[fsociety999]

What you consider “misinformation” today may turn out to be the truth tomorrow. I am not familiar with this site, but do you have examples of the “blatant lies and deliberate misinformation”?

Imagine if in 2001 everyone used your argument to deplatform anyone who said that Iraq did not have WMDs. Imagine if anyone who claimed that the U.S. recruited Nazi scientists to work in the U.S. government after World War II had their funds cut off. Imagine if anyone who suggested that smoking cigarettes was unhealthy or could lead to cancer in the 1940s was banned. There are countless examples of things like this.

Your line of thinking here is very dangerous because the justification to ban or deplatform people you disagree with today will be the same one used to ban people you agree with tomorrow.

The other thing is, as you pointed out, the issue is not black and white. Neither is the classification about what is considered “hate speech” or “misinformation”. Are you comfortable with big tech giants making those decisions?

[beej71]

I want the right to deplatform people for any reason. It my money I'm using to run my site and I should get to choose who uses it for what, with any rationale, or no rationale.

If society feels there's some gain to be had by restricting this, then let's legislate (because the platforms already ban people to maximize their profit, they're not giving that up willingly). Though, honestly, that's such a minefield I have trouble imagining the form effective legislation would take.

[fsociety999]

I think there is a fine line between a tech company and a financial services company.

Do you think it is okay for a bank to restrict people access to their own money or deny bank accounts because of opinions they hold or things they say?

It’s really easy to make claims like this when you don’t think the rules would ever apply to you. “Oh they are just targeting some fringe site on the internet. That’s perfectly within their rights”.

The precedent is what is dangerous. Imagine a world where if anyone says anything bad about billionaires, they are no longer allowed to use financial services.

[beej71]

I don't think it's ok in this case. I say we regulate PayPal.

But also that we steer clear of any talk of the right to use other people's sites in general. That's far too far.

[Kye]

The precedent was already set, but the people screaming about free speech today didn't care then because it was queers and sex workers losing their livelihoods.

[muzika]

At least give people their money back then. PayPal also held their funds.

[beej71]

I agree that there some be some law that makes this happen swiftly.