@Simon,
I'm not trying to pull any tricks on anyone.
I simply stated what my criteria are. Your criteria my be entirely different, and that's fine with me.
Because does the fact they are so determined to prevent something even being heard not tell you something?
No. As I said before: how does one distinguish between a crackpot spreading dangerous bullshit, and the lone person who is right but is opposed by those in power?
I have yet to see a useful response to that.
To me, the two may be virtually identical in appearance when it comes to actions taken by media platforms and authorities.
I would expect governments and media platforms to try and silence or not offer a platform those that spread dangerous nonsense.
And they would do the same if they were actuallly trying to cover up a conspiracy of those in power.
So if someone is kicked off of YouTube or not offered a platform otherwise, that in itself is not evidence of them being right (or wrong).
You own and moderate this forum. A few days ago we discussed this very thing: those operating a media platform are in no way obliged to offer a platform to anyone. If I were to start promoting dangerous nonsense you would ban me, right?
I'm not surprised other platforms removing content they deem dangerous (or simply disagree with).
That in itself is not evidence of a conspiracy.