> Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution is supposed to protect, which is the difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations.

That's quite the exaggeration. You can quite literally still gather in a physical public square. Just because it's more convenient to do so online doesn't mean it's a granted right.

> The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms.

And? If a bank decides they don't want you as a customer, you can still perform cash transactions. You aren't entitled to a bank account just because the majority of people do banking.

Also, what Parler was doing was not so much "gathering in the public square" as they were renting a storefront in a privately owned mall. The mall owners are well within their rights to evict the tenant.

> You can quite literally still gather in a physical public square.

You can? Last I checked I can't, if I do that I get arrested for breaking social distancing...

> you can still perform cash transactions.

You mean, like in Japan and Sweden, that decided to attempt to go cashless by creating more and more rules on cash so that only debit (or credit) cards are practical?

> if I do that I get arrested for breaking social distancing...

This is inaccurate at best. The gathering in D.C. last Wednesday had a legal permit for thousands of people to join.

That’s quite a pedantic interpretation of gathering in a public square at a particular moment in time where doing so is detrimental to the health and economy of a community. In the event that you’re not disingenuously asking that question, as with all things, “it depends”, on specific local ordinance, how many people, the ability to maintain six feet distance, etc.

We've built a society without physical public squares, for the most part, though, and substituted them with the virtual.

> This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse?

Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin.

(we're talking, politely, about free speech extremists - so none of this seems wildly inappropriate, right?)

> Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin.

This is all fair. If your goal is to exist on the fringe of the acceptable and legal, you're going to have to DIY.

> Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people.

For a while now. Sex workers, sex shops have complained about it for years. Nobody cared. I find it ironic that the same group of people advocating against consumer and worker protections now seem to demand them.

It's tempting to think that it's concern trolling by fascists, really. No interest in whether Google wants to get rid of a high-profile AI ethicist, because hey, it's a private company. No interest in Facebook censoring breastfeeding groups because OMG NIPPLE. No interest in, as you say, making it impossible for legal sex work to operate. No complaints that Apple forbid R18 material in the app store years ago because Steve Jobs didn't like it.

Now, suddenly, it's a great big issue because a bunch of neo-Nazis got run out of town? Not a great look, eh.

If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.

I don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the problem.

History is full of people whose thinking stopped at "no smoke without fire". Those people are still here today.

The free market argument is that it isn't tyranny of the mob. It's tyranny of the market. The companies are responding to market forces, which implies that so many people are concerned that it's actually a democratic push of people voting with their wallets.

There was a time when many businesses refused service to blacks and jews. By our logic, that would have been right and proper.

As a bonus, I'll just add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

Not my logic. Refusing service to someone based on their sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin is a very different moral proposition than refusing service based on facilitating the subversion of the democratically elected government that sustains said business.

Then add political affiliation as a protected class and prosecute people who break actual laws.

My personal opinion is that this discussion about tech, politics, censorship, etc. is something that needs to happen, and maybe all parties were completely within their rights to act how they did.

There are a lot of people who don't see that as self-evident, and what they are hearing is "if you are pro-Trump, you deserve to be a social pariah." That is a real quick path to radicalization.

Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. If you convince enough people through your actions that the rules are "Heads I win, Tails you lose", then they'll decide not to play by those rules anymore. And then all hell breaks loose.

> Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules.

Agreed, and it follows from that that "political affiliation" protection cannot include "wants to destroy the government" -- no matter from what quadrant that sentiment flows (anarchist, socialist, fascist, whatever).

Agreeing to democracy -- and probably republicanism -- (note, both lowercase) is a bright line across which you've really decided to step outside of our mutual rules.

Neither "conservatives", "republicans", nor any other actual political affiliation are being shut out by any of these companies. People who affiliate with "opposing a democratic election with direct violence" are.

> People who affiliate with "opposing a democratic election with direct violence" are.

The trouble is that many of the same people saying these actions were perfectly acceptable also have a habit of casually stating that all people who voted for Trump are the irredeemable scum of the earth.

In 1984 everyone hated Goldstein's guts, but was he really the problem?

Read another book, for god's sake.

Try Homage to Catalonia. You'll find the author likes shooting fascists, not platforming them.