(I didn't reply to Jim because rather than discuss the problem I was addressing, he  jumped right back on the We Hate Trump Train, which I'd told him in my message to him was not part of the conversation I wished to engage in.  That being the case, I simply chose not to reply to him.  I did reply to Joe because Joe addressed my comments without going off on a tangent.)

That all said, I have to admit that online media companies do have the right to run their own business the same as a newspaper or TV station.  However, since these online companies only business is providing a platform for discussion, I would think that it would behoove them to not censor anything that is clearly not illegal, or clearly not dangerous. 

And when I say dangerous, I mean information such as how to commit a crime, build explosives, and so on.  That would be dangerous.  Disagreeing with one's views in NOT "dangerous."  Simple conversation that might convince people to believe ideas contrary to the company's core beliefs is not dangerous.  That is what the LEFT seems to mean by "dangerous, or hateful, and usually by false as well.  In other words, everyday speech that simply does not agree with the left's narrative.  And when someone more conservative is suddently in charge (say Musk & Twitter), and the left wing powers that be which were in charge of heavily censoring conservatve views are removed from positions of power within the company, the left goes beserk complaining about fales, hateful, and dengerous all over again.  I believe the ideal approach for any online platform is to keep it clean, polite, and family friendly, and to stop there.

My opinions, folks.