[sdwa]

No, the government banning something is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence. Reddit admins banning a sub and reddit mods banning a user is the exact same thing, it's just moderation of a private forum. Forcing private companies to publish pro-genocide speech, for example, is anti-freedom, not pro. If we're going to force reddit to publish pro-holocaust speech then all moderation everywhere must be banned as well, including on this very forum, to be consistent. I for one think this forum benefits greatly from active moderation, however.

[stale2002]

> is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence.

Yes, they are more effectively able to censor it. Correct, thats my point.

> is the exact same thing

I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others?

For example, would you seriously argue that every single grocery store in the world, banning all people who want to raise their taxes, is the same thing as a random person kicking a friend out of their house?

Obviously, the two things would be different. Even though the grocery stores are private businesses, there would obviously be a problem with them making it so people who want to raise their taxes are no longer able to buy food.

The difference is quite clearly about power.

[sdwa]

>I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others?

Of course some censorship is more effective than others, but the idea that banning a subreddit is morally wrong because it's somehow "more effective" (by some metric) than banning a user (which apparently is OK?) makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

>For example, would you seriously argue that every single grocery store in the world, banning all people who want to raise their taxes, is the same thing as a random person kicking a friend out of their house?

Reddit doesn't have a global monopoly on internet forums though. Websites like the Daily Stormer still exist. Your analogy is not really applicable to this case. And even if Daily Stormer didn't exist, private individuals have never been legally obliged to signal boost and publish hate speech at any point since the US was founded that I am aware of. That would, ironically, violate the 1st amendment.

[camel_Snake]

If the size of influence of the entity limiting speech is the issue, then would a mod of a very large subreddit banning a user be worse than a comparatively smaller, private social network de-platforming a user?

I guess my point is more so where do you draw the line? Legislatively-speaking? By the size of the community?