[tekromancr]

I really don't understand the resistance here. I have heard no arguments against no-platforming isis propaganda. Youtube, twitter, facebook all have a policy of removing such content. I don't really have a problem with white supremacists also being no-platformed. These are private entities, deciding for themselves that they refuse to be party to such content. Let the dipshits buy their own damn servers.

Now, the minute either group is harassed or arrested by the government over things is when it becomes a problem. That is actual censorship, and should be resisted.

[gcp]

The point that's being made is that, indeed, as private entities they have the right to ban this content from their sites.

But due to the SIZE of these operations, their actions practically amount to censorship.

Saying that the right of free speech only protects you against the government does not mean much in practice, in these circumstances.

[tekromancr]

It means all the difference in the world. It means that they won't be arrested for their speech. They won't be jailed. They won't be executed for speaking out against the government. Which is, ironically, very different from the historical treatment of dissidents by governments who adopt their politics.

It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs.

It's not like someone like Level 2 is stepping in and saying "We are going to deep inspect all traffic going across our pipe and filter nazi traffic"

[base698]

Writers on free speech thought social pressure was a more effective censor than the government:

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.

[gcp]

It also means that, for example, they have the freedom to pool funds and buy their own server, and host it in a datacenter that is willing to do business with them, or they can host their shit on ipfs.

It's not going to help them much if they can't get a domain registrar, or effective DDoS protection (rather relevant given their situation).

[anigbrowl]

So what? The Daily Stormer isn't being treated as a pariah because Andrew Anglin is Caucasian, but because he calls for white supremacy and war against others.

[gcp]

So what?

So they don't get freedom of speech, which is the discussion here. Most people believe freedom of speech is a good thing we want.

[anigbrowl]

And also that it has limits. Eliminationist threats don't deserve constitutional protection for the same reason as other kinds of criminal threats.

[tchaffee]

Which is why we should stop calling this a free speech problem and call it what it is: a monopoly. The government can actually do something about that one.

[gcp]

I concur!