Nazis. They allow Nazis on the platform. Platforming Nazis is not neutrality.

This. Sorry you're getting down votes at this moment for speaking the truth, but there really is no excuse for anti society anti intellectual illiberalism from the world's literal biggest losers.

Unfortunately there's no such thing as neutrality when it comes to intolerance, because intolerance is viral. I understand the desire to have neutral infrastructure or reporting agencies, but it's more complicated than that.

Neutral and Nazis don’t belong in the same sentence.

If you want free speech, you'll have to have people who have views you don't like, otherwise they might silence you too.

Oh, you're so close. The fascists are parasites: they only tolerate liberalism insofar as it allows them to spread their ideas. They desperately want to--and will--silence their opponents as soon as they wield power. They view tolerance as a weakness, and the social contract as a game to be played only until it can be rewritten.

I do not dispute that Nazis can, legally, say what they say. I don't even necessarily think it's bad that their speech is protected. But their speech should have consequences, and platform owners can and should tell them to fuck off.

> But their speech should have consequences, and platform owners can and should tell them to fuck off.

Sure, some platforms do, and some don't, like Substack, that is their prerogative and if people don't like it they can choose not to read them. But we cannot force them to do anything, nor should we.

That would include people with views about Substack too, though, right?

Of course, why wouldn't it?

Not views that espouse violence.