[dTal]

>it's extremely difficult to run a business or service online if your views/product/service is despised by a large enough percentage of the population

Well wait a second, is that really censorship? "Censorship" implies to me a small group of powerful and unaccountable people tinkering with the information flow, quite probably in secret. That's not the same thing at all as being hounded out of town because everyone thinks you're a piece of shit.

[jwarden]

The definition of censorship certainly doesn't entail a small group of powerful and unaccountable people. Below are a couple of definitions I have found online.

I think people may be more outraged by censorship if it is done by a small group of powerful and unaccountable people. But censorship that is approved of by the majority is still censorship. And it can still be wrong, for the majority is not always right.

Cambridge Dictionary: a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...

ACLU: "the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive": https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

[CM30]

It's not about what others in general believe, it's the fact the payment processors, ISPs, data centres, etc have an outsized effect on what you can practically do/talk about.

The electric, water and gas companies can't just decide to cut off everything they don't like because they dislike their political views/actions, why should the tech equivalents be allowed to?

[joe_g_young]

Should a persons worldview dictate whether or not they perform a service? For example making a wedding cake for a same sex marriage? Perhaps this more nuanced.

[bilvar]

Or being burned at the stake because everyone thinks you are a witch.

[dTal]

I'm having trouble discerning your point. Can humans collectively believe harmful things? Of course. But it's a fundamentally different problem than censorship, except insofar as censorship can influence people's beliefs. It's not something you can really legislate against.

[bilvar]

You juxtaposed the censorship with rational actors that are collectively taking action to protect themselves. I'm juxtaposing with irrational actors that are collectively taking action due to superstition and fear. My point therefore is, why do you think this censorship case is the former and not the latter?