Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's way harder to argue that the millions of people who follow those celebrities shouldn't be allowed to hear what they have to say, even if they want to. Nobody is making that argument. The actual argument is that a private company should not be compelled to provide free hosting for them. They can and have used other hosting services but many of their followers apparently prefer not to use those alternatives.
> Nobody is making that argument. This is untrue. Not only are people making that argument explicitly, but there have been any number of orchestrated attacks on private companies in order to force them to remove content. And if they refuse, attacks on their vendors and distributors (such as app stores), including by the federal government and congresspeople openly demanding that they be banned, surrounded with comple…
Re: Nostr: Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays
#131If you read more carefully, consider the distinction between a mainstream platform being asked to remove people who violated their terms of service and saying that those people should not be allowed to use platforms which cater to extremists. The former is what actually happens for otherwise legal content — and the reason is obvious once you think about it: private companies can’t be forced to provide services for anything other than legally protected categories, but they are sensitive to what advertisers want and what will attract the type of users they’re looking for. Twitter was previously trying to be more mainstream, which is why extremists trying to recruit wanted to be there instead of alternatives like Parler or Truth Social which only had people who were already converted.