———
One is denying service based on a protected class , the other is denying service based on a risk of violence.
How can you consider them equivalent?
How is that not holding them as equivalent for the purposes of your argument?
The larger point is that I don't think these folks are being honest in their defense and that they are defending sites like KF specifically because of the type of people who are being "censored" and not because of fundamental principles. Conservatives get banned from Twitter? "THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND CENSORSHIP!" Leftists get banned from Twitter? Not a fucking peep.
So has Instagram (by far!), FB, Discord, Twitter and site or program where people can type.
Doxxing and harassment are the stated goals of KF.
There is censorship even if there are no Romans anymore. It is a concept, not a very complex one at that. A bit of abstraction is the daily bread of many users probably...
Just because a private company does it, doesn't mean it isn't censorship. Of course, you may argue that it's in a good cause, but nonetheless, it's still censorship.
I feel XKCD 1357 has greatly contributed to the degradation of the discourse on this topic. The concept of free speech is not synonymous with the legal protections provided by American law.
June 27th, 2021, in Japan