jeanvalmarc

If there were no alternatives to twitbooktubeit perhaps you would have a point. However, if you don't like the policies of twitter, go to reddit. If you don't like the policies of reddit go to voat. If you don't like all the terrible people on voat, host a forum on a VPC instance.

Your position is basically "I think platforms should be compelled to host every bit of nonsense emitted by every user." The freedom is provided by the multitude of choices!

I think the idea you can make rules for speech that are impartial and universally accepted is an insane idea which shows no signs of being tractable [1]. Despite attempts to quantify speech, every moderation decision is arbitrary at some level, and preserving choice of moderators seems much more important than arguing over rules.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/world/facebook-moderators...

The video didn't load for me, but there was a similar talk on Youtube from Vinge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzRuPGnJxCs

This seems like a good move, and the opposite of a slippery, "government restricted our free speech" slope. It's more like, "companies and individuals are under no obligation to offer their services to people they perceive to be assholes." The reason governments shouldn't do this is because there is no alternative. Companies and individuals are the right place to make an individual choice about what they wish to endorse, host, and support.

People (i.e. the Cloudflare CEO saying "no one should have this power") wishing the government would let them off the moral hook for hosting literal Nazis is pretty absurd.