| Alright: > It’s like denying someone electricity. In some parts of the United States being denied utilities can (and does) lead to death as a result of exposure. I don't believe comparing this to deplatforming from the internet is a good faith argument. > It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such. So they're not now, but they want to be, so we need to treat them like they are? That's like saying we should apply monopoly laws to every company in a market because they're trying to grow. When Twitter has a monopoly on the distribution of speech, I'll agree with you. In the meantime, even without social media, there are more ways to deliver a message than there ever have been in the history of mankind. As has been mentioned over and over the last few days, freedom of speech means you have the right to say it, not the right to broadcast it. > In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else I say this semi-sarcastically, but when I can't spend my money because I've been deplatformed from twitter, I screwed up more than them. |
Without getting into the point of the conversation[1], taking the most extreme interpretation of someone else's words and argue against that would be the no good faith argument in this case, IMO. The HN guidelines encourage to steelman the other person's point and argue against that; you seem to have done the opposite.
In other words, the other person didn't argue that removing access to social media was akin to killing you (like it would be for a few people if they didn't have access to electricity), but that it would be a huge inconvenience (like it would be for most people if they lost access to electricity).
[1]: I'm starting to not see the point in discussing the merits of free speech or what constitutes free speech or censorship. I believe free speech is fundamental, and for that reason it's anyone's prerogative to think otherwise. Getting into that discussion at all is also a bit ironic.