I think we’ll disagree, but I’m excited to see others use arbitration weaponization like this against other platforms when they unilaterally take action against users (free speech or otherwise). Cheap force multiplier.

I do agree.

I'm excited to see forced arbitration hurt companies that intended to use it to hurt their users.

I'm a bit disappointed to see it benefit a Holocaust denier at the same time.

I can’t help but feel free speech absolutists are the same species as economists, all believing that every human is a rational actor with perfect information.

The Orion Welles “War of the Worlds” recital should feature more in the discussion of the ethics of free speech, along with study of propaganda and the predisposition of humans to believe the first version of a story they hear.

Holocaust denial does hurt people, just because you don’t see the harm being done doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Typically what happens is one person with a public position denying the Holocaust happened empowers their audience to engage in anti-Semitic behaviour, which ultimate devolves to abuse of semites (typically Jews more than arabs).

As an example of how unlike the rational actor with perfect information most humans are, just one newspaper report here in Australia regarding two POC violating quarantine has friends who are also POC starting a petition wanting the quarantine violators thrown in jail — no regard for the rich white COVID-positive couple who returned from Aspen Colorado and hosted multiple dinner parties while in “quarantine.”

Some folks are so focussed on their perceived rights they have no time o pay attention to social obligations such as duty of care.

It’s your duty as a human being to be a well-adjusted person emotionally and to develop emotional fortitude along your life journey. You have no right to not have your feelings hurt.

Cool story bro.

Meanwhile in the real world we are not all born psychopaths with the privilege of only working with people like us who like us. In addition we live in the same world where “only following orders” is still a thing: so one person’s public suggestion that you are not a nice person is someone else’s call to action to punish you for being you. Accusations that a woman used sexual favours to get better reviews for a computer game led to complete strangers turning up on her doorstep threatening violence.

Words aren’t just words. What people are scared of isn’t just the words but the retribution they have learned follows those words as surely as night follows day.

It’s not people’s feelings I’m worried about. Blood libel led directly to the murder of a ton of Jewish people. Neonazi movements actively promote mass violence against Jewish people. There have been mass shootings at synagogues in very recent memory.

“Just be an emotionless robot” misunderstands the complaint completely.

In the real world, we encounter folks who aren't "well-adjusted". Society winds up having to decide how to deal with them.

I’m a staunch supporter of absolute free speech (as much as possible, caveat “Fire!” in a crowded theater). Denying the Holocaust doesn’t put anyone in imminent danger. I don’t agree with the speech, but I’ll defend the right to speak it (rights are not for the speech we all agree with, but that which is most contentious).

The existence of auschwitz is undeniable; you can visit it. If someone wants to look like a fool, let them. If you believe the fool, equally a fool. If fools are responsible for the suppression of fundamental rights, the system is broken and an immune response should be expected.

Holocaust deniers have every right to speak their views in the US. They don't have the right to demand a specific platform; just like they can't demand an oped in the New York Times, they can't demand Patreon carry it.

I also subscribe to the concept of the paradox of intolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) - that having a tolerant society requires intolerance of certain beliefs. There's some good evidence that deplatforming works. (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...)

To play devil's advocate for a moment, would the Holywood Blacklist in the 50's count as Holywood studios denying a platform to writers associated with an ideology they believed to be dangerous?

Would it what?

Be legal? I suspect so.