Yep. And it's happened in the past. That's why so many tinfoil hat types ended up on shortwave radio, or sticking flyers to lampposts.
Desperate people desperately trying to get a message out, with no means to do so.
But that isn’t the point. Should we not even be allowed to discuss a hostile immigration policy because it “sounds crazy”? That in and of itself sounds crazy to me.
Which correct mediums? And which correct payment processors, while we’re on the subject?
The argument that you’re being “forced” to hear arguments you don’t want to hear is equally as farcical. Just, like, turn off your screen man.
We're talking about mobs that hound people online, instead of simply not clicking on the content they don't like.
So you tunred it on its head exactly, directly after complaining about dishonest argumentation.
And anyone who thinks clicking a button is "honest argumentation", is really just betraying how they're using a phrase they heard others take seriously. You don't even know what it is. This thread is littered with the proof of those unable and unwilling to argue, and they honestly think they can force this, heh.
Also, nobody censors. A distributor decided not to distribute the stuff anymore.
This idea begets that we have agreed to outsource what is and isn’t “allowed” to be said in the public space (and these are public spaces) to private corporations that absolutely do have their own agenda and objectives. Are we as a society ready to do that? Who watches the Watchmen?
To use a closer analogy, Tumblr recently banned "adult content", including nudity. This affected friends of mine. Is that censorship?
Ok, so why can Patreon not decide what is and is not an acceptable use of its platform?
Even when there is overwhelming international, corporate, and government support, internet censorship has not been effective. Look at the resiliency of the pirate bay and darknet markets.
That's very clearly not true at all. Just a dozen or so major companies or orgs can work together to shut you out of having nearly any reach at all. For practical purposes, you'll have zero reach. Any combined small group of them can easily be enough to make your life online dramatically more difficult.
They can get you at the domain registration (oligopoly + mixture of cartel behavior). Oh, well, you have no right to a domain registration.
They can get you at the ISP level (oligopoly). Oh, well, you have no right to Internet access.
They can get you at the discovery level. Oh, well, Google (monopoly), Facebook (monopoly), Twitter, Reddit, et al. don't owe you any discovery access.
They can get you at the hosting level. Oh, well, nobody owes you access to any sort of hosting, from Azure or AWS to Wordpress or Tumblr.
They can get you at the network transit level. If just a few ISPs or large backbone operators in the US blacklist your site from their customers, few will be able to see you. Again for practical purposes, you're dead in that market.
Google as one example has openly bragged about their potential to conspire with other malevolent entities to tightly control expression/speech. They know their position and exactly how they can abuse it to their political or ideological bias.
In the age of inherently subjective 'hate speech' as The Devil that must be stopped at any and all costs, none of this is far fetched in the least. It's going to get a lot worse yet; the topics covered by 'hate speech' blockades will get far more extensive in the coming years. The enemies of free speech have been wildly emboldened by their successes and the lack of push-back. The entire West is going to end up with the equivalent of a less restrictive Chinese firewall, and that's where liberal Democracy is guaranteed to die.