Is It 'Censorship' for Platforms to Delete InfoWars Content? Not According to InfoWars.

Critics of Alex Jones and InfoWars took delight in pointing out the host's seeming double standard in his complaints about "censorship."

Published Aug 7, 2018

In early August 2018, tech companies such as Facebook, Apple, and Spotify -- who control a good deal of online content distribution -- announced that they would be removing some or all of the content produced by InfoWars from their platforms over violations of their policies regarding areas such as hate speech and bullying.

InfoWars host Alex Jones responded with a tweet storm (given that Twitter is one platform that hasn't yet barred InfoWars content) in which he lashed out at those companies for engaging in "censorship":

Plenty of social media users have chimed in on that debate (currently and in the past) to note that "censorship" is a term that can only be applied to government actions, as private companies are not obligated to provide platforms for free expression to everyone and may regulate their users' behavior (including speech) as they see fit:

That discussion in turn prompted even more conversation (not all of it polite) over exactly what constitutes a "private" company:

All of this was the lead-in to an irony that many critics of InfoWars and Alex Jones's relentless conspiracy peddling found particularly appealing — namely that the Terms of Service detailed on the InfoWars website directly contradict the argument being made by Jones and his supporters. InfoWars themselves acknowledge that they may enforce their own rules with guests who use their platform, and that "is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted":

Expect none of this to settle anything in the larger ongoing debate.

David Mikkelson founded the site now known as back in 1994.