That's a funny thing to hear here on HN, considering that most of opression in socialist regimes of our former countries here have been by private organizations (which caved due to pressure from government on them).

If people are afraid of freely discussing political ideas, there's no free speech. It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU).

You know what? You're right. I didn't read the article. I see it is focused much more broadly on the globe and govornment-sponsored censorship. I assumed it was another dumbass article chicken-littleing about social media companies choosing how much hate to allow on their platforms.

Are you alluding to the previous article? This one is worth reading. It mentions how the US military begged a pastor to not promote hate because it jeopardizes security on foreign soil.

Note well: Begged. Not ordered. Not forced. Not sent the police (or some thugs) to supply some intimidation.

They asked. That was within their right to do.

>It doesn't matter if that's because they're afraid of being jailed (government pressure) or they're afraid of losing jobs, scholarships, career advancement, or other personal issues (as was in former socialists states in EU).

That seems like the kind of free speech that limits other people's free speech ability to say something along the lines of "nazi punks fuck off" and actively respond to things they disagree with.

To say that no one has "free speech" if there are any consequences to saying stuff seems to me as taking it much too far.

I'm not trying to say any such thing.

But what I am saying is that there is absolutely no difference if a news reporter is arrested by the government or if that same news reporter is fired and can't find a job again. Free discussion of problems in society was blocked in both cases. In real history the second form of government supression was significantly more common than the first and was supported by the same kind of argument the original poster was making.

IMO the difference is in the magnitude of consequences - if I criticize EU policy and as a consequence I'm not welcome in a smaller discussion group due to it is one thing. If I and everyone else criticizes that same policy and we all lose our jobs and houses because of that, it's a whole different type of problem.

Opinions are not a protected demographic like gender or age. Making opinions a protected demographic will prevent your ability to fire someone because they're an asshole.

The problem is that today's suppression of "free speech" by private organizations helps shape public opinion about the government doing it tomorrow. I.e., when a generation have grown up believing Google, Facebook, etc. silencing "free speech" on their platforms to be reasonable actions they may become more amenable laws being passed in the future ("Facebook bans hate speech and it's a better place for it, I think maybe federal laws against hate speech would be a good thing").

It's a worthwhile thing to be concerned about.

If you're given the right to control what Facebook has the right to censor, then you're actually removing Facebook's freedom of expression. After all, their code and their website is a form of expression of their own, despite being composed in part by users' content.

The problem that exists with Facebook is actually just a symptom of another, largely unspoken problem; Facebook has a monopoly, and this monopoly gives them unprecedented influence over the population.

Getting to the bottom of things is important, because the bandage that addresses the symptom you're describing is the tyranny you fear.