To play the devils advocate, where does this stop?
Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?
Do you deny them any sort of public space where they can communicate with each other?
4chan and Something Awful provided that. I think it's healthy for the world to have a few places cordoned off to be primordial slimepools/cesspits. But, I wouldn't given anyone a hard time for trying very hard to not be one of those places.
For example, I think a big part of the continuing high signal/noise ratio at HN is it's tradition of downvoting sarcasm, memes, jokes, fluff, "nice post!" and other low-signal comments. As HN has grown, this has been slipping. But, it us already lasted much longer than I expected.
Are they not allowed to host certain speech either without being deemed "socially irresponsible"? Or is there some level of removal beyond which it's okay? If you've decided they're not allowed to use the internet now, is it okay to rent them spaces? sell them land? There's no good, definite ending point to this. Which is why companies like Black Lotus, CloudFlare and OVH just get it done. I don't fault them for it at all, in fact I trust them more to keep me online if some controversy is ever stirred in my direction.
I don't think it's ethical for a private company to censor everyone they don't like, but they should have that right. In terms of ethics, you're right that there's no definite ending point. Private companies should do what they feel is right, and not try to force themselves to allow full freedom of speech.
Reddit has no power to stop the KKK from saying whatever they want. But they are under no legal or moral obligation to provide a forum for it.
The KKK can spin up a website and say whatever they want.