> Are you saying that hate speech comes off of a vacuum? These two concepts do overlap.

In general, that logic calls for deplatforming every topic that people get outraged over.

people get outraged over tax policy discussions and no one is talking about banning them.

This despite a long history of violence related to tax policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_acts_of_tax...

>deplatforming

In this context, that's simply a neologism for private-sector censorship. Again I want to reiterate that I don't think the private sector should be prohibited from censorship. But using euphemisms like "deplatforming" distracts us from the fact that it is private-sector censorship, and from drawing our conclusions about these platforms, how widely representative they are, and how safe our own speech is on those platforms from future "deplatforming". Thankfully I'm not anti-immigrant, pro-theocracy, anti-abortion, communist, don't hold views like 'homosexuality and transsexuality are not genetic', etc. But if I were, I'd be worried.

Private sector censorship is not a concept. These terms are mutually exclusive by definition.

Please don't dress up your very much arguable opinions and arbitrary definitions of common language as some sort of fact. Your efforts to single-handedly redefine what censorship means are probably better spent making major changes to the wiki article on censorship[1], since it mentions explicitly governments and private organizations may engage in censorship in the first two paragraphs. Or perhaps writing letters to the EFF[2] demanding they take down their articles on private censorship.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/private-censorship-not...