While on the other hand discrimination implies characteristics that a person can't (reasonably be expected to) change, in this case a profession.
E.g. If someone gets kicked off and kept out of some social media platform or gets denied the opportunity to speak at some public event, or interviewers boycott them even when their role normally would get interviewed, gets kicked out of a job which gives them public outreach (e.g. journalism or university) or some venue refuses to rent them facilities for a talk - to me, all of that is deplatforming no matter if it's because of political opinion or innate characteristics like the color of their skin or religion or whatever. If all the media agree to not show or discuss red-haired people, that's obviously deplatforming red-haired people.
And on the opposite side, if someone gets hurt in other ways that don't change "the platform" - their landlord kicks them out, they get fired by an employer that "only" provides money but not a platform for outreach, their customers drop them - all of that isn't deplatforming but ordinary discrimination, again no matter if it's because of political opinion or innate characteristics like the color of their skin or religion or whatever (that would only affect whether that's prohibited discrimination).
That's how Hatreon etc came to be
Is your position that there is no human opinion for which de-banking is acceptable?
If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law.
What about illegal activities outside of the law's jurisdiction?
>>If the views people espouse are illegal, then punish them via the law.
This also goes for their activities.
There is a clear difference between someone saying "I think Terrorist Group X is great" on twitter and someone using their bank account so that Terrorist Group X can buy stuff to make bombs. And even in that latter case, once the person concerned has finished their prison sentence they should still get a bank account so they can live.