[jazzyjackson]

I would argue that the alt-right panic (as in, if I thought white genocide was a thing I'd be panicking too) + nihilist troll tactics elected Trump, which has caused much harm.

I think a world where those people were no-platformed more often might be a better world, but of course I can't know.

And getting no-platformed isn't losing rights, you can always make your own platform, it gets easier and cheaper every day.

[jewelthief91]

You can't really "make your own platform" though. Ultimately the ISPs could shut down access to any website they don't think their customers should have access to. The only recourse would be for the censored to somehow construct their own physical internet infrastructure, which was so difficult and costly the first time that it was highly subsidized by the government.

And do you honestly think you should have the right to determine what elections should be considered "harmful" enough to shut down others speech? There is a wide range of opinion short of the alt-right but in the same direction that could be shut down too, for instance apparently a majority of white people think there is racism against now (https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-a...). Do you think this opinion is so wrong that it should be silenced from the public forum? Do you think it would even be possible to do so?

[jazzyjackson]

I'll keep your points in mind.

I would only insist on making a distinction between "a public form" and "the public forum"

As an owner of a machine, I see no reason I should be forced to host some conversation I consider harmful.

OTOH I would encourage ISPs to maintain a common carrier status just out of pragmatism. Once you memory-hole connections to some IP address, I think you become responsible for the content you serve. All or Nothing.

[jewelthief91]

I agree with that. We need some way of differentiating between private sites and sites that be considered part of the public forum.