The same reason if I go to a stranger's house and start debating with them about my own political opinions they are free to kick me out. Free enterprise and private property are generally considered fundaments of modern civil society. Im all ears if you have an argument to the contrary.

We're not talking about people's houses.

In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views.

> We're not talking about people's houses.

I'm talking about private property and the right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. When a group of people create a business this doesn't magically go away.

> In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views.

Certain protected classes are legally protected from discrimination, yes. To my knowledge "advocating violence" is not a political view; this is what the r/The_Donald is being quarantined for.

Here's the original story accusing TD of advocating violence:

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump...

Featuring comments with as few as 1 point.

Those are just an excuse to further restrict a community they've restricted several times in the past, without admitting it's for political reasons.

Okay, you've signalled that they do do it, but now there are not enough points of data. How many points of data is your burden of proof, before you agree?

"They"?

Those are comments from a few fringe users, buried so deep that most people never saw them.

Is that a reason to punish a community of hundreds of thousands of people?

That's like quarantining an entire city because a few people there are violent. That's not a good solution in the real world or online.

So is the burden of proof that the people commenting about inciting violence have to be "main" users before it's a problem?

What's your criteria for that? You're being pretty slippery right now by dodging questions.

I'd say handle it like we handle crime in the real world. Punish the offender, not the community.

Now will you answer a similar question? I spent a couple minutes looking through a single post on r/politics and found a couple of violent comments:

> Just do a 180 turn on gun reforms. They’ll take an armed population more seriously.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_...

> It's because protests don't achieve anything. ... Riots on the other hand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_...

Do you think r/politics should be quarantined because of those two posts?

Unless that was an extremely unusual post, there are undoubtedly many more. How many more would make you want a quarantine?

That isn't a burden of proof though, which is what the question asked for.

You're basically saying that Reddit should never ban subreddits, which means that you don't even have a burden of proof for banning a subreddit. This means no matter what you're always against banning a subreddit on a privately owned website, yet you fawn at other reasons to justify it (fringe users, not enough data points, etc.)

Your proposed solution instead is that admins should police every user, when mods fail to, which just isn't scalable. Especially when the barrier to just creating a new account to bypass the ban is so low.

Privately owned doesn't mean they can do anything they want.

We've allowed privately owned companies to control the means of communication, without regulation.

It's time to bring back the laws that limited the phone companies and big three TV networks interference in politics, updated for the Internet.

That's not entirely correct. California makes it illegal for an _employer_ to discriminate against an _employee_ based on their political views. It does not make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against _customers_ based on their political views.

Companies are not free to choose with whom they do business. There are many constraints, not the least of which is it being illegal to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, and, in California, political opinions. Free enterprise and private property might have been fundamentals of civil society in the past, but that ship has long sailed since then.

> Companies are not free to choose with whom they do business.

For the most part, yes they are. For instance, every online business has a Terms of Service detailing many situations in which they will or will not do business with you. Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. are specific situations in which governments/society have decided that its worth restricting this freedom for the greater good. The existence of these relatively few exceptions does not negate their overall freedom to do business with whomever they please.

The quarantine isn't based off of political orientation though, otherwise r/republican and r/conservative would also be quarantined.

Allegedly it's based off a few fringe comments that Media Matters found, with mostly single digit points:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/c5sbpm/reddit_q...

Those aren't representative of the sub. What's the real reason?

I don't think anyone has a scientific answer on what is "representative" of the sub besides it's clear support for the president, but honestly it doesn't seem out of line with my experiences of the_donald.

Thank goodness we don't run the country based on possibly biased anecdotes

Fortunately, reddit has not yet achieved statehood.

That's not entirely correct. California makes it illegal for an _employer_ to discriminate against an _employee_ based on their political views. It does not make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against _customers_ based on their political views.

Wouldn’t it be invasive to demand that anyone handle anyone else’s business? There’s two freedoms being negotiated there, and the law origins basically boil down to — by emphasizing the business owners freedom the market should be able to support a solution for the other (or you go build that business, if it is needed). Total freedom in that system is higher than in the one that demands anyone do business with anyone.

R_TheDonald is a forum on someone’s product, there’s a low barrier erected here, they could go buy a url and some servers and continue their speech.

> Wouldn’t it be invasive to demand that anyone handle anyone else’s business?

Maybe, but it's a very common demand.

Because the business is choosing who they use their resources to rebroadcast under their name and the government has a monopoly on violence.

The government is not guaranteeing that they will rebroadcast whatever you want to say, they are just not giving you consequences for saying it.

Businesses aren't imposing consequences of violence on speech, they just are choosing not to be a part of it.

Someone not listening to you is not censorship.