It's come up at my firm. I spoke about it 1:1 with the decision owner and advocated for my employer to be less actively censorious(?). However, I don't think there's a risk free way to express that opinion in a meeting. It doesn't help that one of my cowokers has a big "#RESIST" sticker on their work laptop (nevermind that we agree not to put stickers on our work laptops when they're issued...).

This has nothing to do with ideas. The site was used as a dumping ground for letters claiming responsibility^1, doxxing of right wing activists, calls for violent protest and so on. The whole thing is a little bit odd because in the past, this kind of prosecution has been targeted way bigger threats: Jihadists, Biker Gangs, paramilitary Nazi groups and stuff like that.

------

^1 for what may be best described as "petty terror": Torched cars, smashed windows etc.

I don't think there is clear cut answer to that question.

It may depend on the company in question. For Google that supplies 78% of all search results it is probably dangerous to allow them to decide what to favor and what to censor.

For a smaller service provider like Cloudflare, I am not so sure.

It will be interesting to see how it would go down in court.

I am not a lawyer or legal expert by any means, but if the courts decided that business have to serve the public, for example forcing a baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding, I can see a court forcing Cloudflare to host content they don't want to host.

Now the interpretation of the law today would not support that because minority opinion holders are not a protected class, but the court extends its power all the time and I could see this leap being made, although it is unlikely.

All in all interesting stuff to ponder.