> And everyone on one side f the aisle was like, yeah! Get 'im! Damned liar(s)! It's their platform, they can do what they want. It's not the government so it's

> And everyone on one side f the aisle was like, yeah! Get 'im! Damned liar(s)! It's their platform, they can do what they want. It's not the government so it's not censorship. They only censor bigots. I'm not from the US thus I have no dog in the race, but even I am fully aware that the rhetoric regarding "it's their platform, they can do what they want" is a very specific realization of the much broader and weaponized argument of "it's their business, they can do what they want" that has been used extensively for years by the political party that supported the incumbent candidate. The "it's their business, they can do what they want" is an argument used extensicely to whitewash the attack and persecution of minorities and political rivals, as is epitome by the infamous "gay wedding cakes" meme. So ultimately what this argument illustrates is that there is a political and ideological movement in the US which is adamant in demanding they should be immune to the rules they actively force upon others. Up until that moment, the incumbent's party was very adamant on the concept of arbitrarily denying access to goods and services to what they perceive as political and ideological reactionaries. That sentiment suddenly shifted once the consequences also applied to them.