Paul Joseph Watson was told he was banned this year from Facebook and Instagram for interviewing Tommy Robinson on YOUTUBE - a completely different platform - THREE years ago. Some people have even had Facebook posts removed for appearing in a photo with Robinson. Yet there is no agenda... #1984

It's that kind of baseless assertion which spreads the kind of victim culture being found in these threads.

Paul Joseph Watson, along with a number of other far right "activists" were banned from several platforms not for interviewing anybody. They were banned for contravening the rules of the platforms in that, in their judgement, they indulged in promoting violence or hatred. These platforms are businesses. They make their rules being mindful both of their customer base and the law and that's their only agenda. If anyone from the left side of politics attempted similar activities then they too could expect to be banned.

There are other platforms they can use to chat among themselves if they wish and if anyone else is interested in their viewpoint they can easily find them. Stick to the rules and no-one has a problem, but don't complain if you break them and get banned. They aren't your rules because you don't own the platforms.

That isn't my description of him, and the others who were banned, but of those reporting the ban at the time. I don't know the guy but I cannot see any denials! Facebook banned him for the reasons I stated without offering any kind of opinion on his political stance.

It matters little though what political label is attached. He was not banned for interviewing "Robinson". He was banned for breaking the rules.

So far as I am aware no individual contributor to these threads, or groups of contributors, own the site so don't make the rules. Only the site owners do that.

So whilst there are some who would like to silence me, not because I use hate speech, promote violence or intimidate, but just because I hold opposing views, I sincerely trust that the site owners won't degrade themselves by even considering pandering to such cowardly tactics.

Chucking out mindless, meaningless insults to those of a more progressive nature like "snowflakes","cucks", "libtards", "gammon" and now "NPC" no doubt amuses the feeble minded and makes them feel better about the weakness of their arguments but it's like water of a ducks back to people like me. It's par for the course in the USA but it looks pretty undignified here, so imitating that kind of language and tactic says so much more about those who use it then ever it does about their intended victim.

What you would find if you could actually bother to research on this, is that if a black person were to make a YouTube channel full of rap songs about killing or raping whites - absolutely nothing would happen.
If I were to make a YouTube channel devoted to the downside of immigration where I dared to criticise aspects of other cultures, it would be removed.
So one rule for one, one for another. But I guess they are private companies and can do what they like.
You seem to not want to see it: fair enough. I think most of this news politics section has just become tribal and about point scoring - rather than any realities. Seems to mirror the current media and political parties.

I don't speak for any of the social media channels and although I really doubt that what you say about a rapper is true, it's their decision and not your's or mine to make. Why don't you ask them to explain?

I am though quite sure that if you made a respectful YouTube video in which you argued the downside of immigration, or criticised cultures, it would be fine. It's the use of intemperate language and incitement to violence that invites banning and not the subject being addressed.

That there are tribal politics in this section is obviously true. However despite the accusations I don't fit into any particular "tribe" and try hard to always post reality.