Er, incorrect. Didn't you take the time to read properly?

I affirm below the possibility of "free speech platform". I didn't think "online" is necessary, as "platform" implies, at least to me, online platform.

What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?

If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.

I really don't think you've shown anywhere that my argument, as you put it, breaks down.

In my response to the commentator, I draw the contrast between non-free speech forums and free speech forums. Aka example of a church or college vs a "free speech platform", emphasizing that the former are NOT what the latter is, just as you have done.

I don't see how the argument doesn't hold, because even though you appear to have misread what I wrote, your point in fact reinforces and upholds what I'm asserting.

Which is that in an actual free speech platform, then indeed, "The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence" which by and large I agree with the commentator on.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but the commentator appeared to be also saying that GAW, Patriots.win, etc, are "free speech platforms". I showed that they are not, by referring to purpose.

GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.

If you can show me where I'm mistaken in any of my assertions, I'm willing to learn. But let's not make it into a battle of opinions, or some sort of competition for "haha, your argument is totally bogus, so there!!!" level of elementary school level.

i.e. "The purpose of an online free speech platform, WOULD apply, but you never used that as an example. Why? Because it would break your argument down immediately."

That directly asserts that I have some bad-faith intent to only win some argument and not actually offer productive discussion. Why on earth would you assert that?

Stick to purpose.

Er, incorrect. Didn't you take the time to read properly?

I affirm below the possibility of "free speech platform". I didn't think "online" is necessary, as "platform" implies, at least to me, online platform.

What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?

If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.

I really don't think your shown anywhere that my argument, as you put it, breaks down.

I simply draw the contrast between non-free speech forums and free speech forums. Aka example of a church, a school, vs example of a "free speech platform".

I don't see how the argument doesn't hold, because even though you appear to have misread what I wrote, your point in fact reinforces and upholds what I'm asserting.

Which is that in an actual free speech platform, then indeed, "The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence" which by and large I agree with the commentator on.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but the commentator appeared to be also saying that GAW, Patriots.win, etc, are "free speech platforms". I showed that they are not, with reference to purpose.

GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.

If you can show me where I'm mistaken in any of my assertions, I'm willing to learn. But let's not make it into a battle of opinions, or some sort of competition for "haha, your argument is totally bogus, so there!!!" level of elementary school level.

Unless of course you're NOT here for actually advancing GAW's purpose... um, handshake.

Looking forward to your response.