I think you make good points here.

I'm a bit pushed for time for a bit but at a later point I'd like to extend some of these points as some of your criticisms are indeed valid.....I just think it's all inevitable.

I'm saying that so often now I could put it on my gravestone....it still works there as well.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

If you want to see a balanced, fair- minded article on this subject, then get hold of Monty Panesar’s article in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ today.

He is, of course, fully entitled to his view that the BBC have made an error of judgement, but he didn't actually have to make the decision which was probably very difficult and finely balanced.

He says nice things about both Vaughan and Rafiq, who says nice things about vaughan too.

So this sounds, to me, it is a headline searching for a story.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Silicon valley was designed to be a base for start-up tech companies, so it's hardly surprising that start-up tech companies set up there. That means zilch in terms of their ownership being private and the rules being their rules. No different at all to the Hol, other than in scale.

None are monopolies. They all have competition. That they can reach the same conclusions is a sign that they are all trying to find a balance between allowing freedom of expression and ensuring that their sites are not used to promote dangerous misinformation, or calls for violence. Something that unmoderated sites, like Gab fail badly at doing.

My view, which seems to be shared by many these days, is that they don't go nearly far enough. It has nothing at all to do with whether someone is "liked" or not. It's how they behave and what they post. You can find some pretty outrageous stuff on all the social media sites. Unedited untruths that would never get past a lawyer on the regular media. Some might like that, because it's "free speech", but when it's irresponsible speech that can cause actual harm, we need them to take action.

Of course, as they have grown, oversight arrangements have had to evolve to suit their new environment. That happens to every business, in every sector. They need to evolve faster, though, because their environment is ever-changing.

The idea that these companies must, by default, have political motivations behind their decisions is untrue. It is an excuse to justify the antagonism. Removals and bans happen because of the posting of lies and dangerous calls for unlawful actions, and not because of any particular viewpoint of the poster. They can easily be avoided, simply by staying within the rules and not posting things known to be untrue.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

How many minds have you changed on HOL? The various posters on here are as malleable as anyone else so your success rate must be pretty high.

You won't change anyone's mind on the internet. People don't engage to listen, they come to voice their opinions.

the only benefit, is that it gives readers perspective. A view from another angle.

And to that end, Monty's piece seemed to hit the right balance. It's not just your opinion, but they way in which you express it. He sounded very measured and reasonable in what he said. Some might not agree, but that's OK

"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak