They do not act like a publisher. They provide a platform for unlimited volume with no editing or prior constraints on anyone who follows the guidelines. Those who deliberately and repeatedly violate the guidelines are not allowed to continue. Your dislike for their guidelines does not permit you to impose punitive government controls under your anti-private property oppressive statism.

Ah, but I have that dollar sign by my name, which says I'm a Producer. That's going to make it a trifle difficult for you to get rid of me. As if it were that easy as it was, considering that you stand almost alone in giving a pass to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, et al.

Not being liable for what others say is not a "special treatment deal". Your dislike of what you call "an adverse effect" on what you call your "knowledge" is not an excuse for your statist controls.

You do not own this forum.

The "rest of you" is a handful of populist conservatives abusing an Ayn Rand forum. Your little group mindlessly 'downvoting' does not make your nonsense true.

Your crackpot "one world government" conspiracy theories are not reality and do not justify your advocacy of statism. Atlas Shrugged was not about competing conspiracies. You missed the whole point as you wrap yourself in stolen slogans. Your vague memory of her "talking about fighting ideas" is not a substitute for content as you ignore principles advocate statist controls for your populist collectivism. Ayn Rand identified the ideas she was fighting and explained why, and explicitly rejected the "evil man" theory of history, exemplified at the time by the religious conservative John Birch Society conspiracy theories.

The companies are not "censoring". They can't stop the free market you appeal to.

This is the same Blarman who demanded that his religious dogmas be taken seriously and respected just because he says them. The rights of private property and freedom of thought do require a "responsibility" to provide him with a platform for his oppressive dogmas and obnoxious demands.

And you, in case you hadn't noticed, are already outvoted. Which means the rest of us recognize what you do not.

Denying subjective conspiracy theories is not evidence for the speculation. Rejecting this nonsense is not "censorship". You are promoting circular arguments.

I remember her talking about fighting ideas, not fighting men. But that does not stop men from conspiring together. When evil men lose in the marketplace of ideas, they then turn to force.

The only adversary worthy of the name in Atlas Shrugged was Floyd Ferris. And the adversary definitely worthy of the name in The Fountainhead was Ellsworth Monckton Toohey. Either man would be right at home in the higher echelons of Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Spotify.

I repeat: I had believed that no person remains in Galt's Gulch by faking reality in any manner whatever. And that includes ignoring it.

Your crackpot "one world government" conspiracy theories dogmatically clung to are not an "understanding of reality". Ayn Rand's philosophy is not whatever you already believed before you found Atlas Shrugged and whatever else you picked since in contradiction to it. You are the opposite. You are advocating collectivist statism based on emotional conspiracy speculation.

This is a disgusting statement. Ayn Rand did not support crackpot conspiracy theories.

Let the free market punish the big companies that censor by making room for those that don’t.

And yet the hit and run anti Ayn Rand populists incapable of discussion are rotely 'downvoting' anything here that rejects them. They are clearly contrary to the purpose of this forum and should not be here.

Yes this has poetic appeal, (4 votes). but it is wrong.
Rights do not have limitations like that.
Rights are not subject to opinions on responsibility not to misuse.

P owns a forum. Q wants to put up ideas. P says, not on my forum.
If Q brings in government then this is an attack on the rights of P.
Q can go to another forum or start his own.
Now, if the regressives, leftists, conservatives etc get a regulator to protect Q by forcing P to allow Q's ideas, subject to no-hate-speech and blah-blah, you may be satisfied.
You will have opened a barrel of snakes.

Here it is:
"A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort" Ayn Rand
Translation into this context-
Q has a right to free speech. (Even when wrong and irresponsible).
Q has no right to force P to put those ideas on P's website. (P - the same)

They claim not to be publishers but they act like a publisher.

The google crowd gets a deal no one else gets...you are either a platform or a publisher...you can't have the best of both worlds...special treatment has got to go.

Not to mention that by doing what they are doing has an adverse effect upon our knowledge of the issues, the content of character of the candidates and ultimately...our elections.

An excellent answer to the question--again, to paraphrase another famous performer:

Will the real!

Ellsworth Monckton Toohey!

Please!

Stand up!

This should be pinned as required reading on the issue.

Great post ewv.

I support this forum.
This interview should be listened to by every American.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmvYYaFZON8

Yes, and I would like to point out something else that actually applies to you and me, both.

In the immortal words of then-Candidate Ronald W. Reagan (1980):

"I am paying for this microphone!"

Massive conspiracies are ignored and denied as if he were part of it. Ignored by the one who would like to censor your participation in this forum.

To share an understanding of reality. And I thought no one stayed in Galt's Gulch by faking reality in any manner whatever.

Take your paranoid "one world government" conspiracy theories somewhere else. They have nothing to do with Ayn Rand's ideas, which you have no understanding of or interest in. Why are you here at all?