No legitimate claim of private property rights with Facebook etc.

There is no legitimate claim of private property rights in the sordid business involving Alex Jones. How is it that a restaurant cannot legally refuse to serve would-be customers on the basis of race, sex, or political leanings, but that something which amounts to the public square in our Internet age can do that? In fact you can always find another restaurant, usually by walking across the street, but there is no alternative to Facebook or YouTube. Being banned from those two platforms is entirely similar to being denied the use of the city water supply or electricity. Same with Twitter although I have always viewed Twitter as a misuse of technology and have never really used it.

Claims that Jones violated any terms of service are ludicrous in view of the reality that Jones was simultaneously banned by six or eight of these social media companies. That is clearly political and it is just as clearly a real conspiracy and not any kind of a conspiracy theory. Who could be stupid enough to believe that Jones violated terms of service agreements on all those venues on the same day? Particularly LinkedIn; Jones has never even used his LinkedIn account for anything.

There is a compelling national interest here and where a compelling national interest is involved, private property rights go out the window. For instance the case of the Willis jeep which was taken away from its original inventor and given to somebody capable of producing enough of the things to win World War II.

Stefan Molyneux provides another interesting perspective on this sordid business. He notes that the same social media venues which have banned Alex Jones are allowing very much more dangerous leftist organizations to go straight on with their usual bullshit in such a way that it has to impact the main legal defense which these venues have against any kind of liability lawsuits or anything like that. In other words, these venues have always claimed that they are not editorializing or putting out any kind of an official line or anything like that but are merely providing a platform for individual users on a level playing field basis. Given what they have just perpetrated, there is no way to believe that they could go one with that and you also have to believe that their stockholders should rightfully be up in arms since these actions actually expose the stockholders investments to liability claims. This is worth listening to:

When you think about it, the simultaneity of the bannings combined with the fact which Molyneux notes that the action is hugely detrimental to the business and legal situation of the companies involved, should lead an observer to suspect that these companies had been ORDERED to take this action by one or more elements of the deep state. They appear to be acting against their own interests.