Exactly. Maybe not for the reasons you posted but still.

You don't want a hosting service or an ISP to censor their customers. Even with neo nazis.

I'm pretty sure there are some laws against hate speech and the kind of threats that neo nazis make even in NL so the sites could be taken down through a legal process.

The hosting provider is free to decide who they want to host and who they don't want to host. If they're fine with being known for knowingly hosting the scum of the earth, more power to them; but they are also absolutely allowed to nope out of that.

That's the "ISPs are not common carriers" point of view. Tends to go away when their machine learning bans you for an unspecified reason.

The christian bakery owner is free to decide who they want to make cakes for and who they don't want to make cakes for. If they're fine with being known for knowingly hosting the scum of the earth (homosexuals), more power to them; but they are also absolutely allowed to nope out of that.

Neonazis are not a protected class (or equivalent in your jurisdiction).

So freedom of expression only applies to arbitrary "protected classes"?

How about suing people who post illegal stuff and leaving the matter to the courts? Having to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines will deter unlawful people more than having to change hosting provider every few years

I think a classic rebuttal is "would you be OK with a bakery owner turning down people of color based on religion"? How is turning down homosexuals any different?

Genuinely curious what your take is. I think the topic of the bakery owners is so widely known because of this. As the other reply said, and your discussion has continued: I believe that it ultimately comes down to what has "arbitrarily" been decided as a protected group. ("Arbitrarily" in quotes because it is ultimately the American political system in this case, and that's not really arbitrary.)

Without wanting to actually enter the well-trodden arena, at maximum zoom, the arguments can be categorised:

- free-speech absolutism (this position exists) - ban all communication between all humans (this position is not advocated by anyone) - some speech should be banned

I reject all absolutist positions. Ideology is cancer. It's childish: the conceit that one's simple plan will fix the problems in the world. It's the reason communism has been a disaster.

It's depressing how many free speech absolutists you find on HN. I presume these people are intelligent in the field of tech and know it. Their political pronouncements are pure Dunning-Kruger. Founding four companies and retiring at 32 does not imply that you understand how societies work.

I think that most people who advocate against corporate/outrage-driven censorship are more concerned with the basis of such action - i.e if the speech is legal then it should not be banned from public forums based on a sentiment of the opposing group.

I.e they take no issue with resolving that on legal grounds, but against succumbing to social (real or not) pressure of bystenders.

I don't think deplatforming is that difficult of a step for many people.

I think there’s a cultural aspect you’re missing—presumably you aren’t American? I’ve yet to see any free speech absolutists on HN. I would assume most people are on board with criminal penalties for fire-in-a-crowded-theater speech.

I don’t know if coming from a different culture means you don’t understand how societies work—that’s a pretty general claim.

I don't understand what the purpose of your comment is in relation to my post.