I misspoke in my previous post. The tech companies conspired to act simultaneously when they banned Alex Jones to minimise the blow-back they’d suffer from his fans. Destroying his business/ career was a byproduct.

He/infowars broke their ToC so they acted accordingly.

How do we know that? Did they make their case in front of a neutral 3rd party? Did Jones have the oppourtunity to defend himself or appeal any decisions? No. If 20 gov’ts announced that Facebook broke their laws and its license will be suspended tomorrow Zuckerberg doesn’t just have to suck it up. He can go to court and appeal that decision. He’d even be allowed to continue operations whilst the case was pending as Uber, which is guilty of breaking numerous laws, did in London.

This bootlicking for the robber barons that dominate society is ridiculous. “It’s only oppression if it’s done by the gooburmint!” he said with Apple’s boot on his neck.

It’s interesting that this is happening to Info Wars after the tech companies conspired to destroy it and Alex Jones’ career by simultaneously banning it from all their problems at once. As I said at the time; it is very concerning that the tech companies could deny a business access to their platforms without proving their case in front of a neutral 3rd party, without offering their target a chance to defend themselves and without any oppourtunity to appeal their decision.

It was very difficult to say anything in defense of Alex Jones, even in the abstract, so they were able to set this precedent with ease.