Well I definitely don't think it was willy nilly. Also consider that SC has been fighting the good fight against big tech for at least six years when they really started tightening the screws on him. So for a "friend" to propose something like this is laughable at best and insidious at worst. DW KNOWS that YouTube and Facebook and Twitter have each struck Crowder on many occasions even when there is no clear violation of their ToS. Even if what he did was OFF PLATFORM. They just do it arbitrarily. Sometimes they even retract it after he appeals. So SC would be staring down six figure penalties constantly even if he didn't do anything wrong. DW KNOWS his history and put this in there anyway??? They're either retarded (they aren't) or incredibly sleazy. If running afoul of Big techs arbitrarily enforced and defined rules is such a big deal to them, knowing what they know about SCs history with them, DW should never have even given an offer.