Assuming all the best intentions in the world, this will most certainly be abused. Where do they think all of the people they want to silence will go? They will no doubt go to the darker web and concentrate there.
The issue isn't really about silencing people, but removing their access to a mainstream audience.
Those sound approximately like the same thing to me. What about the difference do you see as relevant?
Conversely, if you're popular on Youtube, you will be suggested to people who are not looking for your speech.
The difference is subtle, and that was my original point. Such acts of government will indeed not silence speakers, but it may as well do, because it stifles their ability to reach a greater audience.
> construction of buildings will just lead to seasteading.
You're calling it out as a slippery slope argument [1], which is fair enough - except there is already evidence to suggest that users kicked off of these platforms migrate to Minds (Twitter alternative), Gab (Facebook alternative) and BitChute (Youtube alternative).
The BBC article for example has almost 70 comments on Dissenter [2]. Removing a persons ability to comment only hides the problem, you can't stop them thinking a given way and you're less likely to change their mind if you cut off dialogue with them entirely.
> The issue isn't really about silencing people, but
> removing their access to a mainstream audience.
You're removing their access to a mainstream audience by silencing them. In this case they are the same.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
[2] https://dissenter.com/discussion/begin-extension?url=https%3...