Ok. But when you start denying basic infrastructure to those with viewpoints you dislike --- domain names, DDOS protection, app store distribution --- you're no longer trying to just maintain some particular community's culture, but instead eradicate certain speech from public life.

It should be illegal to deny fundamental infrastructure to someone on the basis of his philosophy or point of view. That's what a free society means.

You're arguing a point that the parent poster never made.

The parent poster simply said that they want to join communities free of (or, mostly free of) hate speech and that being free/mostly free of hate speech is an attractive quality for them.

Not once did they advocate for denying infrastructure or any of the other things your entire comment is based on. In fact, they stated the opposite.

But is Reddit a community, or is it infrastructure to create communities (which would be the subreddits)?

Engage in whatever wordplay you want: reddit is a website built on community content and interaction. That there are user-created communities within the larger community does not turn it into some sort of "infrastructure" of internet expression. The infrastructure to build one's own site, and communities that go with it, are and should continue to be made available to all regardless of viewpoint. Given Voat's existence and the fact that people do use it, I do not see a problem.

They are welcome to buy their own servers or even rent them. We don't have to subsidize their free use of internet resources.

Isn't that exactly what these federated platforms (and the apps to access them) are doing?

And they're welcome to build their own anti-DDOS infrastructure.

And their own app stores.

And their own apps.

And their own domain name registrars.

And their own payment processors.

You say that, but it's a well trodden argument.

> We don't have to subsidize their free use of internet resources.

We subsidize the FAANG's use of internet resources; the Internet was largely originally created with public money (military, academia, etc).

> They are welcome to buy their own servers or even rent them.

Are they? What if they get banned from there? What if they can't collect money from their community, because all the donation sites ban them? What if their donation sites are killed because all the payment processors drop them?

Your argument leads to the logical end of "they're welcome to make their own internet".

What happens when something you like to discuss falls into the category of hate speech? You think it couldn't happen, but plenty of topics that were totally reasonable subjects of discussion, plenty of totally reasonable publicly-held opinions from 20 years ago are now in this basket. It's totally plausible to imagine some newer topic you feel strongly about eventually becoming so, and you ending up on the side of wanting to have honest discussion about it and being locked out.

Can't imagine it happening to you? Well, maybe you don't like pedophilia, or the huge push of incest porn that seems to be everywhere. Maybe you have legitimate, non-racially-oriented concerns about the riots around the country? Maybe you're worried about some particular changes coming to your children's education, or you're worried about the impact of ideas like UBI? Well, your opinions that are acceptable to post in polite places today might not be in 2030.

The only way anyone should be okay with this continual incursion into free speech is if they have truly tied themselves to the idea of being 100% on board with whatever restriction is coming down the pipe next. Such a person has no principles, and it's hard to imagine defending them.

> Are they? What if they get banned from there? What if they can't collect money from their community, because all the donation sites ban them? What if their donation sites are killed because all the payment processors drop them? Your argument leads to the logical end of "they're welcome to make their own internet".

This is slippery-slope nonsense, just where this conversation always ends up. You can "what if..." you're way to us banning these individuals from driving cars if you want, but it's not what's being discussed.

I am very, very, very in favor of reddit disallowing hate speech on their community as that is an active behavior on the site itself for a community they own. I am very, very, very against any organization barring access to things like domain name registration, hosting, etc. on the basis of their expressed ideas up to the point of them directly enabling clearly criminal behavior (e.g., directly organizing violent attacks, sharing revenge porn, etc.).

Private citizens kicking someone out of a restaurant for being rude is not the same thing as government actors barring them from ever owning a restaurant, or going somewhere else where their rudeness is welcome.

> The only way anyone should be okay with this continual incursion into free speech is if they have truly tied themselves to the idea of being 100% on board with whatever restriction is coming down the pipe next. Such a person has no principles, and it's hard to imagine defending them.

This is a false dichotomy built on the aforementioned slippery slope fallacy.

> slippery slope fallacy

You can't claim slippery slope if it already happened. Payment processors, domain name registrars, hosting providers, and anti-DDoS services already ban people they dislike. If we slide any further down this slope, the deplatformed will have to lay their own optic fibre.

You can also get banned from payment processors and Uber as well.