> "I may not like what you have to say, but I support your right to say it"

The right to say “I disagree” and respond within the limits if the law is the other side of the free speech coin.

The first amendment gives Kickstarter the right to control what is on their private platform. There have never been “neutral platforms”. They’re a myth.

Kickstarter is doing what they think is best for them. Our legal and financial systems allow competitors to take advantage when miscalculations are made on the part of private parties.

Demanding “neutrality” on private platforms is a strictly anti-speech position.

We're (or at least I'm) not demanding neutrality. I'm criticizing the needless meddling of an almost unrelated middleman on a completely legitimate transaction. Also, holding the belief that neutrality is a good ideal for open-registration platforms to have is not anti-speech. I'm sad that you think that.

How, exactly, is an aspirational goal of free speech a “strictly anti-speech position”?

See Musk for a pretty great recent example of what the aspiration tends to mean in practice.

Doublethink.

Depends how you define free speech. I believe it means free expression, including the right to not speak.

Neutrality is a matter of opinion, hence the scare quotes. As soon as you compel someone to speak according to your definition of neutrality you violate their right to free expression.

I agree that private companies can police as they see fit. But I am pointing out there was a culture of free speech absolutism, backed in spirit by the safe harbor internet provider legal stuff. Both of the places I listed were founded by pro-free-speech advocate and specifically cited it as a reason for their continued lax policies.

This feels just like saying "Elon Musk can ban any journalists he wants to". Yes, maybe he can, but is it the right thing to do?

I believe that in the end, people in desperation come up with all kinds of reasons to compromise their own values if it enables them to attack what they believe to be a great enough evil. I don't believe that all of these people are horrible and I don't believe they would all "report their neighbors to the KGB or Stasi" to be completely honest with you.

Recently, I came to realize that this is exactly what I dislike about the arguments, ironically, against encryption, as well as for increasingly draconian anti-money laundering laws. I think that everyone, even the law makers, do know deep down that what they are doing is a compromise of strongly held and long-cherished ordeals. But pushed up against a wall and with the easiest path to progress from their own PoV being lawmaking, lobbyists, government, etc. delude themselves into thinking that this time it's different. This time, the ends do justify the means. And then in 50 years or so, we can all go "haha, how naive of them; of COURSE they don't!" while we're busy writing the next cycle of similar mistakes... Yada yada, history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes, etc.