| > It isn't even a well-defined ideology! Fascism means using political violence [...] to seize power in something very much like a coup d'etat; it really is as simple as that. First, though fascism is isn't particularly well-defined, it is definitely better defined than that (since you're describing a tactic rather than an ideology), and that just isn't what fascism means[0], second, even if it was, it would still be possible to advocate for it without crossing that line and leave facilitation to other (usually covert) channels. Still, although advocacy for fascist views would be legal, I have no particular problem with public platforms restricting speech that promotes those views[1]. The analogy elsewhere in this thread to the phone system is flawed, as that implies regulating private speech. OTOH, so long as money equals speech, there is an argument for creating payment infra that is more along the lines of a public utility or common-carrier for transactions that may not discriminate, since there are other categories of public speech besides fascism that are often unjustly denied access to payment infra. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance |