This but unironically.

Societies have used shunning as a way to regulate themselves for thousands of years. There's no reason why we can't do the same thing on the Internet.

The only problem is that the power to shun is being concentrated into too few hands. A group that blames the Jews for literally everything[1] should be shunned, but it shouldn't just be up to one guy to decide that.

The Daily Stormer deserves everything they got. The fact that they've bounced from provider to provider means that the free market is operating correctly; they're being shunned. But as CDN's buy each other out, that gets to be less of a solution.

[1]: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4325810/Writers.p... [subhead Morals and Dogma]

Nazis or not: CEOs, who are not legitimated by any democratic election, have no right to decide what other people publish.

Nobody is arguing that they do. The question is whether CEOs can decide what their own companies host. Since being a Nazi is not a legally protected category they’re free to not help Nazis.

That the CEOs' censorship does not work perfectly does not mean it does not exist.

> Since being a Nazi is not a legally protected category they’re free to not help Nazis.

What currently is legal is obviously irrelevant when the question is what should be legal.

Again, this is not a hard problem once you shake the poor framing you’re stuck in. It’s not a question of legality because this isn’t the government preventing them from speaking and it doesn’t involve a legally protected class. It’s also not a question of some CEO preventing someone else from speaking. The only thing going on is a CEO saying they won’t help promote that speech, which is a basic right.

Of course it is a question of legality. It is a question of whether a CEO -- who has no democratic legitimacy -- should be allowed to decide what can be (in a manner that other people will actually read) published. And as I said, that their censorship is not perfect does not make a difference.

> and it doesn’t involve a legally protected class.

All your saying is that the CEOs' censorship is legal because it's legal.

Again, no CEO is preventing people from publishing things. You can setup your own server and publish anything you want unless it’s in a few illegal categories. Your position seems to be that your desire not to pay for hosting confers some sort of right to compel other people to pay for it but that’s simply not true.

I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone that seems to guess instead of read what I write.

How can you say something like that? Like, how many people have they killed? Less that any of the last 5 US government administrations I suppose...

You're engaging in intellectual dishonesty here.

"Nazi" is closely associated to the Holocaust, but you don't have to have killed someone to be a Nazi.

From Wikipedia:

Nazism is a form of fascism and showed that ideology's disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system, but also incorporated fervent antisemitism, scientific racism, and eugenics into its creed.

From that definition, Daily Stormer certainly was home to Nazi's, perhaps more appropriately "Neo-Nazi"

When you say it’s ok to censor something because it is [hateful | racist | sexist | obscene | dangerous], then you’re opening a pretty bad door. You’ve declared it ok to censor—now we’re just arguing over the list of adjectives worthy of censorship. It doesn’t take much to add things like “embarrassing to politicians,” “profit-destroying,” or “against popular opinion” to that list. Who knows, you may hold what you think are benign beliefs and opinions today that someone deems censorable tomorrow and there will be nothing you can do about it. No internet for you, round-earther!