Defending the principles of free expression means being forced to defend shitheels who abuse free expression, because the principle is that important.
The ACLU don't like the idea that the Westboro Baptist Church will go to a dead veterans funeral and hold placards and shout at mourning relatives that they're glad their kid got killed because he was a cigarillo and god hates him, but they believe in the principle that they should be allowed to do that, as distasteful as that is.
Because thats what principles are. If they're worth anything at all they're not something you abandon when it becomes awkward or inconvenient to adhere to.
You're fine with people you don't like being 'deplatformed'. Good for you.
But the point of Martin Niemöller's famous quote is if you let people you don't give a shit about get thrown under the bus, what happens when people you do care about are in the same position?
What, you're fine with people you don't even know with zero obligations to do anything but what they want to do be in charge of that?
Is it completely out of the realms of possibility that a fundamentalist religious organisation could buy a controlling stake in one of these publicly traded companies?
Then what do you do when they're 'deplatforming' things like teachers teaching the theory of evolution instead of creationism? People offering sexual education? Access to abortions? Gay rights advocates?
Is that when you speak up and say "hey, wait a minute, nobody told me letting other people make these kinds of decisions meant someday it would affect people I don't think are bad guys"?
Because thats the point of that fucking Martin Niemöller quote. He's telling you that right fucking now.
also
/carepost
Cigarillo, eh? I like it. lol
It's an interesting discussion. Libertarians for instance actually support the right of these companies to ban whoever they please because they very strongly believe in the concept of property rights. I think they have a point to a degree in that allowing the government to have a bigger say in what or in whom private businesses do business with could be potentially dangerous further down the line.
However, the counter argument is the internet has become like the public square. It has increasingly become the place in which people gather to spread ideas and debate. These tech companies have got so big that they basically control the internet. What's more they're colluding with each other. So for example Sargon of Akkad was banned from patreon so he decided to move to SubscribeStar. Not so long after doing so PayPal pulled out from SubscribeStar leaving it without a payment processor. Alex Jones was banned almost simultaneously from multiple different platforms in a way that seems like they were colluding with each other. The libertarian argument would be to create a new platform that allows free speech to thrive, but that is not so easy when Silicon Valley pretty much has aa stranglehold on the internet. What happened to Gab is another example of how Silicon Valley has colluded with each other to topple a platform that is pro-free speech.
Should the internet be considered a public utility? Have platforms like Google got so big that they should be compelled to protect free speech?
It's a difficult question to answer because the issue of property rights and the right for privately owned businesses to decide who they do and don't want to business with is a valid one. On the other hand, silicon Valley has such stranglehold on the internet it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide alternatives that allow for the flourishing of different opinions and political viewpoints.
