The two posters before this are exactly why people are so riled up about censorship (calling it what it is. Just cuz someone dislikes the speech doesn't warrant removal of the right to speak.)
Basically you have people that demand others be censored. That they don't deserve to speak freely. And they'll come up with all these mental gymnastics as to why other people's speech isn't acceptable. And for most of us we understand that the first amendment is the most important and that's not acceptable.
Just look thru the last 2 years of left leaning websites. Anyone who claimed trump was innocent (clearly...) was a "bot, troll or brigader" and ought to be censored because it was "hate speech".
A world where we censor is a dark world. There's a reason free speech was right number one in this country.
Editorial discretion has always been a thing - you should absolutely be able to publish your own speech on your own terms, but I'm not convinced you should be able to force other private companies to host your content. The ability to publish widely is relatively new, before if you sent some long screed to the new york times they just wouldn't publish it (you could publish it yourself, but likely wouldn't have a huge audience).
This gets tricky though when you're talking about things like being blocked by a domain name registrar or something.
Even with speech you publish yourself there are some existing restrictions (libel laws, hate speech targeting individuals, etc.)
Moderation is also what allows communities like HN to exist and remain interesting places - I'd definitely prefer it to every website turning into 4chan.
The infringement of speech is only prevented for the federal government. The internet doesn't count. The internet is not beholden to physical barriers and there is more than enough room to start your own website. You have a right to speech, you don't have a right to a privately owned platform that isn't yours..
Furthermore, deplatforming has always been a thing. It basically happened to the dixie chicks after they spoke out against the Iraq war and GWB in England way back in the early 2000's. I don't think they have ever been on fox or a sinclair broadcasting station ever again.
No one is saying proclaiming trumps innocence is hate speech, that is an absurd claim, where are you getting that nonsense?
Nobody is talking about free speech as a matter of constitutional law in these instances (although even that applies to more than the federal government, i.e. state and local governments.) People are making a normative claim that it’s better for institutions like YouTube to have liberal speech policies than restrictive ones. If you want an example with opposite political valence think of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. The NFL can legally punish players for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, but it nevertheless has a chilling effect.
I would submit that there is a difference between hosting speech, and amplifying it with your recommendation engine. If your recommendation engine does not promote something, I don't think that is the same as censorship.
Basically you have people that demand others be censored. That they don't deserve to speak freely. And they'll come up with all these mental gymnastics as to why other people's speech isn't acceptable. And for most of us we understand that the first amendment is the most important and that's not acceptable.
Just look thru the last 2 years of left leaning websites. Anyone who claimed trump was innocent (clearly...) was a "bot, troll or brigader" and ought to be censored because it was "hate speech".
A world where we censor is a dark world. There's a reason free speech was right number one in this country.