To those not currently involved in the culture war between authority and liberty, social media may not seem like something of much significance. To many of you, I'm sure its nothing more than a time killer as you entertain yourself with cat pictures and the latest dank memes. To many social media is nothing more than a sea of vacuous twats arguing over inconsequential happenings that in no way effect them.

Now, I know what your thinking, why is there so much outrage when one flamboyantly gay Trump supporter gets shoved off the platform? Well firstly, to understand the outrage you must first understand the inherent power social media has, which to understand that you need to understand historical events have been started over much less.

You see, when art, science and technology are in the hands of societies elites, very often they use this to further whatever system made them rich and powerful in the first place. That's why we have a centuries long period of European fine art that's nothing but Jesus and company, often commissioned by those holier than thou bastards who convinced the masses the only way to heaven was to give them money and let them tell you how you should live your life. And if you strayed away from any of this you would be doomed to the eternal hellfire. Tell that to the masses long enough and eventually everyone believes it and everyone is too afraid to question it.

Then along comes Martin Luther, formerly an unknown German monk, who in 95 short declarations 140 characters or less in length puts everything he has on the line to challenge said holier than thou bastards. And with the help of a couple random jackasses with printing presses, manages to spread those disputes much to the shock and offense of most of Europe's elites in the catholic church. All for daring to ask where the churches religious authority actually comes from. Of course the holy bastards were having none of that, and ordered his work burned and Luther to be excommunicated from the church.

Fast forward about 500 years and that same power to spark debate and ask questions on such a massive scale has been made available to everyone with a smart phone and internet connection. The ability to tell a story to a vast audience of people has never been easier. And for a time the established journalists loved this. Their voice now had a reach that was previously unimaginable in years past, giving them even more power to shape public opinion, and everything was fantastic until there was a paradigm shift. Readers became writers, consumers became producers and pretty soon the ability to set the agenda was in the hands of the common people. And shortly after the elite gatekeepers of information suddenly found themselves unable to suppress stories such as the Rotherham scandal or the cologne sex attacks, even with Facebook censoring any negative talk of the migrant crisis in Germany. That power to tell stories to vast amounts of people now landed in the hands of the masses, and the people used that power to force the media to tell the truth.

Through the power of social media, Individuals like Milo Yiannopolous have a reach greater than most big internet news outlets.

How does he do this? By not being afraid to shit post on twitter. He does not just report on stories, he becomes the story. All journalism is today is simply repeating what happened on Twitter yesterday, and he uses this to incredible effect. And Twitters reaction to him has been eerily similar to the aforementioned holy bastards. From an institution that claims to represent the idea of free speech, they certainly don't mind going after anyone who disagrees with them.

His most recent Spate with Leslie Jones was the final straw for him, and he was perma-banned for violation of terms of service. Now yes, Twitter can do this as they are a private business, and you agree to the terms of service when you make an account. But what makes this incident so egregious is Twitters selective enforcement of the terms of service. Should people be kicked off of the information super highway simply for having the wrong opinion? Well lets take a look at what actually happened.

You see, Milo was accused of inciting harassment towards the star of the new ghost busters movie Leslie Jones, who had been getting abusive tweets from alt-right trolls for most of the day, which to be fair seemed to be a coordinated attack. Now I can imagine that all Milo sees is a public figure playing the victim after starring in a failed movie and decides to jump in as hes know to do. Next thing you know Dorsey himself is DM'ing ms. Jones and Milo's account is banned shortly after. From all the evidence I've seen of this, it looked like Milo metaphorically walked into a riot and encouraged people to keep rioting and then got arrested for starting the riot. Which you could argue is a shitty thing to do but its probably not something to metaphorically get arrested over.

To see the full exchange and Milo's response to this click here. The nature of the ban was vague at best, but it had something to do with incitement of harassment. A couple of days later, Wikileaks decides to call out Jack Dorsey for his blatant double standard in who he enforces Terms of Service on.

Of course selective banning is just one of the many tactics that twitter uses to censor it's political opponents voices. But lets not look at that for a minute, lets look at whose still on the platform despite breaking Terms of Service.

-You have accounts that recruit for ISIS and spread their propaganda that operate fairly freely on twitter. Which despite 125,000 accounts being deleted it took a lawsuit to bring twitter to do that.

-You have Black Lives Matter supporter accounts still up after calling for cops to be killed, and they get rewarded with their own emoji.

-You have feminists who trend #killallmen on twitter and facebook.

-You have Ayatollah Khamenei, who has called for another holocaust on twitter

-You have the multiple accounts who have harassed and threatened conservative activists and Breitbart contributors Ariana Rowlands and Kasey Dillon for voicing support for Milo.

These are the people Jack Dorsey has allowed to be given a platform on Twitter. In the case of ISIS you can see how effective a tool Twitter is for furthering a cause, and it should be incredibly telling that Dorsey allows this. But god forbid a faggot piss off a feminist ghost buster.

It should be clear at this point that Twitter and Facebook don't give a shit about enforcing its terms of service unless they can be used to shutdown any and all contrarian opinions. If people like Dorsey have their way, the mainstream media will retake it's role as gatekeeper of information.

Even if you disagree with the ideas and viewpoints of people like Milo you should be disgusted at the glaring abuses of the terms of service ban to censor. Because even if you disagree with people like myself who think social justice is cancer, all it takes is a quick change of heart by Jack and friends and suddenly you'll find yourself in our position.

If you still think social media is just a stupid timewaster, i urge you to reconsider. As ridiculous as it might sound the battle for social media is just another front for the battle of freedom. Social media is to our time what the catholic church was in the 15th century. An institution(s) rife with corruption that needs to be reformed to reflect the principles of free speech and the free exchange of ideas, or at the very least a new platform for us to use. And Milo has become the first martyr to make that happen.

I'll leave you with some final words from the man himself.