Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

Framing the question in terms of "rights that people have" obscures it, because "rights" is an answer for the question of what people want and what compromises they can achieve.

To map the space of possible compromises it is useful to think (1)"what would i do if the roles were reversed", (2)"does the opposing idea leave any space for compromise or should it be forcefully eliminated", (3)"is the opposing party weak enough to cheat and not give the treatment you wouldn't want to get in its place".

I think most of us would agree that (2) should be rulled out unless the opposing idea is itself violent, (3) is unfair and also dangerous if the opposing party is stronger than it seems.

If we agree on the above then from (1) a reasonable compromise is to allow reprehencible people to say their non-violent reprehencible things in exchange of us saying things that are reprehencible to them.

Coming back to the Freedom of association for platforms, we should consider that the value of these platforms is largely in the people using them, so in a way they belong to their users, and don't have much choice.

Many people think that the platform they use should be reliable and therefore not be able to randomly decide with whom it wants to be associated.

But many people also think that some reprehencible speach should be banned.

If platform decides to not be neutral and take the side of the second group, it makes a bet that the first group and the banned group are not powerful enough to compare with the second group, and moves stakes away from compromise towards play on elimination. It may succeed but a pushback from the banned group and large part of the first group is entirely natural.

I hope that i managed to convince you that the position taken by the first group is more rational, as it leads to a more stable state.

And if a platform absolutely has to take sides because second group of their users is too large/vocal, it may be better to do that by means that leave some space for a compromise. E.g. display a red badge near the name of disassociated users or display green for good users.

Breaking the site guidelines like this is not ok, regardless of how wrong you think someone is. We've had to warn you about this more than once before. If you keep doing it, we will ban you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Posting like this is unacceptable on HN. Nazi evil doesn't entitle you to pour acid all over the container here. Regardless of how right you are, venting bile and taunting others helps nothing and is destructive of everything we're trying to achieve here, such as hopefully have a place for discussion that isn't flaming shit. We need experienced users like you to help build that, instead of breaking the site guidelines blatantly. This whole subthread has been hellish, and it's extremely disappointing.

Please review the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

This comment goes very bad when you start accusing the other person of reeducation camps, reign of terror, mass murder, and all the rest of it. Please review the site guidelines and keep this vicious, tedious slop far away from HN, if you want to keep commenting here.

Among many other rules that your comment broke, there's this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." You're required to follow that rule, and all the others, whether the other person does or not.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like this account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed, as the guidelines explain, and we ban accounts that do it. I've banned this one. If you keep creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with, we will ban your main account as well.

> being forced to accept everyone's speech

We're talking about mobs that hound people online, instead of simply not clicking on the content they don't like.

So you tunred it on its head exactly, directly after complaining about dishonest argumentation.

And anyone who thinks clicking a button is "honest argumentation", is really just betraying how they're using a phrase they heard others take seriously. You don't even know what it is. This thread is littered with the proof of those unable and unwilling to argue, and they honestly think they can force this, heh.