"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me."

— Martin Niemöller

Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, misinterpreting a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male as full-on white genocide, as well as many unrelated issues like immigration, but that doesn't really make him a white supremacist. Being afraid that your demographic is being targeted doesn't make you a supremacist. There are many minority demographics right now who validly feel that way. Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist. Alex Jones being a white supremacist is a false narrative perpetuated by the informal group of gatekeepers trying to silence his platform.

> How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech?

That's false absolutism. You cannot dismiss censorship as a "scare-word". It's scary for a damn good reason. Right now they're only coming for the socialists. Soon they will come for someone you care about, and then I wonder if you will still be so readily apologetic for the information gatekeepers of the new era.

"Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist."

It seems to me like you're ignoring the plain definitions of simple words in constructing this statement. Wanting to preserve a dominant position in society (which is what it sounds like Jones' concern is) makes one a supremacist. Wanting to eliminate other groups makes one something else, perhaps an "eliminationist" or "exterminationist". They are distinct. You can be both, but you can also be the former without being the latter. Assuming Jones is not an exterminationist, that is entirely consistent with him being a supremacist who either has scruples or doesn't feel the situation is desperate enough yet.

People who feel threatened may reasonably speculate he (or others who are sympathetic to supremacist views) might become an exterminationist if the situation appeared more desperate. That's neither a "true" nor "false" narrative, but a plausible yet uncertain prediction.

You could be right about that. I'm not really here to defend Alex Jones' position. I honestly don't know enough about the dude and what he wants. However I will defend his right to a platform as long as he is operating within legal bounds.

Right now we are having a national conversation about the right of an ISP to hold a monopoly over its customers. We don't think it's fair that the only worthwhile ISP in an area can charge tiered amounts for different levels of internet access.

The same conversation is just beginning with regard to platform rights. It's one thing to secure your right to connect to the internet. But we need to secure the right for people to connect to you.

"Right to a platform". What does that mean? Can you generate an answer that isn't morally equivalent to a demand for FRAND terms for Alex Jones? Remember, FRAND is an exceptional case in commerce; it's (for instance) what you do to get your patented IPR into a global standard. It's not the expected default.

Sweet, let's engage in Learned Quote Battle!

"How now, how now, chop-logic! What is this?"

--William Shakespeare

a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male

Oh! Never mind, I'll see myself out.

Try to have a debate in any moderately left forum about topics like feminism or economics without having some people come out of the woodwork with character assassination and insults, disregarding your opinion as a priviliged cis white male. It's a real thing and it's ridiculous. I get told all the time I'm not allowed to participate in conversations based on my sex, sexual orientation, and skin color.

I feel like I need to correct you on a couple of things.

People being mean to you in a forum is not evidence of "a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male".

You don't have to be a genocidal maniac to be a white supremacist.

'White genocide' is not something someone yelled in the heat of the moment - it's an old neo-Nazi term and it is obviously intended to justify extremism - after all, what response is inappropriate if you're a victim of genocide?

The people Niemöller was talking about faced imprisonment, torture and murder. The oppression the owners of Gab face involves putting on pants and driving some servers to the nearest colo facility.

Aristotle was not Belgian.

The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself."

And the London Underground is not a political movement.

What an incredible strawman.

'strawman' you're going to have to look up yourself since I already did all the other ones.

You lack quite a bit of self-awareness.