> So, deplatforming (silencing) a group is okay, but doing the same for other group is not okay based on some arbitrary criteria.
This is such a lazy argument, because it's trivially defeated. Yes. Exactly this. In the same way that e.g. jailing one group (the guilty) is okay, but doing the same for another group (the innocent) is not okay.
You know exactly what I mean, cut the bullshit. Point being, deplatforming may be okay for the group who exercises it, but not for the group that is being deplatformed. Who the fuck decides? The government? Some out of touch Big Tech CEOs? Fuck that.
Now, if I'd be willing to argue that this is a antitrust issue (FB, TW, Google / Amazon AWS, CloudFlare / PayPal, Stripe / Visa, MasterCard) having too much power to the point that they decide whether you live or not, and that there should be way more alternatives.
It is entirely and issue of the means of communication being concentrated into the hands of a few powerful organizations, like its been since the radio was captured by capitalist regulation.
> Who the fuck decides?
Everyone decides norms in the small bubble around them. When people organize their influence grows too. Some people have too much power. Some people should never have power, like nazis.
A lot of the arguments in this thread you will notice are about whether deplatforming makes nazis less nazis. Well, that's not the point. The point is to make sure they aren't accepted, that they can't use the public square to recruit and gain power.
Some would argue that this is ineffective, but they are now stuck in the bind of thinking that access to places of public discourse is both an important right and also practically unimportant.
Maybe they're too young to remember the holocaust deniers on use usenet or how ineffectual stormfront was before 4chan and before mass social media. People who are hungry for power will try to gain it in the easiest ways possible.
If you think them having power would suck, then you want to make it harder for them.
I simultaneously think facebook and twitter and CBS and fox news etc. have too much control over public discourse and also don't want white supremacists to be able to freely use that power to bring back hell on earth. That includes the new york times giving the likes of Richard Spencer space on their page, Tucker Carlson crying about how much white people are under attack and facebook letting white supremacists run recruiting groups thousands in size.
> Some people should never have power, like nazis.
That's exactly what I'm arguing against. That's just your opinion and you treat it like some universal axiom. Same way you treat 'Holocaust deniers' as some kind of monstrous apparitions. You may not agree, that's all.
It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
It's not an axiom. It's a fundamental disagreement about how society should be and an understanding of what the world would be like if nazis have the power to change it to suit their vision.
> It's people like you that inspire me to counteract this trend with full force.
What does that look like? What actual effects on the world do you try to make or support others making because I am opposed to fascism?