing as being banned from another layer of the communication stack, whether it be the web host, the ISP, the telecom, the payment processor, etc. Hell, why even stop at the technology stack? Maybe apartment complexes shouldn't rent to people with unpopular views. Perhaps grocery stores should refuse to sell food to those who say bad things about the LGBTQ+ community. /s > Political party is not a protected class and nobody is guaranteed any internet service until internet service is deemed a human right. Do you see the problem with this? When the internet is the virtual town square and the way to mass communicate, having no protections for free speech by either individuals or groups is a recipe for tyranny. Maybe this doesn't feel concerning to those whose views are currently the popular ones, but with the centralization of the internet and our increasing dependence on it for everything, that's a fascistic situation waiting to develop. Just as we allow private businesses to have their own rules and practices, while simultaneously forbidding privately-owned cities from violating the US Constitution, there should come a point where the "private business" excuse is no longer valid once a small group of corporations have a stranglehold over the way that everyone communicates.