Lucky for you your opinions are mainstream.

True freedom of speech ultimately comes from a society's culture and morality not a law. The 1st Amendment doesn't mean much if the powerful can harass and intimidate its opponents into silence while still remaining in the technical letter of the law. Just like you'd probably wouldn't like it if women were denied employment opportunities because only 'men were created equal' How is this such a hard concept for liberals, the supposed founders of the 'Free Speech Movement' to understand?

Here's what I posted elsewhere in this thread - twice now - and is what so many people seem to be missing. It's not the subjects they're discussing, it's likely the manner in which their users are discussing them.

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it], rather it was the language and vitriol being used on the platform. As an example, it's one thing to use something like Dissenter to calmly and rationally discuss why you might think a nation should close its borders to all immigrants, it's another thing to use that same platform to say stuff like, "Fuck those worthless lazy piece of shit beaners coming to this country and stealing white jobs" (not my opinion, btw).

>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

This is the point: Discuss whatever you want, that's OK. Just don't be surprised if you get banned for being an asshole while discussing it.

>Mozilla themselves has said that they didn't remove it for political reasons [or "ideological censorship" as you put it]

So basically you're saying you'd be okay if there's one place you could speak freely and be heard (the internet) owned by one guy (the tech monopolies) and he could shut it down for everybody if one person said a bad word on it?

Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language, and they reached out to Mozilla who failed to provide them with specific examples. The same Mozilla shining champion of civility which funds Antifa, the group that does such nonvitriolic things like beat people with bike locks.

>I'm not going to pretend to know that stuff like that was posted to Dissenter, but you and I both know that language like that is commonplace on alt/far-right platforms. It's by no means a stretch to imagine that those kinds of posts are what got Dissenter banned.

>they have every legal right to choose not to host that app.

Serious question for you, how do you feel about net neutrality and bakers and photographers having to work for SSM weddings?

> Btw Dissenter does preemptively censors bad language

So wait, Dissenter doesn't support free speech?

The complaints were unsubstantiated with no examples of offensive behavior provided and might as well have been a smear campaign by people brigading by sending abuse reports en masse.

And unlike a private, for-profit company though,(for which your argument that they are within their rights to provide platform/deplatform whomever they want, would indeed hold) Mozilla attempts to claim the moral high ground in their manifesto[0], citing their commitment to "an internet that promotes civil discourse, human dignity, and individual expression."

[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

EDIT: clarified the first paragraph slightly.