I can't speak for others, but what I was defending is the right of a private entity to determine who can and cannot be on their platform [0]. You can admonish t

I can't speak for others, but what I was defending is the right of a private entity to determine who can and cannot be on their platform [0]. You can admonish them for it, boycott them for it, or even hate them for it, that's your right. I'm against this whole concept of people feeling entitled to access to a platform just because that platform is big and popular. If you have a problem with what they are doing then stop using them and stop promoting them. They have power because they are popular, so take that power by making them unpopular. If you are unwilling to take even these small steps then clearly you don't even care that much about the issue, so why should anyone else? And I also personally reject the idea that these places [1] should be 100% uncensored. I've seen what the uncensored places look like and extremely few people really want that. There is a reason those places are not popular. I will not accept any argument predicated on the idea that all censorship is bad, which is pretty much entirely the argument against Trump deplatforming. [0] Only because they are not a monopoly, no matter what people claim. The fact that there are so many big players in internet communication is testament to that. [1] That is, communication channels not owned by the government. The government has to respect the 1st amendment, no one else is beholden to it.