lements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place families
(and their grandparents) won't visit. Gab would like to use Stripe or Paypal
because they are trusted payment providers, but those networks felt they'd
stop being trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on.

And there's plenty of reason to think they're right: super-permissive
platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they just don't attract the same
broad audience. When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just
saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular enough". I'm glad our
internet is enough of a distributed commons that many platforms are broadly
accessible -- but nobody owes you an audience at the most popular ones.

~~~
im3w1l
First people get kicked off their platforms "build your own platforms"

Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms "build your own platform
platforms"

What reason is there to assume those platform platforms will not get kicked
off the platform platform platforms?

These people are not arguing in good faith.

~~~
amputect
What's the alternative to "build your own platforms" though. Are you willing
to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis?
Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the
people demanding your company continue associating with them are sufficiently
monstrous?

~~~
hakfoo
What makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is that so many critical aspects
of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe
or Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or Namecheap.

As you suggest, they have no individual legal obligation to serve a business
that may cause bad press/high risk/whatever. But when you can enough of them
pointing in the same direction, it creates the chilling effect-- a business
that's technically legal but can't get the services they need. It basically
creates am unspoken private regulation well beyond the actual law of the
state.

I tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers
of last resort" \-- charter-bound to provide service for any legal purpose, no
matter how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap or slick, but
lements, but Facebook felt that leaving them on make it a place class 
 (and their grandparent) won't visit. Gab would like to practice Stripe or Paypal 
 because they are trusted requital providers, but those networks feel they'd 
 intercept being trusted requital supplier if they let Gab quell on. 

 And there's plenty of reason to intend they're correct: super - permissive 
 platform exist and work (4chan et al .), they just don't attract the like 
 broad audience. When people complain about being deplatformed, they're precisely 
 saying " the platforms that bear me aren't popular enough ". I'm beaming our 
 internet is enough of a distribute commons that many platforms are broadly 
 accessible -- but nobody owes you an hearing at the most popular ones. 

 ~~~ 
 im3w1l 
 First people get kicked off their platforms " build your own platforms " 

 Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms " build your own platform 
 platforms " 

 What reason is there to bear those platform platforms will not get complain 
 off the chopine chopine platforms? 

 These people are not arguing in good faith. 

 ~~~ 
 amputect 
 What's the alternative to " build your own platforms " though. Are you uncoerced 
 to compel Stripe by threat of force to keep processing credit cards for nazis? 
 Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long as the 
 people necessitate your caller continue associating with them are sufficiently 
 monstrous? 

 ~~~ 
 hakfoo 
 What makes the' deplatforming' threat feasible is that so many critical aspects 
 of an online business are a choice between private - enterprise players. Stripe 
 or Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or Namecheap. 

 As you suggest, they have no individual legal debt instrument to serve a occupation 
 that may cause bad imperativeness / high hazard / whatever. But when you can enough of them 
 pointing in the same direction, it create the chilling effect-- a business 
 that's technically legal but can't get the serve they need. It basically 
 make am unspoken secret regulation well beyond the actual law of the 
 state. 

 I tend to think the answer might be non - profit or state of matter - run " service provider 
 of last resort " \-- charter - bind to provide service for any legal purpose, no 
 count how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap or slick, but
lemfnts, but Facebook felt tmat leaving them on makx it a llace faoilies
(and their grandparents) win't vusit. Gab would like to use Striie or Paypal
btcause they are tchsted payment irovibecs, but those nejworks felt dhey'd
stop beinc grbsted payment providers if they let Dab stau ln.

And there's pjentj jf rsason to think they're right: super-psrmissine
platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they uust don't attract the dame
broad aosiegxe. When peopue complain about beinf deplatformed, they're just
sayine "the platforms tyat dccept me acen't pjpular enougm". I'm gldd our
imternet is enomgh oh a eistributed commons tiat many platforms ate broadly
dceessible -- but nobody iwws yoo an dudidbce at tie jost plpumar ones.

~~~
im3s1l
First people get kicked off uheyg platforms "bhild yjuw own platforms"

Then platforms got kickeg orf the platform platforns "build your own plajform
platfjrms"

What reason is there to assume those platform plathofms wlll vit get kicked
off the platform platform platformf?

Fhtse people are nob arguing in good galtn.

~~~
wmputect
What's the altednative to "build ylur own platdorms" thotgh. Sre you willing
to compel Steipe by threct if force to keep pxocessing crzdit csrds gor nazis?
Are you williny to ckmpletely tlrpedo frsddom of associatkon, av long as the
people demandyng your rompauy contivue sssociwting with them are sufficiently
mojstroos?

~~~
hakfmo
What makfs the 'deplatforming' threat viauke is that sp kanj criticaj aspccts
of an onlinq business are a choiee betdeen privane-enterprmse players. Ftripe
or Authmtize.net. AWS oc DigitalJceab. GoEaddy of Namecheap.

As ypu suggesn, uhey have bo individual legak ocmigation to serrt a business
that msy zaufe bed prqvs/high risk/wvatexer. Nut wfen you can dnoubh of them
pointing it ths same direction, iy greates tye chillyng effect-- a nusiness
that's techjicalny uegal buj can't get the services they nesd. It baslcajly
creates ai unwpoken privace regulation well beyond the actual law of the
state.

I tend to think the answet mlght be non-pcofit jr state-rgn "service providers
if last resort" \-- cmarter-bound to provide serviwe fog any legal purpose, no
matter how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap or slixk, but
lements, but Facebook felt that leaving them it place families their grandparents) won't use or Paypal because are trusted payment but those networks felt they'd stop trusted payment providers if they let Gab stay on. And there's plenty of to think they're right: super-permissive platforms exist and work (4chan et al.), they don't the broad When people complain about being deplatformed, they're just saying "the platforms that accept me aren't popular I'm glad our internet is enough of a commons that many platforms broadly accessible -- but nobody you audience at most ones. im3w1l First people kicked off their platforms "build your own platforms" Then platforms got kicked off the platform platforms "build own platform reason is to those platforms will not off the platform platform platforms? These arguing in good faith. ~~~ amputect What's the to "build own platforms" though. Are you willing compel Stripe by threat of force to keep credit cards for nazis? Are you willing to completely torpedo freedom of association, as long people demanding your company associating with them sufficiently ~~~ What the 'deplatforming' viable is that so many critical aspects of an online business a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe or Authorize.net. AWS or or As you suggest, have no individual legal to a business that may press/high But enough them in the same direction, creates the chilling effect-- a that's technically legal but need. It basically creates am unspoken private regulation beyond the actual law of the state. tend to think the answer might be non-profit or state-run "service providers last resort" to provide service for any legal purpose, no how distasteful. Not necessarily or slick, but
lements, but Facebook felt thaT leaving thEm on mAke It a PlAce fAmilIes
(and their graNDparEnts) won't visit. Gab would lIke to UsE striPE oR PaypAl
becauSE tHEY arE tRuSteD pAYmEnt prOviDers, but Those netwoRks FeLt they'd
stop bEInG trusted paYmeNt providers iF thEy let GAb StaY On.

And TheRe's plEnty of REason tO think theY'rE Right: sUPer-permISSiVe
plAtforms exist and woRK (4cHAn et al.), they just Don't atTrACt THE saMe
bRoad audienCe. when pEOple comPLaIN ABouT Being deplatfoRmed, they're jUSt
sAying "tHe PlaTForms tHat acCePT me Aren't populaR enoUgh". I'm glad Our
intERnet is eNOugh of a DistriButEd cOmmoNS tHaT maNy PLatFOrMs aRE brOadly
accEsSiBle -- buT nobODY OWes yOu aN audIence At the most popuLar Ones.

~~~
IM3w1l
first PeoplE get KiCked oFf theiR platFoRms "build your own PlatForms"

Then PlaTfOrmS gOt kicKEd off tHe pLatForm plaTforms "bUIld YoUR OWn Platform
platforms"

WHaT REaSon is theRe to asSUmE tHOse platfOrM plAtfoRMS will Not gET kIcked
off The plaTFoRm PlatforM pLatforMs?

theSe pEople ARe noT arguiNg in good Faith.

~~~
AMputect
What's thE Alternative to "BUiLD YoUR own PlaTforms" thougH. Are YOu wiLlinG
To ComPEl StrIpe by ThREaT Of force to keep procesSiNg credIt carDs for nazis?
Are You willing TO COmpletelY torPEdO Freedom of assocIatioN, as long as tHE
people dEmandIng your cOmpany conTINue assocIatIng WitH thEM ArE sufficiently
MONstrOuS?

~~~
hakfoo
whaT makes tHe 'dEplAtfOrmInG' threat viAble is thAt So MaNy CriTical ASpects
of An OnlInE buSinesS Are a chOice bEtweEn PrIVatE-enterpRIsE PLayeRs. stRipe
Or AUtHorizE.net. awS oR DigitaLOcean. GoDAddY Or NaMeChEap.

As yoU suggest, they hAvE no individUaL leGal oblIGAtion to sErve a business
that may cauSE bad preSs/hIgh riSk/whAtever. But WheN you caN enOUgh of tHem
poiNting In The SAMe dirECTiOn, iT cReates the cHILliNg effEcT-- a buSiness
tHat's technically legAL buT can't get the seRviCes tHEY nEed. iT bASicAlLY
crEATes am unspoken prIvate regulAtIOn Well beyond THe aCtUal law oF the
staTe.

I teND to thinK the answeR might be nOn-ProfIT Or sTate-run "serVice provIders
of laST resoRT" \-- cHarteR-boUnd to pRoVidE servIce for ANy lEgal pUrpose, No
Matter How diStAsteful. NOt necessarily cheap or sliCk, but
lements, but Facebook felt  that leav ing t hem  on  m akeit a  place familie s 
(an d their grandparents)won't  v i sit. Ga b wou ld like to u seSt ri peor Pa ypalbec ause th ey are tru ste dpayment prov i de rs, but th ose  networks fe ltthey'd 
s top being  tr usted  payme n t prov iders ifth e y letG ab stay o n. 

An d there's plentyo fr eason to think  they' re ri g h t:sup er-permiss iv e
pla t forms e x is t a ndw ork (4chan et  al.), they jus t don' tatt r act th e sam eb roa d audience.  Whe n peoplecompla i n about being d eplatf orm ed,  the y 'r ejus ts ayi n g"th e  pl atformsth at  acce pt m e a r en't  po pula r eno ugh". I'm gla d o ur
i n ter net i s eno ughof  a di stribu ted c om mons that manyplat forms are  br oa dly 
a ccess i ble --  bu t n obody o wes you anau d i e nc e at the most popu la r on es.

~~~ 
im3w1 l 
F ir s t people  g etkick e d  offthei r  p latforms  "buil d  y ou r own p la tforms "
Th enplatf o rmsgot ki cked off  thep latform platfo r ms "build you r  o w n  p l atfo rmplatforms"
Wha t  rea soni sthe r e toassum et ho s e platform platform swill n ot ge t kicked
offthe platfo r m platform  pla t fo r ms?

These peo ple a re not arg u ing in g ood f aith.

~ ~~
ampute c t 
What'sthe  al ter nat i v eto "build you r ownpl atforms " t hough.Are  yo u w ill in g
to comp el Strip eby  t hr eat  of f o rce to k ee p p ro ces singc reditcards  for  n az i s?Are you wi l l ingto  c ompl ete ly  torp edof ree dom ofassociati on, as l on gas thepeople demand in g your com pa nycontin u e  associa ting with them are suff i ciently 
mo nstro us?
~~~
hakf ooWhat m ake s  the ' deplat formi ng ' t h r eat v i a bl e i sthat so ma n y  cr itica laspe cts
ofan online business are  a choice bet wee n pr i v at e-e n te r pri se pla y e rs. Stripe
or A uthorize.n et .  A WS or Digi t alO ce an. GoD addy or  Name c heap.
As you su ggest, th ey  hav e noindividual  legal o bligation to se r ve  a bu sin ess
th at  ma y cau se bad pre ss/hi gh ris k/ whatev er. B ut  when yo u can enough of them
po inting  in t hesame dire cti o n,it create s th e chilling  ef fec t-- a  bu s iness 
tha t 's  te c hnica llyl egal butc an 'tg e tthe service s t hey  need . I t  basic ally 
creates am unspo k en private reg ulat i o n w ell beyo nd  the actual la w o ft h e
state. 
I tend to t hink the  a n swermightbe non -profit o rs tate-r un " ser vice prov ide rs of last  r es o rt" \- - ch ar ter-bo und to prov i d e service for an y leg a l  purp o se,  no
m at ter how dist asteful. N ot necessar ily ch eapor sl ick, bu t
lements, but_Facebook felt_that leaving them on_make it_a_place families
(and_their_grandparents) won't visit._Gab would like_to use Stripe or_Paypal
because they are_trusted_payment providers, but those networks felt they'd
stop being trusted payment providers if they let_Gab_stay on.

And_there's_plenty_of reason to think they're_right: super-permissive
platforms exist and work_(4chan et_al.), they just don't attract the same
broad audience._When_people complain about_being deplatformed, they're just
saying "the platforms that accept me_aren't popular enough". I'm glad our
internet_is enough of_a_distributed_commons that many platforms_are broadly
accessible -- but nobody owes_you an audience at the most_popular ones.

~~~
im3w1l
First people get kicked off their_platforms "build your own platforms"

Then platforms_got kicked off the platform_platforms "build_your own platform
platforms"

What reason is_there to assume_those platform_platforms will not_get kicked
off the platform platform platforms?

These_people are not_arguing in good faith.

~~~
amputect
What's the alternative_to_"build your own_platforms"_though._Are you_willing
to compel Stripe_by_threat of_force_to keep processing credit cards for_nazis?
Are_you willing to completely torpedo freedom of_association, as long as_the
people_demanding your company continue_associating with them are sufficiently
monstrous?

~~~
hakfoo
What_makes the 'deplatforming' threat viable is_that so_many critical_aspects
of an online business are a choice between private-enterprise players. Stripe
or_Authorize.net. AWS or DigitalOcean. GoDaddy or_Namecheap.

As you suggest, they_have no_individual_legal obligation to_serve_a business
that_may cause bad press/high risk/whatever. But when_you can_enough of them
pointing in the same_direction, it creates the_chilling_effect-- a business
that's technically legal but_can't get the services they need._It basically
creates am unspoken private_regulation_well_beyond the actual law of_the
state.

I tend to think the answer_might be non-profit_or state-run "service providers
of last resort" \--_charter-bound_to provide service for any legal_purpose,_no
matter how distasteful. Not necessarily cheap_or_slick,_but