I lean towards free-speech absolutism, I was against banning Alex Jones for example. However, encouraging violence, as 8-chan does, is not included under even the most expansive definitions of free speech. Nuke it from orbit.
Free speech is being stiffled by corporations that offers shared spaces, that even a government is unable to provide.
The government is bound to the Constitution, while some companies bigger than some countries in terms of capital, are not bound to these checks and balance.
Really?
You'd allow a Nazi to spout propaganda at your family and guests?
Why should anyone else have to host them on their private platforms?
Because private platforms are the public now.
It's like saying: "You are a Nazi I don't like your beliefs, you are not allowed to express them on my house"
So the Nazi leaves and starts preaching on the sidewalk, but the HOA comes by and says "You are a Nazi, and we don't like your beliefs. We own and maintain these sidewalks, and we are kicking you off"
So the Nazi stands in the middle of the road to preach, but the government had long since let private corporations build and maintain the roads in this neighborhood and Streets LLC comes by and says "Sorry, we own these roads and we don't like your beliefs, get out"
Thus, there is no public space for the Nazi to express his beliefs in, because all public space is now owned by private corporations.
Tying the analogy back to computers:
Even if the Nazi tries to host their own blog on their own computer in their own house, Comcast can say: "Sorry, we don't like transmitting your ideas from your house over our wires to the internet, get out"
Why do you insist on treating internet companies as if they were nation states?
The question is when a website/service should be classed a public utility.
Because it's hard to draw the line between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech, and once it becomes acceptable to silence people that power will be abused, especially if it is in the hands of large corporations. The logic is exactly the same as why the government shouldn't ban speech.
> Are you a free speech absolutist at your own house party?
My house is not a public platform so that's a silly analogy.
> However, encouraging violence
hmmm