[simias]

I genuinely can't fathom this argument at all and it seems rather widespread in these parts.

For one thing I'll keep strongly objecting to the use of "censorship" for something as mundane as this. It's a strong word, a private company saying that you can't do X or Y on its own turf is not censorship. If you tag the walls of a McDonalds and you get thrown out it's not censorship. If you're using Mailchimp and they say "we don't want to deal with that anymore" it's not censorship. If they based their decision on race, sexual orientation or religion it might be discrimination but Bitcoin is not officially a religion yet.

For systems that have a quasi-monopoly or a very dominant position such as Youtube it's true that it can be a problem. Not being able to post your videos on Youtube will probably reduce visibility a lot. That's still not a free-speech issue though, it's a monopoly/lack of competition issue. The solution isn't to force Youtube to host your content, it's to work on having competition in the video hosting space.

In this case though it makes no sense. Email is an open infrastructure, anybody can start sending emails whenever they want. You don't have to ask anybody for permission, setup postfix on some dedicated server and mail away.

[Karunamon]

It's a strong word, a private company saying that you can't do X or Y on its own turf is not censorship

It absolutely is censorship. They may have every legal right to do it, but at the end of the day, they are restricting broad categories of speech, it's censorship, end of story.

Furthermore, "your own turf" never is and never has been a carte blanche to do anything you want - certain regulations and obligations, both moral and legal, kick in when you open a business to the public.

[tehwebguy]

Again, if this is considered censorship then 100% of their acceptable use policy is also censorship.

Which, obviously, it's not.

Not only are there infinite other mailing list companies out there, you don't even need one. You can just send emails yourself if you want.

[Karunamon]

Not if you don't want to deal with antispam bullshit, you don't. Try spinning up a new server, do the usual PTR/DMARC/SPF dance, and send any large quantity of messages in an automated fashion - like a regular mailing list that people have affirmatively indicated they want. Many of them simply will not get there.

If this were not a problem, Mailchimp and friends wouldn't have a reason to exist. The reason I call this censorship is because your options for large-quantity emailing are to sign up with a company like this (and subject yourself to their terms), or just deal with the fact that many of your messages will never arrive.

[djur]

> Not if you don't want to deal with antispam bullshit, you don't.

The entire point of this move is part of their "dealing with antispam bullshit" service. What Mailchimp offers is not mail delivery. Anyone could provide that cheaply at near-unlimited scale. What they offer is the opportunity to piggyback on their good reputation as senders. Maintaining that reputation is necessary for the operation of the business.

> just deal with the fact that many of your messages will never arrive

This isn't quite right. It's more that your messages will be rejected at the destination.

I go through my mail once every couple of days, and I've learned to recognize "refinance with us" or "sell your house" mail by sight and throw it away unopened. Now, if I see an envelope that says (for instance) "Internal Revenue Service", I'm going to open it up. That's because of the good reputation (in a certain sense) of the sender.

The mortgage people could slap "IRS" on their mail and have a lot more people open it and read it. They would also have a number of stern, suited people come by to discuss federal law with them. But that wouldn't be censorship. It's not censorship to withhold your endorsement of someone else's communications.

[tehwebguy]

Yes, if you want to send bulk email you'll need to play by the rules of the receiving servers. It's not easy but it's doable, as evidenced by the multitude of Mailchimp competitors and self-hosted systems like Sendy.

Just because it's not as easy as using `<?php mail(); ?>` doesn't mean Mailchimp has some kind of monopoly that makes their acceptable use policy the same thing as censorship.

[UncleEntity]

> Not if you don't want to deal with antispam bullshit, you don't.

So, in a way, Mailchimp is actually in the business of getting around censorship in the form of spam filters?

That's where people should be directing their ire, those anti-free speech spam filters that prevent an honest businessperson from filling up their inbox with a multitude of "great offers".

Oppression in the first degree, that's what I call it...

[s73v3r_]

It can only be censorship if you believe that people do not have the right to choose who they do business with.