[imnotjames]

By banishment of free speech, you mean the right of a private entity to decline to host content that they seem to not be a fit with their ideals and brand?

I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.

Instead, it's an issue that the private operators (codeberg & sourcehut) are looking to apply their own freedom of speech to take a stance against projects that have a high case of fraud.

You see the same thing from Stripe[1]: they ban similarity predatory systems from using their services & tarnishing their brand.

[1]: https://stripe.com/legal/restricted-businesses

[Ptchd]

> I don't think this is a freedom of speech issue.

it is, when the platform is so huge and are controlled by the government behind the curtains... Doesn't surprise me that people on HN are pro-Biden when I hear stuff like this....

[imnotjames]

I'm sorry, what? Controlled by the government "behind the curtains"?

You might want to take a step back and evaluate that thought process.

Private entities are not violating freedom of speech as a legal construct and as an issue of an ideological construct - isn't it violating the private entities freedom of speech when they're being forced to host speech they don't agree with?

If you're saying that you believe a shadow governnent is controlling twitter and that's why it's considered free speech - since it's a government entity in that case, uh, I don't really think that's plausible.