Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve terminated this account | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve terminated this account

twitter.com

33 pointsryanmccullagh13 comments

Earlier today:

Mailchimp has terminated Stefan Molyneux’s account https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22048173

Another sudden termination from 2018:

MailChimp deleted my account with no warning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18715866

The bottom line is that whether or not Molyneux is any of the things he was accused of, kicking him off the service is a PR win for MailChimp. I don't think this disconnect between facts and accusations before punishing is a good thing, but the majority of people clearly don't care.

So Molyneux, who is a libertarian and hardly a "white nationalist", can't even have access to email services where he was utilizing his right to free speech to send mail to subscribers? People who _voluntarily_ signed up to get this communication?

This is asinine and just a further erosion of our rights in the name of "keeping us safe" from people instead of engaging with their complaints. I'm sure this will never bubble over into real problems in the world.

How does his right to free speech require Mailchimp to participate in broadcasting it?

It doesn't. But don't bother complaining when you get cancelled--we won't hear it.

It's easy to not see the forest for the trees on this one. When someone gets locked out of public discourse at every door (sometimes literally, as was the case when he was unable to speak for the UBC Free Speech Club some time ago due to threats of violence), what is to be done?

Deplatforming is the visible evidence of what one might call the starts of _totalitarian neoliberalism_, since it's not actually reasonable to call this radical left or right wing behaviour. This is the elevation of corporations to be the arbiters of our rights because they've put themselves into niche or bottleneck positions where they can control the flow of information. I respect the service that a good mail provider does, but that doesn't mean they should be able to use their business as a gatekeeping mechanism to restrict public discourse - especially in the case where it's not going to anyone that doesn't want to see it.

If you find yourself on the side that's arguing in favour of deplatforming and of removing people's right to free expression, you're literally on-side with exactly the sort of evil that every fine 20th century work of speculative fiction decried. Being okay with this is far worse than anything Molyneux says, but then, it's not like you'll actually have listened to any of that.

Has anyone prevented him from standing on a soapbox in the park? If not, then he still has a perfectly available avenue for his hate speech

It's not hate speech. In Canada, there is actually a definition of hate speech, and it has to be something a reasonable person would consider to be an incitement to violence. Nothing he says would count as that. In America, there is actually no such thing as "hate speech" - free speech is absolute. So either way, there's no reason he should not be able to speak in a normal venue.

We've found that standing on a soapbox in the park doesn't go so well either, as Antifa protests can cause violent conflict (virtually always started by the Antifa side). Ironic.

As others have said, there are no rights being eroded by him having his account terminated by a private mailing list company.

Whatever you want to think about him, the content he produces does promote white nationalist ideas, as well as other negative alt-right and anti-SJW views. Whether he genuinely believes what he says or just does it for views is irrelevant, his dog whistles contribute to the radicalization of his viewers, often young white males. He is a stepping stone for viewers to other even more radical ideas, like "the great replacement" and "the Jewish problem". Engaging with him just gives him credibility, which he does not deserve.

It must be amazing having literally the same personal opinions as the Google HR department. Imagine, to be able to commit no wrong as far as the great arbiters of all public discourse are concerned.

> the content he produces does promote white nationalist ideas, as well as other negative alt-right and anti-SJW views.

If you say so. It's a pretty gross oversimplification, but even if true, these viewpoints are not illegal; and if you'd like to assert that they're wrong, you're going to need to engage on a much deeper level than "they're negative".

> his dog whistles contribute to the radicalization of his viewers

You're begging the question. "Radicalization" is whatever you'd like to define it as. Somehow, you've been able to brand the idea of a white person

> the great replacement

Do you pretend that this is some conspiracy theory that is not happening? It is amazing, the tactical nihilism that you're displaying here. Even the UN talks about this:

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publicatio...

> United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

> Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

What more evidence would you like for this? You've no doubt seen the predictions for white people becoming a minority population in virtually every country save for a few Eastern Europe strongholds within a few decades.

Do you deny this?

Is talking about this "radical"? Is having opinions about it "radical"? Is trying to inform other people about this very real, potentially concerning phenomenon "radicalization"?

Please, answer for me instead, if you like: what level of conversation about immigration and the makeup of the population of one's nation is acceptable discourse, in your eyes? I'd like to know exactly where the line is drawn for someone like you.

(My guess is that it's limited to praising whatever restaurant you went to recently, and complaining about Trump.)

> Engaging with him just gives him credibility, which he does not deserve.

Nobody asked you to engage with him. Mailchimp doesn't "give him credibility"; it sends emails from him in exchange for money. Does Mailchimp now have to ensure it deplatforms anyone emailing anything that anyone else might find offensive now that they've set this precedent?

So who should the government compel to provide us all with access to email services? How do you propose it to do without violating MailChimp's rights?

MailChimp is not a person. It doesn't need "rights" the same way normal people do. It's a corporation, and should be forced to serve everyone without being discriminatory based on the content of people's protected political speech.

Dupe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com